Nevada Rolls the Dice on Public Health

Ricardo630/Creative Commons

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In 2006, the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act passed with 54 percent support. The law prohibited smoking in movie theaters, government buildings, bars and taverns that serve food, and indoor areas within restaurants (although notably not casinos). Since then, its popularity has surged. According to a February poll by the American Lung Association, 83 percent of Nevada voters now support the act. Yet last week, the Nevada Senate approved a bill that rolls back core components. For example, it permits smoking in stand-alone bars that serve food, so long as they don’t allow minors inside. The new legislation now awaits Republican Governor Brian Sandoval’s signature.

Why would state legislators want to gut such an overwhelmingly popular bill? Simple, says Amy Beaulieu, the director of Tobacco Control Policy for the American Lung Association in Nevada: “It’s money and lobbyists.” Powerful lobbies like the Nevada Tavern Owners Association and the Nevada Resort Association have thrown their weight behind beating back the Clean Indoor Air Act. And as Beaulieu explains, “These taverns are not like Joe’s Corner… Our taverns and bars are all tied to the gaming industry.”

In Nevada, it’s the gaming industry that more often than not calls the shots. The state’s casinos took in nearly $10.5 billion last year; lesiure and hospitality account for more than a quarter of all civilian jobs. Casinos’ gaming areas were exempted from the 2006 act because its authors viewed the gaming industry as too powerful to take on just yet. But the casinos’ employees have suffered mightily from exposure to second-hand smoke. A National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study released in 2009 found significant increases in levels of the environmental tobacco smoke biomarker NNAL in casino workers’ urine over the course of their eight-hour work shifts, revealing exposure to airborne carcinogens. These workers complained of respiratory difficulties, eye symptoms, headache, nausea, and dizziness.

Meanwhile, the Clean Indoor Air Act has been an overall boon for public health (and revenues) in Nevada. Researchers at the University of Nevada, Reno, have just published a study finding that since implementation of the act, decreases in hospital admissions for stroke and myocardial events have saved Medicaid and Medicare payers some $1.5 million and $11.5 million, respectively.

While the new bill revising the Clean Indoor Air Act might not appear too radical on its face, it’s almost certain to have significant consequences. For one thing, employees at bars that reintroduce smoking will once again be forced to inhale the same carcinogens as casino dealers. Moreover, the 21 and up restriction is unlikely to have any real effect. Amy Beaulieu points out that the provision is entirely unenforceable, with law enforcement authorities having already indicated they have no intention of starting to write tickets to underage bar patrons. Even the bill’s backers have conceded that the restriction could be fairly easily circumvented.

As for claims by industry lobbies that the Clean Indoor Air Act is strangling business, they simply don’t hold water. A fact check by the Reno Gazette-Journal notes that Nevadan restaurants and bars have fared significantly better over the past year than other sectors of the state’s recession-ravaged economy. According to that same American Lung Association poll, half of Nevadans rate going out as more enjoyable now that restaurants and other social places are smoke-free versus four percent who responded less enjoyable. And who knows? With Vegas billing itself as increasingly family-friendly, even the casinos might benefit from a slightly less smoky scene.

And so, even as the evidence continues to pour in about the dangers of second-hand smoke and the health benefits of indoor smoking regulations, Nevada looks set to roll the dice on something that should never be gambled: its citizens’ health.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate