MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
March 1, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:42 a.m., on Thursday, March 1, 2001. 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. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall - Excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Robert Price
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Cheryl O'Day, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Colleen C. Hughes, R.N., Ph.D., Washoe County Tobacco Prevention and Control Program Coordinator
Chris A. Pritsos, Ph.D., Biochemist and UNR Professor
Lawrence P. Matheis, Executive Director of the Nevada State Medical Association
Helen A. Foley, on behalf of Clark County Health Department
Jeanne Palmer, Health Education Manager, Clark County Health District
Maureen Brower, Director of Government Relations, Wadhams & Akridge
Diane Hart, STICC (Stop Tobacco Use in Clark County)
Denise Brodsky, Executive Director, Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition
Jack Lipsman, National Federation of Gaming Employees
Sophy Block, Senior Citizen
Harvey Whittemore, Esq., Lionel Sawyer & Collins
Jack Jeffrey, on behalf of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Tobacco Co.
Peter Kruger, State Executive for Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association
Deborah Sheltra, Shortstop Market owner
Mary Lau, Executive Director of Retail Association of Nevada (RAN)
Samuel McMullen, on behalf of Retail Association of Nevada (RAN)
Stephanie Glantz, private citizen
Hayley Glantz, private citizen
Robin D. Camacho, Director of Advocacy and Communications, American Heart Association
Gale Thomssen, Project Director, Carson Advocates for Cancer Cure
Blayne Perry, concerned citizen, on behalf of victims of lung cancer
Chairman Anderson confirmed there was a quorum present and encouraged testimony and the presentation of information before the committee.
Assembly Bill 159: Requires gaming establishments to designate smoking and nonsmoking areas for each eating and gaming area. (BDR 15-874)
Assemblyman Robert Price voiced a need for designated smoking and non-smoking areas within casinos and stores. Assemblyman Price advised that the gaming industry was initially excluded; however, what prompted his submission of A.B. 159 was his desire for overall protection of the health and safety of those visiting Nevada, those employed within Nevada’s main industry, as well as employees of other industries and, ultimately, the gaming industry itself. His concern for the gaming industry stemmed from the recent $145.0 billion tobacco litigation settlement. He said he believed it was the largest U.S. settlement to date on any subject matter and Mr. Price acknowledged Nevada’s receipt of program funds based on that settlement. With respect to being held liable, he believed there existed the “potential for any company, any business … that’s not providing some kind of smoke free area for its employees and customers.”
Assemblyman Price described how his legislative intern telephoned a number of casinos and found that many of them had already designated non-smoking areas (Exhibit C). One of the casinos contacted advised they routinely doubled their number of non-smoking gaming tables on the weekends.
Assemblyman Price acknowledged that his family had suffered the effects of a daughter’s cancer diagnosis and subsequent surgery. He then referred to a poll taken and the newspaper articles contained in his handout (Exhibit D). He also read correspondence he had received in support of A.B. 159.
Assemblyman Price then detailed issues faced by casino workers on a daily basis. He informed the committee that dealers had been written up for body language movements like a hand passed to clear smoke. Further, management construed even an involuntary movement to clear the air as an attempt to dissuade customers from smoking. Dealers had related to Assemblyman Price how even smokers had played at non-smoking tables, only to leave for a time whenever they wished to smoke.
In closing, Assemblyman Price pointed out that the Legislative Building was designated as a non-smoking building years ago and reiterated that many of the casinos have established non-smoking gaming areas. One fairly constant fact, however, when comparing the casinos was that the executive offices were generally classified as non-smoking. In some instances, the executive officers were the only non-smoking areas within a specific casino. He also advised that the University of Nevada, Reno had received a grant with which to perform a three-year study. Assemblyman Price advised that he had specifically kept the bill simply to cut down on the amount of smoke circulated. He felt that if all casinos were required to provide non-smoking areas the competition between the casinos would be kept on an even basis.
Chairman Anderson then questioned Assemblyman Price for clarification that the nature of the bill was to provide certain areas as non-smoking areas, not to designate entire casinos and/or restaurants as non-smoking establishments. Assemblyman Price confirmed the Chair’s understanding and responded further that page 2, Subsection (6), Section B, lines 31 through 34, was the heart of the bill and changed the wording from “may” to “shall.”
Chairman Anderson then advised that Assemblyman Price’s exhibit containing a newspaper article quoting tobacco company representatives admitting their products were harmful and another entitled “Gimme Some Air” were to be entered as part of the record. The informal straw poll that was taken was also to be placed on file with the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Mr. Manendo inquired whether Assemblyman Price had performed any type of survey as to the gaming establishments that had already designated smoking and non-smoking restaurants in the casinos. For example, Mr. Manendo mentioned Sam’s Town located within his district. He stated that smaller casinos, such as Nevada Palace and Longhorn that possessed only three or four table games, do not have separate smoking and non-smoking areas. Assemblyman Price advised that his survey was performed in northern Nevada (Exhibit C) alone and discussed his findings. Chairman Anderson then reiterated a question by Mr. Manendo and requested that Assemblyman Price provide his survey documentation to Mr. Anthony, the committee’s researcher.
