Clearing the air on foul law

To the editor:

I am a business owner in Las Vegas, with two restaurants with liquor and gaming and one tavern. I support the passage of SB 372, which was passed by the Senate on Friday and would modify the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act. My reasons for supporting this bill are as follows:

First, the act has caused significant damage to the Nevada economy. My three businesses have lost more than 20 percent of their gaming revenue because of the act, which was approved by voters in 2006. The entire population of restricted gaming locations in Nevada has had a similar experience or worse.

People who gamble tend to drink and smoke. If you attack their freedom to smoke, you are attacking their propensity to gamble. I have invested several million dollars in my three locations assuming the business model of food, liquor and gaming would remain viable. With the state rendering two of my profit centers as mutually exclusive (food and gaming), the entire economic model of my business changed, resulting in the loss of value to my enterprise of up to half. A 20 percent loss in revenue will cause a much higher loss to net profit. As a result, we have had to eliminate jobs in order to try to meet our obligations.

Second, the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act is probably unconstitutional. I am no constitutional scholar, but the U.S. Constitution contains an equal protection clause which ensures that any law passed must be uniformly applied to all classes of citizens. The Clean Indoor Air Act applies only to smaller, restricted gaming locations (which, conveniently, have less political clout) while exempting the larger, nonrestricted casinos. This violates the American concept of fairness. It would be just as inappropriate if a law were passed that required only African-Americans to stop for stop signs, while exempting all other races.

Third, the Clean Indoor Air Act was disingenuously represented to Nevada voters during the 2006 campaign. With disadvantages as significant as noted above, there had to be a corresponding benefit to the law, right?

The proponents of the question told Nevada voters that the law would "protect the children." While this is a laudable goal, the Clean Indoor Air Act has nothing to do with protecting the children. Children are not allowed in gaming areas of gaming establishments. What adults do in these areas does not affect them. We were also told that the act would not negatively impact the Nevada economy, and that there were throngs of non-smoking gamblers just waiting for the approval of the question so that they could come to taverns to enjoy a smoke-free gaming experience.

All it took was a quick Google search to see what the track records were for jurisdictions that had approved anti-smoking measures to debunk this representation. I personally did such a Google search and it was clear to me after about 15 minutes of research that an economic train wreck was coming our way with the passage of the Clean Indoor Air Act.

We were also told that "there are no safe levels of secondhand smoke." This violates common sense. Nearly any substance, no matter how harmful, is safe (and sometimes beneficial) when taken in small enough doses. Conversely, nearly any substance, no matter how benign, can kill you when taken in large enough doses. There are ways to deal with the second-hand smoke issue, including enhanced ventilation systems.

The anti-smoking lobby probably thinks their intentions are pure, but the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act is simply bad law that deserves to be significantly scaled back or repealed. Is it worth trampling over the rights of adults to freely engage in legal activities in order to protect them from themselves?

Traditionally in Nevada, we have held personal freedom as paramount. I hope this is not changing.

ROSS E. WILLIAMS

HENDERSON