The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 7:30 a.m., on Thursday, April 1, 1999. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Ms. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Ms. Barbara Buckley

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Tom Collins

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Sheila Leslie

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Officer Pam Lodge, Reno Police Department

Gary Wolff, Legislative Representative for the Nevada Highway Patrol Association

Roll was called and a quorum was present. Chairman Anderson indicated Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, had brought to his attention a technical change that needed to be made to Assembly Bill 333.

Ms. Lang explained the language on line 13 of the bill which stated, "in the commission of an unlawful act" needed to be changed to read "other than an unlawful act". It was necessary to avoid the overlapping of those two provisions which now carried different penalties. She added it was a drafting oversight and not the intent of the requester of the bill.

The committee engaged in discussion and the proposed amendment was approved.

Assemblywoman Buckley referenced an email she had received from Lucille Lusk representing Nevada Concerned Citizens which prompted some concern in regard to the aspect of simple negligence. She stated she would seek more information from Ms. Lang.

Chairman Anderson explained the concern had also been brought to his attention and he would ask that the bill be placed on the chief clerk’s desk in order to obtain further clarification.

Chairman Anderson next announced Assembly Bill 315 had been heard in committee and voted on, but it was determined the bill was no longer necessary. He asked for a motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 315.

The Chair noted pertinent material had been taken from A.B. 523 and transferred to A.B. 473. Therefore, A.B. 523 was no longer necessary and he would entertain a motion to indefinitely postpone.

Turning to the agenda for the day, Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 483.

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31, told the committee he was contacted shortly before the start of session by police officers from the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada. Mr. Anderson explained those officers, as other public servants, came in contact with other human beings as a necessity of their job. In trying to serve the public, they risked exposure to many diseases, some being deadly. The officers recognized it was the nature of their job, but Mr. Anderson pointed out they should be provided with every protection available.

Ron Dreher, President of the Peace Officers Research Association of Nevada and the Reno Police Protection Association, came forward in support of the bill. He further explained the purpose of the bill was to require HIV and other testing of persons who may have transferred blood or other bodily fluids to law enforcement officers, correctional officers, fire fighters, or emergency health care providers while performing their official duties. The bill would provide a method for the immediate testing of those persons who refused to provide specimen samples for testing purposes and would allow the results of those tests to be released to the person or persons possibly infected.

Mr. Dreher advised the side effects of HIV post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) drugs such as headache, fatigue, insomnia, gastrointestinal symptoms, nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal discomfort demanded something be done to determine whether or not continued treatment was necessary. He drew attention to the Nevada Occupational Health Centers Guidelines which were distributed to the committee and attached as Exhibit C. The guidelines outlined the preventative measures that public safety personnel and emergency medical providers must endure if PEP was used prior to determining whether the tested person was infected with HIV. Mr. Dreher acknowledged the bill did not provide all of the solutions but it was much better than what was currently allowed. He urged the committee’s support of A.B. 483.

Raymond McAllister, a Legislative Representative for Professional Firefighters of Nevada, submitted to the committee several proposed amendments to A.B. 483. The amendments were attached as Exhibit D. Beginning with section 1, subsection 1, he explained the language was too narrow and restrictive. He pointed out not everyone to whom the officers were exposed was taken to jail. The new language was more inclusive. Also, in subsection 1 of section 1, "emergency health care providers" were added to the coverage because they were just as subject to exposure as any law enforcement officer or fireman. He explained the new section 2 was proposed as a conceptual idea. It would make it necessary for an employee to confirm to the department health official that a legitimate, significant exposure had occurred prior to petitioning the court in order to lessen the burden on the courts.

Referring to the amendments in paragraph 3 of Exhibit D, he remarked it would be better for the court to order the samples rather than to try to get someone at the court to obtain the samples. Paragraph 3 also specified testing should be completed by a local hospital or a licensed laboratory rather than the health authority. The concern focused on the fact that health district offices were only open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 5 days a week. A hospital or laboratory was open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The local health authorities also raised a concern in regard to the impact on their budgets. By eliminating them from the bill, that concern would also be eliminated. Mr. McAllister continued his review of the amendments noting paragraph 4 changed who would be notified after blood tests were completed. In current subsection 3, the employer of the employee would be notified. He opined that was an infringement on the employee's right of privacy, and it could also infringe on the privacy of the source person that was initially tested and therefore, it was more appropriate to notify the department’s designated health officer. Section 5 was added because by having the responsibility for payment outlined up front, any delays in testing or PEP treatment could be avoided. Mr. McAllister noted that was imperative because PEP treatment was most effective when started in the first hour after exposure but must be started within the first 24 hours to have a significant effect in regard to the reduction of risk of becoming HIV positive.