Chairman Anderson initiated further testimony with supporters of A.B. 159 and called forward Colleen C. Hughes, R.N., Ph.D., Washoe County Tobacco Prevention and Control Program Coordinator. Ms. Hughes testified on behalf of Washoe County District Health Officer in support of A.B. 159. Ms. Hughes then read her prepared presentation (Exhibit E) stating that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development had identified “poor indoor-air quality as one of the five greatest environmental problems that the American public faces.” She described a number of different names for environmental tobacco smoke and advised that there were over 4,000 substances, 40 of which were known to cause cancer in humans or animals, as well as many strong irritants within cigarettes. She discussed EPA estimates: 3,000 non-smoker lung cancer deaths caused annually and increased frequency and severity of episodes suffered by individuals with asthma.
Ms. Hughes made a number of proposals in the event smoking was to be permitted indoors:
Ms. Hughes closed her testimony with statements confirming that the separation of smokers and non-smokers within the same environment would reduce but not eliminate involuntary exposure to ETS; that a non-smoker who walked through a smoking area in order to reach a restroom or restaurant, was still exposed to air-borne carcinogens.
Chairman Anderson questioned whether there was an inherent danger that, by creating areas without sufficient ventilation and other logical procedures, a false sense of safety might be perpetuated. He inquired whether the bill did not, in fact, present an “if you’re not going to do it to the whole place, you might as well not do it” scenario. Ms. Hughes admitted agreement with Chairman Anderson. Having spoken with the airport personnel in charge of such decisions, Ms. Hughes advised that movement of the “smoking room” to the baggage area was being contemplated. The reason for that change would be to allow for installation of an appropriate ventilation system because second-hand smoke did drift out of the designated smoking room.
Chairman Anderson reiterated his concern that a false sense of security might be generated when, in truth, visitors were not safe from the effects of drifting smoke even when smoking sections were set aside. Ms. Hughes admitted it was a small step. She reiterated that Washoe County was in favor of the legislation although they would prefer the legislation went as far as to require special exhaust systems be installed.
Chairman Anderson then called Dr. Chris A. Pritsos forward. Dr. Pritsos voiced his support for A.B. 159 and pointedly avoided repeating previous testimony. He advised that he operated a research laboratory through the University of Nevada. He had done pilot work on the health effects to a small group of non-smokers of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) (Exhibit F), none of whom lived with a smoker. They were divided into two control groups: those who were exposed to ETS at work and those who were not. Blood was drawn from each subject and tests were performed to study both exposure to ETS and risk factors for chronic diseases. The most important result obtained was that those persons exposed at work had higher levels of DNA damage as a result of ETS. That meant that those individuals were at a higher risk of development of diseases such as cancer or cardiovascular disease. Further, research did not specifically focus on the gaming industry. Dr. Pritsos then referred to a 1998 study performed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. The study was in response to complaints by New Jersey dealers about the health effects of daily exposure to ETS. NIOSH studied those dealers and learned that their exposure levels, and consequently their risk of associated disease, were three times higher than the national average for individuals exposed at work.
Chairman Anderson thanked Dr. Pritsos for providing testimony of a scientific nature on issues related to ETS and its long-term effect on human DNA.
Mr. Carpenter asked if there had been any studies that followed casino workers to see whether they had a higher rate of lung cancer or cardiovascular disease than the rest of the population. Dr. Pritsos responded that there had not been studies specific to dealers with respect to lung cancer or cardiovascular disease resulting from ETS. He felt that it would be a very important study for the state to perform. Perhaps a task force could be funded to do so. His laboratory performed a study in Las Vegas that looked at dealers’ risk of cardiovascular disease and would correlate exposure levels and their risk.
Chairman Anderson asked Dr. Pritsos if casino employees perhaps fell into a rather unique employment category. Was there a comparative type of employee that Dr. Pritsos was aware of with the same level of risk? Dr. Pritsos listed bar employees and hostesses as two other job descriptions with the same type of exposure.
Chairman Anderson then called forward Lawrence P. Matheis, Executive Director of the Nevada State Medical Association. Mr. Matheis questioned what type of public policy message Nevada wanted to send. Recently, Mr. Matheis was invited to address the President’s Cancer Panel, a national group that advised the Executive Branch and Congress on cancer policy issues. He stated that he made a rather radical proposal that cancer treatment be removed from private insurance coverage and made an eligibility factor for Medicare. That was what he believed was to be discussed. However, he spent over an hour answering questions from the panel on why Nevada had such bad policy on tobacco issues; for example, why there were differences in the care provided in Nevada.
Mr. Matheis described how a new staff report compared all 50 states and Nevada stood out as being in a cluster of southern states with very similar policies. Nevada had fallen behind nationally accepted standards and that our representatives were going to be faced with pressure to bring Nevada up to standard on tobacco use and tobacco illness. Consequently, he believed it common for Nevada representatives attending national meetings to be repeatedly addressed on those standings and the tobacco settlement. The “Nevada’s proud to be libertarian” view, how Nevadans were proud of gaming and the various freedoms it represented, was understandable but not very substantive in terms of the numbers from other states. He testified that Nevada had the worst numbers in the country on resident tobacco use and related illnesses. Also, that there were people in the committee room who had suffered from tobacco-related illness or had lost family members to tobacco-related diseases. Nevada had been very slow to adopt public policies that directly address those issues. Mr. Matheis asked how Nevada could establish policy on something for which, realistically, there were no good points as the product in fact injured and/or killed people. He also asked how we addressed the public’s best interests with respect to tobacco use within Nevada’s main industry, when that industry was no longer isolated to Nevada.
