After the nico-nazi's got prop 5 approved in NV, an injunction was filed in court. The Judge upheld the law as of Friday.

McCarran airport in Vegas is now unfriendly to smokers as are all restaurants in the state.

Interviewed a woman outside the airport complaining about the law.

Inside they interviewed a 10 year old kid who approved of the law. Hah!

Little town where I live...well the Sheriff announced on the news he is NOT going to enforce the smoking ban. He said he'd let the individual restaurants decide. Several already have. Some decided just non-smokers would be their customers. Most decided to cater to both groups.

Guess which ones will get my money!

A safe & Merry Christmas to all who celebrate!

The restaurants where "just non-smokers would be their customers", do they have a test or something to keep smokers out or are smokers allowed in but can't smoke on premises?

quote:

Little town where I live...well the Sheriff announced on the news he is NOT going to enforce the smoking ban.

Good. Law enforcement has many more pressing issues to contend with.

Vegas will go belly-up if this applies to casinos.

People can still smoke in the casinos, but not the restaurants.

It applies to ALL restaurants in Nevada. Video Poker Rooms that serve food are having a fit. Can't blame them.

People who own & operate VPR's will prolly need
to find another way to support & feed their
families.

That "hide post" button is nice.

quote:

That "hide post" button is nice.

Yep.

quote:

Originally posted by 383rr:

quote:

Little town where I live...well the Sheriff announced on the news he is NOT going to enforce the smoking ban.

Good. Law enforcement has many more pressing issues to contend with.

Good compliance relies on the people doing the right and lawful thing. Even if a person isn't caught committing a crime, if they commit a crime they are a criminal.
I will not publish my full paper on compliance and enforcement here.

quote:

Originally posted by Lori:
People can still smoke in the casinos, but not the restaurants.

It applies to ALL restaurants in Nevada. Video Poker Rooms that serve food are having a fit. Can't blame them.

People who own & operate VPR's will prolly need
to find another way to support & feed their
families.

That "hide post" button is nice.

Ohhh that's sad isn't it.
I wonder if your prediction will come true? Adelaide's smoke free casino is doing very well.

quote:

That "hide post" button is nice

It sure saves you time and aggravation, that's for certain.

[QUOTE]Good compliance relies on the people doing the right and lawful thing. Even if a person isn't caught committing a crime, if they commit a crime they are a criminal.QUOTE] - I Know it All

WOW! I mean...WOW! I've been trying to keep out of this, but man, that one really blew my doors off--Am I to infer that you view catching people breaking the law is the primary role of government?

Regarding this Sheriff, specifically, he may be correct in questioning the necessity of the law, but he has no right to say that he won't enforce it. He should resign if that's the way he feels. I totally agree with how he feels, but he has a sworn duty to uphold the law. If there's such a conflict for him that he can't do it, he doesn't belong there. Honestly, I can't believe he was so dumb to say what he said.


I...All, I believe, at some point, you said that you are in law enforcment. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Like many others, I have many people in my family who are in law enforcement. Often, because of their profession, they adopt a rather cynical way of looking at the world. They're the ones out every night cleaning up the messes in the world, after all.

In the way an overzealous insurance salesman comes to look at everyone as a potential sale, police officers sometimes begin to adopt the view that everyone is a potential criminal. Therefore, they often trick themselves into thinking that the world is just a giant schoolyard full of bad children who need to be monitored at all times.

Your sentiments seem to convey this view.

I'm not trying to offend people in law enforcement and this is obviously not true of all, or even most. I'm only sharing my personal observations regarding people that I know very well. Peace Officers obviously play an essential role in running our society. However, the scope of that role is constantly and unnecessarily being broadened by politicians. The latter is the real source of the problem.

Undoubtedly, law enforcement deserves our respect. However, law enforcement also entails a sworn duty to view laws with a great deal of respect. Perhaps necessarily so. For private citizens, though, their highest civic duty is not necessarily to uphold the law, but to very necessarily question the law.

Please, you MUST share your "full paper on compliance and enforcement" with us.