Assemblyman Carpenter asked if there were designated health care officers in all rural areas. Mr. McAllister replied the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) required any fire department, law enforcement agency, or correctional facility to have a designated health care officer. In the event an area did not have a designated health officer, he opined the same mission could be accomplished by using a licensed physician at a hospital or health care facility to verify an exposure had taken place.

Chris Alexander, an officer with the Reno Police Department, shared with the committee his experience of being stuck with a needle while doing a voluntary search. The suspect admitted it was his needle which he had used 4 hours before Officer Alexander had shown up. Before the suspect went to jail for various drug charges, he was able to convince the suspect to give him a blood sample. The blood sample tested positive for Hepatitis B and C. Officer Alexander stated currently he did not test positive for either. He was given a vaccine for Hepatitis B, but no vaccine existed for Hepatitis C and he was informed by his doctor that the worst case scenario would be in about 3 years he would be on a donor list for a kidney and a liver. He shared with the committee his personal fears, specifically about contact with his 6-year old son and 18-month old daughter. Officer Alexander stated he did not know exactly what he was supposed to do but went to the hospital. He was not aware of the 2-hour timeframe, and by the time he arrived and told the doctors of his situation; he had 15 minutes left in the 2-hour window of time. They made him take the "ACT cocktail". He told the committee, "It was probably the worst experience I have had in 30 years of life." It made him extremely ill.

Lieutenant Stan Olsen of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association testified in support of A.B. 483. He stated the committee needed to be aware officers faced many situations that could result in the transfer of a communicable disease, and it was not limited to a prick of a needle.

Captain Jim Nadeau from the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, Andy Anderson, President of the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs, Officer Pam Lodge from the Reno Police Department, and Gary Wolff, a Legislative Representative for the Nevada Highway Patrol Association, all came forward to express their support for the bill.

John Morrow, a Legislative Representative for the Washoe County Public Defender’s Officer, also came forward in support of A.B. 483 but suggested it should be extended to attorneys, investigators and other personnel in the office of the public defender. He remarked those individuals were in confined quarters and basically unprotected. He believed it would be appropriate to add those public servants to the bill as they should have the same privileges as law enforcement in regard to having the tests done.

Chairman Anderson agreed with Mr. Morrow’s suggestion and asked him to work on proposed language.

Responding to Mr. Carpenter’s further concerns with the process, Ms. Lang commented the court to which the officer needed to go was not specified but suggested he or she would probably go to the court that had jurisdiction over those type of matters.

Mr. Dreher further explained if a person did not want to give blood voluntarily, the officer could obtain a seizure order by submitting an affidavit to a justice court judge. That was the period of time that had to be addressed, and he did not know how it could be expedited. Mr. Dreher explained the initial PEP treatment must be offered to the officer. He stated if it was not taken immediately, then continued treatment would result in the side effects about which Officer Alexander spoke. It was his opinion that after the initial PEP treatment was done, then the treatment could be stopped once the testing was finished. While a mandatory blood draw would be ideal, Mr. Dreher said it would raise concerns with an individual’s fourth amendment rights in regard to an unreasonable seizure.

Jim Reinhardt, Fire Chief of the East Fork Fire and Paramedic District, came forward to address Mr. Carpenter’s questions in regard to the rural areas. He explained the designated health care person was the doctor who administered the heart and lung testing for his volunteers. He would assume testing could be transferred to that individual in the rural areas. A.B. 483 would give his department more leverage to get the blood drawn. Chief Reinhardt said he could sympathize with Mr. Carpenter’s concerns because sometimes his volunteers were 2 to 3 hours away from the hospital and the window of time referenced earlier was not necessarily met. He believed the Nevada State Fire Fighters Association which was comprised of approximately 2,500 volunteers would support the bill.