Mr. Matheis pointed out that, now with gaming proliferating in other states, those states would study Nevada policy when considering their own. He asked that A.B. 159 not be dismissed out of hand. He requested the committee encourage representatives of the gaming industry to view A.B. 159 as an opportunity. To find a way, even if amendment was required, to adopt policy that said Nevada recognized the inherent dangers and risks associated with tobacco use in public area. Further, that Nevada wanted to take steps that would reduce that risk. Specific language as to certain sizes of facilities or to more limited areas, or even over time, should be composed as needed to take an appropriate position on tobacco policy.
Chairman Anderson then called forward Helen A. Foley who appeared on behalf of Clark County Health Department and asked if she had testimony she wished to add. Ms. Foley stepped forward and introduced Jeanne Palmer, Health Education Manager, Clark County Health District who appeared through video conferencing. She advised that Ms. Palmer had been working in public health for 18 years and was a leading tobacco-control expert in Clark County. Ms. Foley confirmed that much of the testimony that Ms. Palmer planned to provide was discussed by Ms. Hughes and offered to answer questions.
Chairman Anderson called the committee’s attention to Ms. Palmer and requested Ms. Foley remain available at the witness table.
Ms. Palmer confirmed that she was testified on behalf of the Clark County Health District in support of A.B. 159 and read from a prepared statement (Exhibit G). She outlined that most individuals spent 90 percent of their time in two microenvironments: home and work. Those who either worked or lived with smokers were at greater risk. Time spent and the concentrations of smoke in those environments were factors. She discussed annual tobacco-related deaths and those health conditions adversely affected by tobacco smoke. In closing, she advised that it was Clark County’s opinion that “no worker should be forced to sacrifice his or her health to maintain a job” and urged the bill’s passage.
Mr. Nolan asked if Ms. Palmer could advise the committee of approximately what percentage of the population were smokers today; specifically, southern and northern Nevada, if possible. Ms. Palmer responded that Nevada had the highest smoking rate in the nation. Thirty-three percent of adult Nevadans smoked as did 33 percent of high school youth. Nevada was higher even than any of the tobacco-producing states.
Chairman Anderson requested that Ms. Foley provide the statistical support of those numbers to Mr. Anthony, Committee Researcher, for entry into the record. He continued that Dr. Pritsos and Mr. Matheis addressed similar statistics that may allow for cross-coordination.
Chairman Anderson noted the number of witnesses waiting to testify on A.B. 159 and requested that witnesses not revisit previously provided testimony. He addressed Maureen Brower who represented the American Cancer Society and asked if she wished to testify or to go on record.
Maureen Brower, Director of Government Relations at Wadhams & Akridge, affirmed that the American Cancer Society supported bills that helped reduce the risk of cancer. The ACS took a very strong stand against smoking and was very much in favor of A.B. 159.
Chairman Anderson then polled the audience to confirm who would, whether in person or by video conferencing, be testifying before the committee on A.B. 159.
Diane Hart represented STICC (Stop Tobacco Use in Clark County) whose ultimate goal was to stop smoking in Clark County. She advised that their intermediate goal was to reduce tobacco use in Clark County, with special emphasis on second-hand smoke. STICC was in support of A.B. 159 because they felt dealers, tourists and residents who enjoyed gambling would want safe places to gamble without being subjected to second-hand smoke. She added for the record that her father, a non-smoking retiree, spent a lot of time at casino slot machines and died of emphysema.
Denise Brodsky, Executive Director for the Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition (NTPC), testified that NTPC was established nearly six years ago and that membership and activities were voluntary. Due in part to funds for the Task Force for a Healthy Nevada and various public and private resources, they now had a very clear focus and direction. Collectively, NTPC represented a diverse, statewide group of dedicated agencies and individuals whose goal was to reduce the high prevalence of tobacco use in Nevada. NTPC membership included local and county health departments; community-based public health advocates such as the American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Cancer Association; various public and private health care providers and professionals such as the Nevada Tobacco Users Help Line, Saint Mary’s Health Network, Sierra Health Services, Health Smart; the State Medical Association; Class! Publications a youth-lead organization through the Clark County School District; Expose, a Clark County Health District teen group; Tattoo, a youth-lead organization sponsored by the Lung Association and many others. NTPC believed that by working together towards tobacco-free environments, we would ultimately create a healthier Nevada. Ms. Brodsky believed there existed considerable scientific evidence that demonstrated how ETS exposure was harmful and how gaming employees were exposed to elevated levels of ETS on a daily basis.
She continued that, because of the high economic impact smoking-related diseases had on our state’s available resources, NTPC believed it was in the public’s best interest that employers be required to protect the health and well-being of not only their employees but their customers as well. She agreed with Larry Matheis that A.B. 159 provided a prime opportunity for the gaming industry to show a genuine concern for the health of Nevadans and to help craft a good public policy on tobacco use.
Chairman Anderson addressed Jack Lipsman in southern Nevada.
Mr. Lipsman represented the National Federation of Gaming Employees (NFGE) and had been involved as a plaintiff in tobacco litigation against 18 tobacco companies. He proposed protecting the state and casinos against future liability stemming from public knowledge and awareness that tobacco smoke was dangerous. Mr. Lipsman’s concern arose as a known danger currently existed in the form of smoke-infused environments and yet nothing had been done to prevent tobacco smoke within casinos. If that stance was maintained, he foresaw groups of players bringing class action suits against casinos, as well as the state, because of the preexisting knowledge of an unmitigated danger.