I...All, I commend to your attention George Orwell's novel "1984" even if you read it many years ago. Rent the movie, if nothing else. I'll also commend to your attention The Bill of Rights of The U.S. Constitution. Many people take the stance of "If someone has nothing to hide, then what are they worried about?" The Founders of our Nation knew very well how easy and dangerous this view was and it's apparent in The Bill of Rights.

A few quotes:

"I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -Ayn Rand

"The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it." -Adolph Hitler

“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.”-Joeseph Goebbels.

"Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives." -Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." -Ayn Rand

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." H.L. Mencken

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

Actually, I'll save you some trouble. Here is The Bill of Rights. Please ask yourself: Were they written with the view that people were a threat to themselves or that the State was a threat to the people? Did the authors (I believe primarily Madison and Jefferson(?)) think "if someone has nothing to hide, then they have nothing to worry about, and state interference is OK"?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I moved to Vegas because I loved the fact I could smoke almost anyplace. Right now they still haven't set the laws in motion and are in the midst of clarifying what proposal 5 actually means. But, last Friday I went to a buffet at a casino and they had a smoking section. The waitress said casinos were exempt from the law. Most of the local bars will cease their food service over enforcing a smoking ban which is the trade off according to the proposal. But I support any boycott against vacationing here in the hopes that the state rethinks this law. A while back there was a casino called Silver City that tried to appeal to non-smokers by going smoke free it failed in about 6 months. I just found this site so if I'm repeating anything you already posted I apologize.

Winston, I didn't say the local sheriff has a duty to jail anyone who broke the law or even enforce the law, at least not with brute force. You’re right, regardless of his opinion of a law his position dictates he will support the law as it is written and not tell people they have nothing to fear if they break a law, however he is a person who must out of necessity prioritise his work. If there are bigger fish to fry then his duty is to fry big fish not chase small fry. My comment was saying there might be little chance of being penalised for breaking a law but good people should still abide by the laws of the country. Breaking the law isn't a way to protest a law, it is a start on the road to anarchy. I don't view the general population as naughty children, 99% of people are good well meaning people. More than 1% break laws however that doesn't make them bad people. I wouldn't call a business person allowing smoking on his premises a bad person if he felt he needed to allow it to keep his business afloat, However if he knew he was flouting the law he should take any fine on the chin, like a man. I think I am a good person, I don't go out to cause anyone any harm and I try my best to keep within the law. Sometimes I might drive a little fast or not come to a complete stop at a stop sign, if I do and I get caught, I cop it on the chin. If I don't get caught I still try to stay within the law, I don't deliberately flout it.

My comment wasn't saying lets flog people in the street who break the law but rather, good people will do there utmost to stay within the law, but if people deliberately flout the law they have Mens Rea’ and ‘Actus Reus’ and are criminals. If a person broke the law unintentionally, they to are a criminal but to a lesser extent as there would be no mens rea. I don't know nor do I care really as it has no affect on me or mine, how the law is written, whether it is a crime of absolute liability or not. Do you use clauses in laws and regulations there along the lines of “knew or aught to have known”?

I’m rambling, bed time for me.

Enjoy Christmas.

quote:

Right now they still haven't set the laws in motion and are in the midst of clarifying what proposal 5 actually means.

Sounds just like Ohio. What a deal, writing the language of a law, AFTER it has been passed.

How deceptive, sneaky, dirty, and low-down.

However, what else would you expect from an anti? Deceptive science, deceptive laws, it's all good to them.

I still believe that any law implemented in this manner could not possibly be just.

They should all be repealed. I used to think this was America, and things weren't done this way here.

Boy, was I wrong.

The Sheriffs race this past fall was brutal.

The race came down to 2 candidates. I asked several people in the community who is the better candidate. Being new to the community I was unaware of the history.

I was told the current Sheriff.
Why?

Because his level of corruption is less than the 2nd's. Granted the things I was told about are here say evidence.

In my humble opinion if the Sheriff is corrupt how can he enforce any law?

I...All,

Thank you for your clarification. I apologize for making an incorrect inference regarding your views.