Ed Flagg, Legislative Representative for the Nevada Correctional Officers Association, expressed support for the bill. He told the committee there were two bills coming from the Senate which related to A.B. 483. He noted while his officers did not experience the same difficulties because a hospital was readily available in their place of work, he supported the bill.

Bob Gagnier, Executive Director of the State of Nevada Employees Association, indicated his support of the bill with the proposed amendments.

Dr. Mary Guinan, a Nevada state health officer, came forward representing the State Health Division and the Department of Human Resources. She indicated the health division would support A.B. 483 with the proposed amendment but would oppose the bill as originally drafted. She explained without the amendment, the people who were to be tested and the associated costs would be transferred to the health authorities. Due to the impact that would have on the department’s budget, they would oppose the bill. Her concern would be eliminated if the amendment was approved. Dr. Guinan commented that she did have concerns about the bill as the state health officer. She exclaimed treatment with PEP for HIV infection should not be dependent on the testing of the person who exposed the officer. She told the committee she had been treated with PEP three different times and, "it was not nice". Therefore, she understood the reason why a person would not want to take it. But, she announced it should be clear for the safety and protection of the officers, the department’s recommendation was they immediately take PEP and not wait for the test results, regardless of how long it might take. Her second concern was a blood test could result in a negative finding even if that person was HIV positive. For that reason, the decision to use PEP should not be based on a test result. Dr. Guinan explained there was a window of time, 6 to 8 weeks, in which a person who was infected with HIV could test negative. She reiterated the recommendation was if there was an exposure, the PEP should be initiated as soon as possible. The person who had been exposed needed to have his or her blood drawn to see what their status was and then again 6 to 8 weeks after the initial PEP treatment to ensure he or she had not converted to HIV positive. She reiterated she would not testify against the bill as far as requiring or mandating testing but greatly urged the committee to be aware if someone was potentially exposed, they take the drug as soon as possible.

Chairman Anderson stated her recommendations were taken very seriously but noted A.B. 483 addressed the need for the testing of the individual who might have exposed the officer.

Mr. Dreher stated he agreed wholeheartedly with Dr. Guinan’s remarks and clarified A.B. 483 was an attempt to make sure the officers were completely covered. He apologized for any misunderstanding.

Chairman Anderson reiterated for the record, "We are not trying to avoid the taking of the necessary precautions to protect the officers in the field. That was not the purpose of this piece of legislation."

Dr. Guinan re-emphasized her concern a test might not adequately reflect an infected status. She stated she would like to see language added to the bill to reflect the State Health Division’s recommendations.

Chairman Anderson pointed out it would be a health decision and not under the purview of the committee on judiciary. There being no one else wishing to testify, he closed the hearing on A.B. 483.

Chairman Anderson reiterated Mr. Carpenter had suggested the court to be petitioned be defined in some term as in the court of jurisdiction. He had also expressed concern with when the documentation of the exposure must be made. He suggested adding "when practical" before "must be properly documented and turned over to the specific safety agency, designated health care official for verification."

In regard to Mr. Morrow’s request to include other public officials, it was decided to broaden the scope of the bill to include publicly appointed officials in the criminal justice system, to include personnel of the public defender’s office as well as the Attorney General’s Office.

The hearing was opened on Assembly Bill 502.

Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, Assembly District 29, came forward to summarize A.B. 502. The bill removed the exemption contained in subsection 1(e) of Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 202.2491 for "those areas leased to or operated by a person licensed pursuant to NRS 463.160." A.B. 502 would also amend section 5 of NRS 202.2491 that addressed businesses which derived more than 50 percent of its gross receipts from the sale of alcoholic beverages or gaming operations to include the provisions of the new, proposed section 2 of NRS 202.2491. It would also amend NRS 202.2494 to prohibit cigarette vending machines in certain areas including the new subsection 2 in NRS 202.2491 if minors were permitted access to that area. Ms. Angle proceeded to explain since the bill was drafted she had developed an additional amendment she would like the committee to consider. The proposed amendment was attached as Exhibit E. Reading the amendment she noted it changed the new, proposed section 2 of NRS 202.2491 to exclude areas if they were less than 10,000 square feet. She pointed out the intent of that amendment was to exempt the gaming area of convenience stores from the non-smoking ban. Ms. Angle introduced Stephanie Glantz and her mother, Katheryne, a constituent on whose behalf she introduced the bill. She explained Stephanie suffered from asthma which was exacerbated by smoking. In conclusion, she quoted Dr. Glenn Miller from the University of Reno, Nevada: "It is my opinion that indirect cigarette smoke poses one of the greatest involuntary risks to people that do not smoke. Particularly for those persons who work in environments where smoking is permitted." She pointed out Dr. Miller recognized Dr. Chris Pritsos’ published work on the effects of indirect cigarette smoke on oxidated stress in humans who worked in smoking environments, and had participated as an expert witness in some of the large national lawsuits on indirect cigarette smoke. She noted Dr. Pritsos would later testify before the committee. Ms. Angle reiterated the bill only prohibited smoking in large grocery stores and urged the committee’s support.

Reading from her prepared testimony, Katheryne Glantz testified in support of A.B. 502. She noted her daughter had asthma and that secondhand smoke was a common trigger for asthma episodes. Her written testimony was attached as Exhibit F which included statistics indicating the danger of second hand smoke.

Stephanie Glantz stated she was 7 ½ years old and had asthma. She pointed out when she was around smoke, it got in her lungs. She commented she did not breathe as well as if she did not have asthma. She had gone to the emergency room a couple of times because of her asthma.

Larry Matheis, Executive Director of the Nevada State Medical Association, came forward to testify in support of A.B. 502. He told the committee he was also testifying on behalf of the Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition, a statewide coalition of public and private health organization associations and those interested in tobacco related problems in the state. He noted the correlation between smoking and gaming. In the case of grocery stores, it meant anyone who entered a store to obtain food would be exposed to inhaling tobacco smoke. Noting the abundance of statistics on that issue, he stated the exposure would have an adverse effect on the health of those individuals. Mr. Matheis opined the bill was a way to rectify a policy problem that had been created. "Too many Nevadans have died. Too many Nevadans are dying. Too many Nevadans will die from tobacco illnesses." If the legislature passed the bill, he believed it would be the most positive single step regarding tobacco policy the legislature had taken in a number of years.

Carl Willcoxson, a private citizen from Clark County, expressed strong support of A.B. 502. He noted things had changed over time but now the danger of smoking was well documented. He told the committee as a child he had chronic bronchitis and other respiratory problems. Both his parents smoked, thinking it was not a factor. He praised those individuals who spoke out against the tobacco industry believing the industry had tried to cover up the dangers of smoking. "The products they sold us had hundreds, even thousands of added chemicals many of which are known to cause harm to the user." He reiterated even those exposed to secondhand smoke were at risk to their health. He told the committee of the lack of results he obtained in trying to stop smoking in grocery stores. He contacted the manager of one store, the State Health Division, and the Clark County Health Department. He was told they had 30 inspectors and over 9,000 businesses and basically, there was very little they could do. He received a similar response when he called the police department. He opined common sense was needed in order to decide on appropriate places where people could go without being exposed to smoke rather than to "cave in to these special interest groups." Mr. Willcoxson believed it was reasonable to refrain from smoking in stores, gas stations, and around children.

Emma Rubalcava-Micelli, a schoolteacher with the Clark County School District, also testified in support of A.B. 502. She stated since children under the age of 18 frequently worked in grocery stores, it would be appropriate to ensure that a grocery store was a smoke-free environment. She commented on the efforts made to educate children about the dangers of smoking but noted it was an uphill battle because smoke was everywhere in their environment.

Dr. Chris Pritsos, a faculty member at the University of Nevada, Reno, told the committee he had done considerable work in the area of environmental tobacco smoke. He pointed out studies had been conducted in the Reno-Sparks area in regard to the effects of nonsmoking workers being exposed to tobacco smoke. The findings of the study showed those people had a much higher amount of DNA damage. DNA damage increased the risk of developing many chronic diseases like cancer and coronary heart disease. He indicated those workers had a higher rate of oxidated stress which also caused damage to the body. He noted even short-term exposures could increase the risk of developing respiratory illnesses, cancer, or coronary heart disease later on in life. In conclusion, he stated whatever could be done to reduce the exposure of children to environmental tobacco smoke was highly encouraged. Dr. Pritsos’ written testimony was attached as Exhibit G.