Mr. Lipsman testified that, as a former casino employee, he had personal knowledge of workers losing their job over body language. He confirmed that something as simple clearing the air with the hand had resulted in employees being written up and/or fired.
Mr. Nolan inquired whether the NFGE represented all dealers, including those who smoked. Mr. Lipsman responded that the federation did have smokers as members but that there was no mandatory membership. It was not a union, but a voluntary organization where dues were paid and a community voice established. Mr. Nolan continued with questioning regarding debate or discussion within the NFGE that involved input from members who smoked. Mr. Lipsman described membership communication through newsletters, letters to the editors, responses. Some dealers did not want any restrictions on smoking in the casinos because they felt it would affect their income. Those views had been discussed but, as a group, approximately 90 percent of NFGE members realized smoke-free areas would be good and appreciated the protection of their health.
Chairman Anderson, in closing discussion with Mr. Lipsman, referenced Nevada’s “at will” employment status and reminded the committee that mandatory membership within a union or group is not an employment requirement.
Sophy Block, a concerned citizen, testified before to the committee to request a place in the casinos for non-smokers because of the health risks associated with ambient smoke. She advised that, while visiting a friend in Canada, she was exposed to the arrangement where the first floor of a casino was for non-smokers and the second floor was for smokers. When a business allowed smokers to be the focal customer, they then discriminated against non-smokers. That scenario brought to her mind long ago requirements for certain individuals to sit in the back of the bus. She stated that she did not appreciate being discriminated against or controlled by a minority group. Further, that even little children knew that smoking was unhealthy and she had seen them tell their parents that it was not good to smoke. She described herself as a representative of the senior citizens who visit casinos, some of which came with oxygen tanks only to have a smoker sit down next to them. She had spoken to casino employees and they confirmed that they also were required to inhale second-hand smoke their entire shift. She referenced non-smoking theatres and showrooms and asked why separate but equal space could not be provided for smoking and non-smoking patrons. She pointed out that even the airport attempted to provide a smoke-free environment by having a separate smoking room. She said it was “time we grew up.” When a new casino was built, the first floor should be designated as non-smoking and the second floor dedicated to smokers. She expressed the desire to include smokers. She had no wish to show smokers the same disregard they had shown to non-smokers. She had written casino owners and received two replies, both positive and considerate of non-smokers.
Chairman Anderson then addressed Robin D. Camacho of the American Heart Association. She confirmed that her issues had been addressed but wished to go on record as being in support of A.B. 159.
Chairman Anderson began calling forward witnesses opposed to A.B. 159.
Harvey Whittemore, a partner with Lionel Sawyer & Collins, appeared on behalf of the Nevada Resort Association and RJ Reynolds. He began by discussing NRS 202.2491 (smoking tobacco unlawful in certain public places; posting signs; designation of areas for smoking), a public policy decision that represented over 25 years of balancing the interests of smokers and non-smokers in the state of Nevada. NRS 202.24915 (smoking tobacco allowed under certain circumstances in certain stores that are principally devoted to sale of food for human consumption off premises) made it clear that when a business derived more than half its gross receipts from the sale of alcoholic beverages or from gaming operations, the operator could designate the entire business as a smoking area. He stated Subsection 6(b) indicated that a licensed gaming establishment might designate separate rooms or areas within the establishment that may or may not be used for smoking. Again, discretion was left to the operator to designate what area or areas would be used for smoking or non-smoking. Mr. Whittemore pointed out that Subsection 4 indicated “the operator of a restaurant with a seating capacity of 50 or more shall maintain a flexible non-smoking area within the restaurant and offer each patron the opportunity to be seated in a smoking or non-smoking area.” He stated the balance reflected in the public policy of the state of Nevada allowed individuals to designate for themselves upon arrival at the restaurant whether they wished to sit in a smoking or non-smoking area.
Mr. Whittemore in essence testified that the Nevada Resort Association and RJ Reynolds felt that gambling was an adult choice and that if individuals did not wish to gamble at a particular facility, perhaps because of environmental tobacco smoke, that those individuals had the right to gamble somewhere else, perhaps a facility with a non-smoking area. He stated that gaming establishments, as good competitors, would respond by creating more non-smoking areas if customer demand showed a need. Visitors who gamble raised revenue for Nevada and that allowed gaming establishments to provide funds for state operations. Mr. Whittemore discussed the differences if state funds were based on net revenue as opposed to gross revenues. He referenced non-smoking only casinos that had failed. He testified that the gaming industry was concerned with employee health and safety as well as visitor health and safety. He disagreed with the suggestion that gaming establishments had exposure to lawsuits for by offering adult choices. He felt it flew in the face of 40 years of Nevada judicial decision-making as Nevada had a history of making people responsible for their choices.
In reference to casino employees suing the tobacco industry in class action cases, Mr. Whittemore advised that an advisory opinion was requested of the Nevada Supreme Court regarding medical monitoring. The Supreme Court responded that medical monitoring was not required in the state of Nevada and whether the case could be carried forward was another issue. He referred to the Dram shop legislation within the past ten years – a server not responsible for patron’s subsequent injury-causing conduct. He testified that individuals who chose to work in the gaming industry knew the dangers when they chose that employment. The gaming industry focused on satisfying patron desire, including the desire to smoke whenever patrons chose to do so.