The phrase "Even if a person isn't caught committing a crime, if they commit a crime they are a criminal" set me off, though, for practical purposes I guess I know what you mean. The thing that bothers me about it is that it doesn't make any distinction between morality and legality. Morally, yes you may be a criminal. Legally, though, you are not a criminal until you are proven guilty. This, I know, is a bothersome distinction and one that sometimes results in injustice rather than justice. Still, it's the best one we have, etc. etc. I could go on an hour, so I'll stop there.

Kind of a silly example, but it reminds me of the film "Minority Report" where police look into the future and arrest people, while they're still innocent, before they commit the crime. It also reminds me of Orwell's "crimethink".

Police officers, procedurally, obviously can't properly do their jobs in an environment where they have to make all kinds of sophisticated legal distinctions, though they are continually being forced more and more to do so. It's much more important to prioritize safety and security. It seems to be that police would be able to do their job more effectively if our elected officials weren't continously passing more and more laws to be enforced. Government and society would work more efficiently if our officials weren't continuously creating bureaucracies that constantly continue to need tax payer support which puts a further burden on the economy. I know you disagree, but police shouldn't have to worry about enforcing smoking bans because smoking bans on private property shouldn't exist. Stopping there. No reason to write a Libertarian Manifesto.

The sheriff was foolish to make that statement. I don't see any way around it. The Sheriff should be the last person saying a law isn't going to be enforced, unless he is tendering his resignation while doing so.

Is it ever right for private citizens to break the law? Not usually. The creation of more and more laws, though, makes the question more and more relevant. If I can't make a decent donut without transfat, and because of a law banning transfat, for example, and I'm losing customers because my donuts aren't as good anymore, should I sneak some transfat in? I don't think you're a criminal if you do. NYC Government has acted as if such subjective distinctions in taste (I mean, literally, taste! Like taste buds!)simply don't exist. Meanwhile, the people who were buying donuts before the ban are likely to be the same ones who are buying donuts after the ban; people making the decision to favor an eating experience over health. Now, if the taste is different, they'll never come back. If I acquire new customers because of the eliminated health risk, they're operating under a false assumption; donuts are healthy without transfat.

Government has gone too far. That's why Sheriffs' are making statements they shouldn't. When even the Sheriff is saying it, you know that this is creating disrespect for the law in general.

If I come to a red light in the middle of the night, do I stop and wait for it to become green? I do 999 out of 1000 times. This becomes a very complicated discussion. There are some laws that exist for such obvious and practical reasons that most know to comply with them because they understand their purpose and they honor the intent toward that purpose; like a redlight.

Donuts and secondhand smoke, though? On private property, nonetheless, not public property, like a road with a redlight on it?

No one can pretend to know where to draw such lines, but a government that honors private property rights as sovereign creates a dynamic system where these things are worked out. Creating public laws on private property for questionable risks invites totalitarianism unless opposed.

Would I approve of someone lighting up in a non-smoking bar in protest of a smoking ban? No.

Would I approve of the owner of the bar saying "This is my bar and they have no right to tell me how to run my business. Smoke 'em if you got 'em"? The bar owner has my full support. I don't view him as a criminal in the same way I don't view Sam Adams as a criminal for throwing British Tea into Boston Harbor.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,

I was just in Las Vegas at the end of November, and every place we visited I would ask about the smoking ban coming. A few said they did not think it would ruin business, but several told me they feared it would close them down.

One business owner told me that some were shocked that proposal passed, and that some did not vote believing it had no chance of passing. It will be very interesting to see what happens in Vegas, because they do have a lot of smokers.

A '1984' type movie I liked (warning: quite violent!) is EQUILIBRIUM, w/ Christian Bale (Batman). Some of the stunts/fights are way over the top, but I still enjoyed it.

I was writing a long and involved response, then I found this. I haven't read it all but a very interesting read so far. Got life to get on with now.
http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/1/13#BIBL

quote:

Originally posted by Libra:
I was just in Las Vegas at the end of November, and every place we visited I would ask about the smoking ban coming. A few said they did not think it would ruin business, but several told me they feared it would close them down.

One business owner told me that some were shocked that proposal passed, and that some did not vote believing it had no chance of passing. It will be very interesting to see what happens in Vegas, because they do have a lot of smokers.

When very roughly 70% of the adult population are non-smokers why would you be surprised?