Mark Savage, representing the American Cancer Society, expressed support for A.B. 502. He believed the bill would be a step in the right direction.

Brendan Trainor, Chairman of the Washoe County Libertarian Party, came forward in opposition to A.B. 502. He noted he also had chronic bronchitis and mild allergy problems, but believed it was not proper to use the government to force private businesses to conform to one single standard. If one particular grocery store wished to allow its customers more latitude, it was a private decision that should be made in the market place. He stated a person could always choose to go to another grocery store. Mr. Trainor explained the data obtained on secondhand smoke by the Environmental Protection Agency was thrown out of court by a federal judge who accused the agency of "cherry picking the data" and not presenting both sides of the issue. He noted that decision was currently on appeal but, "It was a major blow to their effort to indoctrinate the American people with a lot of attitudes on second hand smoke that are simply not true." He reiterated the situation was a private choice and was not a decision for the legislature to decide.

Jim Avance, representing the Cardivan Company and the Slot Route Operators’ Association, testified in opposition to A.B. 502. He noted similar legislation had been addressed in previous sessions and it was decided grocery stores could designate an area for their employees and customers who wished to smoke. He noted there was also an exemption that would allow smoking in the area that led to the slot route operator in the front of the store. Mr. Avance commented those exemptions were permitted at the same time restaurants created smoking and nonsmoking areas. "We are firm believers that a person should have a choice."

Chairman Anderson inquired if Mr. Avance had noted the proposed amendment submitted by Ms. Angle. Mr. Avance stated he understood the amendment would exempt Seven-Eleven convenience stores but not the larger grocery stores which were his concern.

Mr. Avance opined the bill meddled with a person’s freedom of choice. He emphasized if a grocery store did not want smoking in the store, it could adopt a no smoking policy. He indicated there was a Safeway store in Reno which had adopted a nonsmoking policy and in the same area, an Albertson’s store which did allow smoking. The play at the slot machines at the Albertson’s store was 61 percent greater than the play at the Safeway store. He noted the amount of play at the slot machine areas greatly affected his company’s profitability. The results of an informal study, which included counting the players at 10 Las Vegas stores, showed 75 percent of the people playing slot machines were smoking. He advised while the bill seemed simple, it had serious side effects on many people. Mr. Avance stated his company currently had 460 change people employed and together with similar companies, there were approximately 1,000 people who would be affected. For the most part, they were over 60 years old and had a major concern with the ability to obtain health care. By working a certain number of hours a week his company could provide health care for them. He drew the committee’s attention to several photos taken at various stores of the slot machine areas. The photos were attached as Exhibit H. He pointed out the first couple of photos showed the slot machine area which was located away from the checkout stands. He noted a person could exit the store without passing by that area. The next couple of pictures showed the slot machines located in an alcove where the smoke did not interfere with anybody who did not go into the alcove.

Chairman Anderson questioned if the alcoves were separately ventilated. Mr. Avance replied they were ventilated up through the roof, but he was uncertain as to how each duct system worked.

Assemblywoman Leslie stated the pictures did not represent the whole situation referring to an Albertson’s store in her district.