Mr. Nolan asked whether OSHA was contacted on the issue of second-hand smoke in casinos and, if so, what were the findings. Were any investigations performed? Mr. Whittemore responded that there had been numerous requests regarding casino exhaust systems, which are very state of the art. He stated that the gaming industry did a very good job of removing second-hand smoke.
Chairman Anderson then readdressed Mr. Matheis’ point relative to the size of particular establishments in the resort industry and Ms. Block’s reference to Canadian casinos with respect to layout. Had the casinos taken those concepts into consideration when they designed and constructed those new, big resorts, in Las Vegas over the last ten years?
Mr. Whittemore responded that, yes, he felt that those desires and the public’s concerns had been reflected in the types of facilities built. He advised that there had been greater attention to detail in breaking up casino space so that non-smoking areas could be designated. He also suggested representatives attend meetings where individuals in attendance said “we like the way that you impose responsibility for personal decisions in the state of Nevada.” Mr. Whittemore reiterated that adults make adults choices, including the choice to smoke, and that he did not believe it “incumbent upon us to tell the state’s largest industry how to run their businesses without assuming some of the risk associated with making those decisions.” He again discussed the tax system and suggested that if the gaming industry was taxed on net amounts, then the state “could be involved in making those decisions and being our partner” because the state would also suffer if its decisions “reflected adversely on our performance ….” He stated that, as it stood, any decisions that impacted negatively on the gaming industry’s bottom line were not reflected in state receipts. He did not see the need to revisit that issue on any level. The issue had been worked on during the three previous sessions and he felt a fair compromise was adopted. Non-smoking areas were provided with respect to the eating areas, casino operators should not all of a sudden be required to provide non-smoking gaming areas.
Chairman Anderson voiced his appreciation for the tax contributions provided to the state of Nevada by the gaming industry, but he reminded the attendants at large that gaming was a privileged industry within Nevada and, as such, it would be regulated as was in the best interest of citizens and visitors. Mr. Whittemore confirmed their awareness of these facts.
Mr. Carpenter asked Mr. Whittemore why he believed the non-smoking establishment failed. Mr. Whittemore responded that he felt Mr. Carpenter had asked a very good question. He believed that the mix of gaming customers needed a higher percentage of smoking customers to survive. He suggested that smokers constituted between one-third and two-thirds of casino patrons; from 50 to 60 percent. Therefore, it was his opinion that a non-smoking casino would appeal to a much smaller population and the demand had not been sufficient to allow the facilities to operate profitably.
Chairman Anderson called Mr. Jack Jeffrey to the witness table. Mr. Jeffrey identified himself as representing Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco Company. He believed that Mr. Whittemore covered most of his testimony so he wanted to go on record as agreeing that the bill pertained to how a business should be run. He was a professional electrician and, although he had not worked as such for “a number of years,” he testified that he had worked on most of the casinos in Las Vegas. It was his opinion that “they do a very good job of handling environmental tobacco smoke, it’s built into their air conditioning systems and they handle it very well.” He believed that the picture painted during this meeting of smoke-filled casinos was erroneous. He felt anyone could see that when they walked into the establishments. The casinos were very mindful of the customers’ comfort and took care of their customers.
Chairman Anderson called Peter Kruger, State Executive for Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association (NPMCSA), to the witness table. Mr. Kruger introduced himself and called the committee’s attention to page 2, line 29, of A.B. 159 which discussed gaming establishments. He pointed out that all meeting discussion so far had involved casinos. Dependent upon bill interpretation and/or composition, it would affect restricted as well as unrestricted gaming license holders. NPMCSA members generally held restricted gaming licenses. Therefore, a convenience store, which normally encompassed approximately 1,500 square feet, to the rare 3,000 to 4,000 square foot store, would come under the same terms and conditions of A.B. 159. He advised that it was completely impossible with existing convenient stores to design separate gaming areas and accomplish the desire of the bill’s proponents. NPMCSA was opposed to the bill. NPMCSA viewed A.B. 159 as a broad-brush approach to a problem that had been testified on by the major, unrestricted gaming license holders. But as written, NPMCSA saw A.B. 159 affecting retailers as well as unrestricted license holders.
Deborah Sheltra introduced herself. She was the owner of the Shortstop Market, a “mom and pop” convenience store in the Reno area. Her corporation was over 25 years old. She advised that there was no way she could separate her gaming into two different areas. She explained that stores today could only be licensed for seven machines, her store was “grandfathered in” for 12 machines. Her gambling clients were local citizens who choose to patronize her store. She tried very hard to enforce the existing law. She testified that she had never received any assistance from the Washoe County Health Department as far as violators walking in her store with cigarettes. She was an enforcer of that law. She only allowed cigarettes in the gaming area. She had a deli license and, although her eating area did not seat 50 people, she had it as far from the gaming area as store configuration allowed. She did not own the building, which was built in 1963. She ventilated as well as she could but had no control over upgrading the ventilation system. She reiterated that she would not be able to separate the two sections and live up to the non-smoking portion if A.B. 159 were passed. Passage would force her store to become a non-smoking store even when, to her knowledge, every one of her gaming clients were smokers. She urged this committee to either exempt businesses such as hers by amendment or to not pass A.B. 159. If a gaming area was required to be large enough to create non-smoking and smoking areas, she would be forced to terminate the gaming portion of her business because of the nature of her business and its small size. Further, gaming was an integral and necessary part of her business’s revenue stream. She informed the committee that there were approximately 800 convenience stores in the state of Nevada and she estimated that they each employed at least 5 to 10 people. With respect to convenience stores alone, A.B. 159 would be harming a substantial part of Nevada economy and she asked “please save us.”
