Remember choice when it comes to smoking
To the editor:
In response to Stephanie Steinberg's recent letter opposing the bill allowing taverns to permit smoking in their establishments:
I have read all the comments and basics of the bill and have not seen anything that requires a tavern to allow smoking. As near as I can tell, the choice would be left to the business owner. I realize the freedom of choice is not something the anti-smokers believe in. However, it is a right of a free people to make that choice.
If the tavern Ms. Steinberg goes to decides to allow smoking, she has the choice to not go there. If someone doesn't want to work in a smoking environment, he has the choice to work elsewhere. Notice the word "choice."
The current law removes the right to choose from business owners and patrons. The current bill, if passed, allows citizens, both business owners and individuals, to have that choice. I suspect that some taverns would choose to allow smoking and some taverns would choose to ban smoking. That choice is their right.
Michael R. Stilley
Mesquite
Greedy bars
To the editor:
In 2006, voters approved the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act ,which was a healthy decision. Some bars adjusted by remodeling certain sections to separate smoking from food service. Some bars, like two that we attended, allowed smoking even though it was against regulations. We asked why there was smoking allowed and were told that those people were "regulars." In other words, they defied the voter-approved act.
One of those bar owners is now asking for a reversal of that act. I don't believe that law was ever enforced anyway, so why not leave it in place for those of us who appreciate eating without the acrid smell of smoke with our food?
Nevada allows smoking in so many places that those who are addicted to cigarettes are able to enjoy their habit all over. Bar owners want it all. They are greedy for the gambling money which sustains them, and I don't have the facts as to how many establishments have closed, but was it because of a failing economy or the no smoking law? They would like you to believe that no smoking was the culprit.
I am an ex-smoker, smoked for 30 years and finally quit. It's an ugly, dirty habit and does not belong around food.
Judy Kunda
Las Vegas
Business taxes
To the editor:
In response to J.C. Watts' Sunday commentary, "Washington's 'tax the rich' shell game":
Does Mr. Watts understand how taxes work at all? In this commentary Mr. Watts writes about how increasing taxes on the "rich" would be detrimental to the small business owner who would be unjustly caught up in this liberal witch-hunt to raise taxes on wealthy Americans. Mr. Watts does get one fact right. The "rich" that Democrats suggest we raise taxes on are Americans making more than $250,000 per year. The rest of Mr. Watts' commentary, however, makes little to no sense because it is based on some version of the American tax system that simply does not exist.
The commentary begins to go awry in the fourth paragraph where Mr. Watts writes; "Here's the catch: Just because a small business is able to take in $250,000 in a given year, it certainly doesn't mean the small business owner is taking home a quarter-million-dollar salary." Well, guess what, Mr. Watts? Then that also means that the small business owner is not going to see a tax increase. Have you ever heard of business and trade expense deductions or of net operating loss deductions and carrybacks?
Small business owners do not pay taxes on their gross receipts. So unless they are actually taking home $250,000 in income they will not see an increase in their tax liability.
Furthermore, if a small business owner is able to take home more than $250,000 after deducting his business and trade expenses, then why shouldn't he pay more in taxes? By the way, the fact that most small businesses are pass-through entities has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.
Business income or personal income, a small business owner pays taxes only on his "income."
Richard Kevin Salas
Las Vegas
Channel change
To the editor:
In response to the recent discrimination lawsuit filed by TV news anchor Sue Manteris:
Las Vegas has undergone many changes since I went to Kuwait in 2008 and KSNV-TV, Channel 3 is no exception. First there was the loss of Kendall Tenney and Nina Radetich, my two favorite anchors. Next there were changes with the morning show hosts and some swapping of anchors.
I am disappointed with the turn the channel has taken. The website which used to be my home page is a mess, a jumble of information slapped everywhere resembling one big advertisement instead of a news website. I quickly removed it from my browser. The morning show transformed, the anchors rotated positions and the focus seemed to change.
Since I have returned, I have noticed that the news programs have lost something. I don't know if there is discrimination at the station, but it seems odd to me that Ms. Manteris, who has maintained the No. 1 spot in the ratings, is being let go and that Gerard Ramalho, arguably one of the best anchors in Las Vegas, is still stuck in the weekend time slot. Coincidence? Poor management? Discrimination? That will be for the courts to decide.
As for me, I have decided to change channels.
Francy Johnson
Las Vegas