Sam McMullen, a Legislative Representative for the Retail Association of Nevada, expressed opposition to A.B. 502. He said he was not insensitive to the reason for the bill because there were people with special health needs. The concern of the Retail Association was to meet the needs of all the customers that walked through the doors. Referring to the comments made by Mr. Avance, he reiterated the gambling in those facilities had a very high correlation with smoking. "Like it or not that was the reality both economically and with revenue." However, he noted currently, there had been a lot of movement on the issue and basically, it was all customer driven. Mr. McMullen stated if a business was smart it would respond to its customers’ needs. He explained many stores had already changed their standard design. They had created alcoves and systems of ventilation whereby clean air was blown into the slot machine area and the smoke was pushed up and out. While it was harder to make those changes in existing stores, an effort was being made as the stores remodeled and recapitalized their capital improvement plans. Mr. McMullen told the committee of Senate Bill 421, currently being heard by the Senate Committee on Judiciary, which the Retail Association of Nevada supported. It would basically require alcoves and excess ventilation to substantially remove tobacco smoke. In regard to Ms. Angle’s proposed amendment, he commented it affected the large grocery stores. They had a margin of about 1 to 1½ percentage points in their sales. He suggested the economics of a grocery store were volatile and therefore, changes should not be made too quickly or too severely. While the Retail Association could not support A.B. 502, they believed they could meet the provisions of S.B. 421. In conclusion, he pointed out there was a new Smiths store in Dayton which was going to be used as the model for all new stores. It had a completely enclosed gaming room which was separately ventilated.

Ms. Leslie asked what the plan was for the existing stores, especially the older stores which would probably not be remodeled soon. Specifically, she questioned how long it would take for the industry to deal with those stores. Mr. McMullen explained those stores could either reconfigure the actual machines or they could upgrade their ventilation system. He explained the time within which they changed would be a function of complaints to the store and exactly how much concern there was by the people who shopped there. He noted while they could not get everyone to sign in blood, there had been discussion about trying to accomplish the goal within the next 5 years for those that could.

Chairman Anderson asked for further information about S.B. 421, specifically if there was any plan to modify the bill to ensure older stores complied within a certain period of time. Mr. McMullen stated the bill was being heard in the Senate Committee on Judiciary that same morning and he was uncertain as to what would happen with it. He told the Chair the association believed it was not something that should be legislated. As an industry, they were making progress and while it was not going to happen as quickly as some people wanted, it would happen when the industry could accomplish it.

Ms. Angle asked how the stores in other states that did not permit smoking were making it economical. Mr. McMullen stated he had looked at that issue and it was a function of pricing relative to that market. He also noted there were a lot of services offered in stores that were hard to support unless the store had a full stream of revenues in a larger sense. They found that those stores had the ability to carry some of those services and round out their facility. Mr. McMullen emphasized stores could price to make sure they were okay.

Assemblyman Collins recognized the area being addressed was the gaming area. He was also concerned with the smoking that occurred at the entrances to the stores. Mr. McMullen replied that problem not only affected grocery stores but schools and many other office buildings. It was not an issue addressed in S.B. 421 but he acknowledged it was an issue.

Chairman Anderson asked how the committee would like to process the bill.

The committee believed it would be beneficial to hold the tobacco bills for the next work session. That would allow them to see how S.B. 421 was going to be handled.

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 549.

Anne Cathcart, Special Assistant Attorney General from the Office of the Attorney General, gave a brief review of A.B. 549. Referring to a letter from the attorney general, she pointed out the national tobacco settlement signed in November of 1998 contained a provision whereby the tobacco manufacturers agreed not to oppose any state or local laws or regulations that might be proposed which were designed to reduce or limit youth access or use of tobacco products. The letter was attached as Exhibit I. Attached to the settlement was a list of subjects for potential legislation the tobacco manufacturers specifically said they would not oppose. The attorney general chose four from that list which she felt were appropriate for the legislature to consider. Ms. Cathcart reviewed those four issues which made up A.B. 549 (Exhibit I):

• Prohibiting tobacco product vending machines in areas where minors were permitted to loiter.

• Prohibiting the sale of nontobacco products designed to look like tobacco products and designed primarily to appeal to children.

• Prohibiting the sale of cigarettes except in packages of 20 or more.

• Prohibit minors from possessing or attempting to possess tobacco products and imposing a penalty of up to $100 fine for violation of that particular provision.

Ms. Cathcart explained as Nevada had conducted its inspections and found vending machines in inappropriate areas, they had advised the businessowner and the location had been changed, but currently, there were about 50 vending machines throughout the state which were not located in bars or gaming areas. In addition, she added they found one or two stores a year that were selling cigarettes in small quantities such as one or two. She opined prohibiting the sale of tobacco to children and providing a mechanism for the children to be accountable for their actions, particularly if they were lying in order to obtain tobacco products, would help reduce the overall tobacco sales rate.