Due to Ms. Sheltra’s recent arrival, Chairman Anderson readdressed Mr. Matheis’ testimony on behalf of the Nevada State Medical Association. The Chair confirmed that A.B. 159 may require review with respect to the applicable size of casinos. A change of that sort may exclude small establishments such as hers. He suggested that such an amendment might raise her comfort level. At Ms. Sheltra’s inquiry, Chairman Anderson stated that such an amendment might be specified as pertaining to unrestricted gaming establishments, as opposed to restricted gaming license holders such as convenience stores.
After calling for questions from the committee, the Chair then called Mary Lau and Samuel McMullen to the witness table.
Mary Lau, Executive Director of Retail Association of Nevada (RAN), introduced herself and advised that she was testifying in opposition to A.B. 159. She confirmed that opposing testimony that had gone before applied to her position as well and limited her remarks. RAN, by configuration was a self-insured group, which had several small casinos as members. The only other thing that she desired to add was that, in a way, A.B. 159 qualified as a “smokers’ rights” bill. Ms. Lau stated she happened to smoke and that took away the option of restaurants closing down completely and not providing a smoking area. Further, several restaurants and small casinos enforced a no smoking rule during certain times of the day. A.B. 159 said “shall provide” which may be used for smoking.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged the dual nature, both personal and professional, of Ms. Lau’s testimony before calling forward Mr. McMullen.
Samuel McMullen addressed the committee on behalf of RAN. He wished to reiterate that a capital issue was discussed also because of how the bill was written. Creating a separate area for a business would require capital construction. Although not a small cost item, he did not address that matter further as most of the committee was in attendance last session when that subject was discussed at length. He confirmed that it was an economic issue and recited an approximation that 70 percent of gamblers were smokers. He advised that the issue needed to be toyed with very carefully since the consequences were very large and important. And, as Mary Lau advised, the smaller the business, the more important the issue became.
Chairman Anderson called for further testimony, whether for, against or neutral, and from either Carson City or via video conferencing from Las Vegas, before closing the meeting on A.B. 159. He instructed that the bill be brought back to committee.
The Chair then, because of the lateness of the time, discussed presentment or rescheduling of Assemblywoman Angle’s bill, A.B. 168. He voiced his concern over rescheduling due to the already long wait by witnesses who appeared with respect to A.B. 168. He asked for Assemblywoman Angle’s decision whether or not to proceed at that time. Chairman Anderson polled the audience to confirm the number of those wishing to testify on A.B. 168 before calling Assemblywoman Angle to the witness table.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 168.
Assembly Bill 168: Makes various changes related to smoking and selling tobacco. (BDR 15-91)
Chairman Anderson acknowledged Assemblywoman Angle’s guest speakers and confirmed that he wanted to be certain that they had an opportunity to speak.
Assemblywoman Sharron Angle introduced herself as representing District 29 and the sponsor of A.B. 168. She stated that she had brought the bill last session as A.B. 502 of the Seventieth Session (prohibited smoking of tobacco in all public areas of stores principally devoted to sale of food for human consumption off premises of store) and how the issue of smoking in grocery stores was again compromised. Assemblywoman Angle requested that the photographs be circulated as a whole, but that neither the photos nor the handout should be classified as exhibits.
Assemblywoman Angle continued, reiterating that the health issues addressed in A.B. 502 of the Seventieth Session and now as A.B. 168 were not something that should be compromised again, especially where children and seniors were involved. She stated that whether or not to enter a grocery store to shop was not a choice. It was a necessity. She understood that gamers were generally smokers but she submitted to the committee that, when the numbers include children and seniors, smokers are no longer the majority.
Assemblywoman Angle informed the committee that her own family was affected by issues addressed in A.B. 168. Approximately 22 years ago she took her then three-year-old son to a doctor who informed them that he had allergic asthma and that it was brought on by passive or active smoking. The doctor advised her son that if he ever smoked he would die. The doctor also told them that they needed to avoid smoke because there was nothing that could be done to immunize her son against environmental tobacco smoke. Consequently, her son spent countless hours in emergency rooms where his lungs were ventilated due to asthma attacks triggered by exposure to allergens. The effect experienced by Assemblywoman Angle’s son during an attack was the sensation that he was drowning in his own body fluid. It was an experience that was extremely frightening for a small child and his parents. A few months after the doctor’s instructions, Assemblywoman Angle’s son went to his grandmother and sat on her lap. His grandmother was a long-time smoker and his grandfather had recently died from emphysema complicated by a lifetime of smoking. Her son sat there and, looking up at her, told his grandmother that her smoking was going to kill both of them but that he still loved her anyway. His grandmother quit smoking that very day and has not smoked since. She did that for her grandson.
Assemblywoman Angle stated that she brought A.B. 168 for another child, and that she wanted to introduce Stephanie Glantz. She stated that Stephanie was seven when the bill was introduced the first time and that Stephanie was now nine and one half years old. Stephanie Glantz came to Assemblywoman Angle as a constituent from her district and told her that she could not go to the grocery store with her mother because she had asthma. When she did enter a grocery store, she was exposed to smoke that affected her lungs. Assemblywoman Angle then turned testimony over to Ms. Glantz.
Before Stephanie Glantz began her testimony, Chairman Anderson asked that Assemblywoman Angle introduce her other guest speaker. Assemblywoman Angle then introduced Ms. Hayley Glantz and advised that she had also prepared a statement. In an effort to ensure that the young girls testifying before the committee were put at ease, Chairman Anderson took a moment to explain standard procedure and its purpose. His main concern was that those listening would be able to distinguish Stephanie’s voice from Hayley’s and vice versa.
Stephanie Glantz then introduced herself before reading from her prepared statement (Exhibit H) wherein she voiced her concern that she could not enter a grocery store without harmful health consequences. Further, she informed the committee that a family member had recently passed away from the effects of tobacco. Chairman Anderson then acknowledged Hayley Glantz once more and requested she proceed. Hayley Glantz then introduced herself and read her prepared presentation (Exhibit I). Hayley testified that she had had to watch family members suffer and, although she herself did not suffer from asthma, it “doesn’t mean it’s [smoke is] not bad.”
Mr. Nolan voiced his appreciation for Stephanie Glantz and Hayley Glantz’s testimony. He inquired whether Stephanie experienced a reaction every time she entered a grocery store. If not, what was being done differently to avoid the cigarette smoke. Stephanie responded that her mother carried an inhaler with her in case Stephanie’s “chest gets tight.” Even with that precaution, she passed out and was rushed to the hospital after walking through an airport full of smoke.
Mr. Nolan inquired whether Stephanie always accompanied her mother to the grocery store. Stephanie’s response was that she did not always go because of the smoke. At Mr. Nolan’s further question, she advised that, no, she did not have a reaction every time she went to the store but, yes, she did try to avoid areas in which people were smoking.
Chairman Anderson also complimented Stephanie and Hayley Glantz for testifying and, in relating the power of their voices today, shared a family story of his own describing the circumstances under which his own wife quit smoking.
Assemblywoman Angle pointed out that the photos circulated among the committee members showed the gaming areas within some Reno grocery stores. She described how baggers and cashiers were required to work their entire shifts near those smoking areas. It was not only small children passing through the smoking areas who were exposed. Although the bill did not specify large grocery stores, she admitted her willingness to consider supportive amendments that discussed excluding small convenience stores. She stated that convenience stores were not the focus but that the bill was proposed because of conditions prevalent in large grocery stores.
Chairman Anderson reminded the committee that there was a similar bill before the last legislative session that required new construction to have a specific ventilating system within a specific area. He did not believe there had been much construction in that area yet.
Chairman Anderson called forward Gale Thomssen, Project Director for Carson Advocates for Cancer Care (CACC). Ms. Thomssen introduced herself and identified CACC as a local group that served cancer patients in five counties. She agreed that smoking was an adult choice. However, for most people, going to the grocery store was not a choice, it is a routine necessity. Because of the placement of gaming machines, everyone must to pass by them and, consequently, must pass through smoke generated by gamers. “If you are smelling it [tobacco smoke], you are breathing it.” Pursuant to her handout (Exhibit J), Ms. Thomssen set forth some of the most common ingredients in cigarettes: nicotine; ammonia; nitro benzene; polyurethane; butane, which was found in lighter fluid; histamine, which caused allergies and reactions; toluene; arsenic, a poison; naphthalene; acetone; DDT; DBC; steric acid; formaldehyde. She reminded the meeting at large that when most in attendance were growing up, science classes had frogs preserved in formaldehyde. She continued that formaldehyde was no longer allowed in schools because of the danger. She reiterated that those ingredients are inhaled every time an individual passed through smoking areas.
Upon Chairman Anderson’s calling her forward, Colleen C. Hughes briefly reintroduced herself as representing Barbara Hunt, Health Officer for Washoe County District Health, and referred to her handout (Exhibit K). She advised that she also represented about 42 agencies in Reno that had come together as Washoe County Tobacco Control Coalition (WCTCC). WCTCC was very much in support of A.B. 168. She felt that her testimony on A.B. 159 applied equally to A.B. 168. That simply separating smokers and non-smokers within the same space might reduce but would not eliminate involuntary exposure to ETS. A non-smoker walking through a grocery store to make their necessary food purchases was still subjected to or bombarded by air-borne carcinogenic compounds from smokers in the slot machine area. WCTCC requested the Seventy-First Legislative Session seriously consider A.B. 168 as it would reduce the dangers of second-hand smoke for all individuals who patronized their local grocery stores.
Chairman Anderson called Dr. Chris Pritsos to the witness table. Dr. Pritsos testified in support of A.B. 168 and advised that his handout (Exhibit L) consisted of statistics and a brief bibliography. The focus of Dr. Pritsos’ testimony was that data presented by health officials was filtered through many steps before being presented. He advised that when the opponents of A.B. 168 testified, there would not be a large group of health officials lined up to argue against the bill. The reason was that the facts were clear. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is harmful. If he were to tell the committee that he thought that 1,000 Nevadans died each month because of ETS exposure incurred while walking through a grocery store, he was sure the committee would demand that he prove it. That would be the correct response. What happened, however, was that opponents provided statements that were not true and were not validated. For instance, he had heard that most people who gamble in Nevada were smokers. That was not true. It was a belief perpetuated by the gaming industry but for which there had not been a valid study performed to support those findings. Dr. Pritsos referred to a study performed on behalf of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, which showed that approximately one-third of gaming patrons were smokers. He advised that people might testify that banning of smoking in the gaming portion of grocery stores would cause them to lose significant business. Dr. Pritsos requested that the committee challenge those requests and demand data to support of that position.
Chairman Anderson then inquired whether Mr. Matheis had any further information he felt he needed to present to the committee. He then indicated that it was his intention to leave the record open in the event Mr. Matheis had a particular statement he wished to submit. As it was not his intention to take additional testimony that had already been covered, the Chair offered the same opportunity to Ms. Foley on behalf of the Clark County Health District; to Ms. Brower on behalf of the American Cancer Society; and to Ms. Camacho on behalf of the American Heart Association.
Robin D. Camacho’s handout (Exhibit M) reiterated that citizens, “through no fault of their own,” were dying of tobacco-related illnesses. She presented the example of a personal friend who had never smoked but who was diagnosed with emphysema. She referenced many of the main causes of death as being tobacco related. She specified A.B. 168 as an issue of “the appropriateness of smoking in spaces where nonsmokers have no choice but to visit.” Ms. Camacho provided a report entitled, “Estimated Annual Morbidity and Morality in Nonsmokers Associated with ETS Exposure.” Attached thereto was a handout entitled, “Facts About Secondhand Smoke.”
Chairman Anderson then called forward Harvey Whittemore and requested that he present a summary statement and whatever he had prepared as the Chair intended to leave the record open for further submission by Mr. Whittemore, if needed.
Mr. Whittemore thanked Chairman Anderson for allowing further submission as needed. He reintroduced himself as appearing with respect to A.B. 168 on behalf of RJ Reynolds Company and BP Amoco. He stated that the Nevada Resort Association was not taking a position with respect to A.B. 168. He felt that the bottom line on A.B. 168 was whether it was time appropriate, or whether the balance reached last session needed to be revisited. He believed the committee’s judgment that the separation take place in the future was a wise decision. The balance reached “put people on notice” that steps needed to be taken to restrict smoking in grocery stores from impacting on health related matters. He reminded the committee that a January 1, 2010 deadline already existed by which stores “principally devoted to the sale of food for human consumption off the premises” were required to comply. That deadline dealt with separation of smokers and non-smokers that included ventilation and remodeling. Mr. Whittemore felt it was not appropriate to readdress or reschedule a deadline just two years after its creation. He confirmed that BP Amoco would be pleased with an amendment that excluded BP Amoco. RJ Reynolds, however, did not appreciate a difference between small stores and larger ones. Although RJ Reynolds questioned whether A.B. 168 was appropriate, they pledged to cooperate with any amendment of A.B. 168 the Chairman directed.
Chairman Anderson reiterated that the record be left open with particular concern as to some of the questions raised in earlier testimony. He requested that the committee researcher be provided with the material discussed.
The Chair then called forward Mary Lau and Samuel McMullen of RAN and confirmed that he was leaving the record open.
Samuel P. McMullen, representing the Retail Association of Nevada, introduced Mary Lau, RAN’s executive director. He agreed that the committee was dealing with a question of balance. He also felt that the issues raised by A.B. 168 should not be addressed again. He advised that RAN’s membership had looked hard at the smoking issue and were working towards the previously established deadline.
Chairman Anderson addressed Ms. Lau and was advised that she had nothing further to add before calling on those persons testifying by video conferencing from Las Vegas. He inquired whether any witness in the south had testimony to present that had not previously been addressed.
Jeanne Palmer of the Clark County Health District (Exhibit N) testified in support of A.B. 168. She stated that “balance” had been discussed a great deal. However, she believed the issue was not balance, but “public health.” As a county health official, she testified that Nevada had a crisis and needed to take action.
Chairman Anderson questioned Ms. Palmer on her level of awareness of the previous legislation regarding statutory deadlines and actions. She was aware of the actions required by 2010 but felt something had to be done now.
Chairman Anderson called the last witness forward and Ms. Blayne Perry introduced herself as a concerned citizen and a representative of victims of lung cancer, “as they are not alive to speak for themselves.” She testified that her mother, a non-smoker, died of lung cancer on November 17, 1999. Ms. Perry learned many things during her mother’s illness that were not available to the general public. She stated that even today, in 2001, if an individual were diagnosed with lung cancer it was a death sentence as no cure existed. It was only discovered in its final stages when it was too late to treat. She advised that, because of a wealthy family member, her mother was afforded the best information possible. That included a visit to the Moffitt H. Lee Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, part of the University of Tampa, where the most up‑to-date lung cancer research was conducted. A Dr. Ructashaw (phonetic spelling provided) drew a diagram for Ms. Perry and her mother and explained that lung cancer, as with most other cancers, was biological. She learned that no one was exempt from a “horrible disease” as triggers in one’s environment caused it. Further, she learned that it was ten-year cycle from the time a cell mutates and an individual gets cancer until the time of death. Ms. Perry stated her support A.B. 168 because she did not believe that mothers, children, or she should be exposed to the possibility of “catching” lung cancer just by entering a public place such as a grocery store. She closed by stating that “until this happens to you or one of your loved ones, you will never understand.”
Chairman Anderson thanked Ms. Perry for her testimony and acknowledged that there was a huge emotional drain when testifying on something so personal as the loss of a loved one.
The Chair then reminded the committee members with regard to the joint meeting scheduled for the next day before adjourning the meeting at 10:46 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl O'Day
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: