If the law supposes that, the law is a ass

When Nevada's electorate approved Question 5 last year, conventional wisdom held that the vote was a mandate to ban smoking. Instead, nearly 12 months of legal wrangling and compliance complaints have focused entirely on abolishing food service.

The Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act isn't supposed to apply to stand-alone bars. But many of these establishments offered appetizers and quick eats to patrons, and the new law vaguely stipulates that if bar employees serve food, they can't allow smoking.

Recognizing that few customers want to smoke and drink on an empty stomach, many of these taxpaying businesses spent thousands of dollars trying to meet the spirit of the law -- keeping cigarette smoke away from those who don't like it -- by building windows and walls between their kitchens, dining areas and bars. A few went so far as to create separate companies under one roof, or have restaurant workers bring food into the bar. Others simply closed their kitchens and offered to place orders with nearby restaurants that deliver.

But the bureaucrats at the Southern Nevada Health District, empowered by a District Court ruling that makes them the act's enforcement authority, view such maneuvering as an affront to the law. The agency's absurd interpretation of the act has held that eating at bars is just fine, so long as bar workers don't serve it.

A bar waitress can't place a food order with an adjoining restaurant. A bartender can't call the neighborhood pizza joint, nor can he accept food deliveries. The health district reiterated at a Board of Health meeting last week that bar customers must leave their stools, walk to the dining area, order and accept their food there and, if they wish to smoke, carry their plates back to the bar. Or they can simply walk into the bar with carry-out from the fast-food franchise next door.

"Patrons may obtain food from an outside source or bring it in, but that restaurant cannot serve it in the bar. That's food service. ... Food service is prohibited in stand-alone bars," health district attorney Stephen Minagil said at the meeting.

The health district has met with business groups and other government agencies in attempting to create uniform enforcement guidelines. The Board of Health will hold public forums in the coming weeks to educate the public and businesses about the nuances of the Clean Indoor Air Act.

When they do, perhaps they can answer two questions: If the end result is people eating hamburgers and pizza while enjoying a drink and a cigarette at a bar, what difference does it make how the food got there? And how, exactly, does the health district's enforcement policy deter smoking, or protect children (who aren't supposed to be in bars to begin with)?

Supporters of Question 5 argued their proposal was needed to protect children from secondhand smoke. To make up for the fact that kids can't sit at bars, they're now treating adults who wish to smoke while dining out as though they're children.

An appeal of the Clean Indoor Air Act has been filed with the Nevada Supreme Court. Justices should spare taxpayers and businesses from this regulatory rigmarole and craft a more sensible interpretation of the law.