Mr. Carpenter asked what the financial impact on the counties would be in regard to penalizing youth found possessing or attempting to possess tobacco.

Chairman Anderson pointed out there was a fiscal note which stated all apparent costs of enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration would be incurred by the local government.

Ms. Lang clarified an individual who violated the provisions of section 1 of the bill, but not section 5, would be guilty of a misdemeanor which was typically handled at a local level. She explained that was the reason for the fiscal note.

Mr. Carpenter stated if a child violated section 5, he or she would still have to be processed through the juvenile court system and expressed concern an unfunded mandate was being created.

Ms. Cathcart noted it was a policy decision for the committee to make based on whether they felt any potential fiscal impact outweighed the benefits of the provisions.

Assemblyman Brower expressed support for addressing youngsters possessing tobacco products but expressed concern with section 1 of the bill, specifically the reference to selling candy products. He stated, "We are going way overboard here when we start talking about banning the sale of candy in the context of trying to address the tobacco problem and specifically the problem of youths possessing and using." He suggested section 1 be deleted from the bill.

Assemblyman Nolan noted the products referenced in section 1 were all consumables. He inquired if toys would also be included. Ms. Cathcart replied section 1 did apply to more than just candy, gum, and food items.

Ms. Leslie asked if Ms. Cathcart believed the school police would enforce the bill if it became law. Ms. Cathcart stated it was her understanding from discussions with law enforcement, it would probably be selectively enforced which meant it would be used as another tool for law enforcement when it appeared to be appropriate. She recognized law enforcement would probably be more concerned with other potential problems that could exist when kids were congregating. She did not anticipate it would be aggressively used but noted she could not speak on behalf of the school district officials.

Mr. Carpenter expressed favor for subsection 1(b) of section 5 but voiced objection for subsection 1(a). He believed the fiscal impact on the local government would be too great.

Amy Hill, a Legislative Representative for the Retail Association of Nevada, expressed support for the majority of A.B. 549 after the deletion of section 1.

Lucille Lusk, a Legislative Representative for Nevada Concerned Citizens, voiced her opposition to the use of tobacco products and recognized the associated health risks. Although, she expressed concern for "the pendulum swinging too far." She also noted concern with the prohibition of the sale of candy products, but her major concern was with section 5. "When you are starting to name a child in need of supervision that carries a whole lot of connotations to us about family disruption and government intervention." She pointed out on page 3, lines 19 and 20, it stated, "in addition to any other action ordered pursuant to the provisions of that chapter". It was not limited to a $100 fine but was expanded to all of those things that naming a child in need of supervision would do. Ms. Lusk supported sections 2, 3, and 4.

Ms. Leslie agreed with Ms. Lusk’s comments and asked why it was necessary to put in "the child in need of supervision".

Ms. Cathcart responded she honestly did not know all the ramifications of adding that language. She offered to return to the committee after further review.

Ms. Lang clarified the language "in need of supervision and care" brought them within chapter 62 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS).

Ms. Leslie inquired if a child could be fined without making them a "child in need of supervision" because at that point their juvenile record was started. She believed that was going too far.

Ms. Lang replied she would research whether there was another way to bring children under the supervision of the juvenile courts without using that standard language.

Mr. Collins voiced his dislike with the majority of the bill.

Ms. Leslie told the committee she felt section 5 was important because "Kids are laughing at us." She noted they were told it was wrong to smoke tobacco and it was illegal for them to purchase tobacco, but the law did not do anything more about it.

Based on the various concerns voiced by the committee, Chairman Anderson said he would hold the bill in order for the committee to review the proposal of deleting section 1 in its entirety and the deletion of the "child in need of supervision" provisions of sections 5 and 6.

Mr. Carpenter repeated his concern the unfunded mandate be addressed.

Chairman Anderson pointed out there were still two bills to be heard. He explained if the floor session was finished before 1:00 p.m., the committee would reconvene in order to hear them. If it finished after 1:00 p.m., the hearings for those bills would be rescheduled. The committee stood in recess.

Later in the day, from the floor of the assembly, Chairman Anderson announced the hearings for Assembly Bills 543 and 577 would be rescheduled. The meeting of the committee on judiciary was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jennifer Carnahan,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: