John Erb makes his way Tuesday into My Cousin Vinny sports bar. The sign on the left went up about a week ago in response to the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, which bans smoking in restaurants and bars that serve food. Erb said the law makes no sense in establishments where children are not allowed. Photo by Sara Tramiel/Review-Journal Louis Guiga smokes a cigarette Tuesday at My Cousin Vinny. A judge ruled that the recently approved smoking ban can take effect. Photo by Sara Tramiel/Review-Journal

The haze surrounding the state's anti-smoking law cleared Tuesday after a judge decided to uphold the ban passed by voters in November.

In allowing the anti-smoking law to stand, District Judge Douglas Herndon removed any criminal penalties because of vagueness in the law, but he preserved the $100 civil fine for violators.

"As a criminal statute, it's facially unconstitutional, and I haven't changed my mind on that," Herndon said at the Tuesday hearing. "As a civil regulatory scheme ... it passes constitutional muster."

Passed by voters in November, the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act bans smoking in grocery stores, restaurants and bars that serve food. A group of bars and taverns sued to block the law from taking effect and said it would hurt business.

Lawyers for the bar and tavern owners said they would consult their clients before deciding whether to appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court.

Sean Higgins, a lawyer for Terrible Herbst and a tavern owner, said he had hoped the entire law would have been thrown out.

Terrible Herbst establishments were complying with the ban anyway, he said, and he predicted most businesses would fall in line.

"The people have voted," he said. "I would anticipate people would abide by the law."

Some taverns have closed their kitchens to comply with the law, while others have provided takeout menus to let customers order food to the bar.

The Southern Nevada Health District, which is responsible for enforcing the ban, has prepared pamphlets for affected businesses and posted an online complaint form on its Web site. The district plans to hold public workshops and hearings to develop regulations related to the smoking ban.

"It's going to be an evolving process," health district spokeswoman Jennifer Sizemore said.

The health district will focus on education before enforcement, and health inspectors have yet to cite any violators, she said. About 190 people have contacted the health district in the past two months to complain or request information, she said.

The law outlaws smoking in many indoor places, but it does not require bar owners or workers to enforce the ban. Businesses are required to post "No Smoking" signs and remove ashtrays.

Much of the debate during Tuesday's 75-minute hearing focused on whether the criminal penalties could be removed from the act without invalidating the entire law.

Both sides had argued at a previous hearing about constitutional questions arising from the law's vagueness. But they again touched on the issue Tuesday.

Herndon cited one part that prohibits "smoking tobacco in any form." That phrase could be interpreted as a ban on any form of tobacco, including smokeless tobacco, he said.

"It may not be exact," Deputy Attorney General Nancy Savage said Tuesday. "There may be differences of interpretation, but it doesn't invalidate the entire statute."

Lawyer Kirk Lenhard argued that Herndon should not simply remove the criminal penalties but should throw out the whole statute.

"You shouldn't sit here and decide if Joe Voter, sitting in that voting booth, would have voted for this without the criminal component," Lenhard said.

Lawyer Mark Ferrario, representing the Nevada Tavern Owners Association, echoed that argument.

"It's not the province of the court to figure out what voters want, start playing king and start hacking up the statute," Ferrario said.

But Herndon disagreed, saying the intent of the law was to prohibit smoking, and the penalties were secondary to that main goal.