MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-Second Session

March 18, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:18 a.m., on Tuesday, March 18, 2003.  Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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.

 

Note:  These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style.  Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony.  Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. John Oceguera, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. David Brown

Mr. John C. Carpenter

Mr. Jerry D. Claborn

Mr. Marcus Conklin

Mr. Jason Geddes

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mr. William Horne

Mr. Garn Mabey

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

Mr. Rod Sherer

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

 

Ms. Barbara Buckley (excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

 

Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr., District No. 4, Clark County

Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, District No. 6, Clark County

 

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Allison Combs, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary

 

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Helen A. Foley, representing Clark County Health District, Las Vegas, Nevada

Jeanne Palmer, Clark County Health District, Las Vegas, Nevada

Barbara Hunt, R.N., M.P.A., District Health Officer, Washoe County District Health Department, Reno, Nevada

Dr. Mary Guinan, Executive Director, Nevada Public Health Foundation, Reno, Nevada

Dr. Shaun Ameli, Nevada Cardiology Associates, Chief of Cardiology, Mountain View Hospital, Las Vegas, Nevada; President-elect, American Heart Association; and member of the national faculty of the American Heart Association

Bill Gregory, representing Station Casinos, Las Vegas, Nevada

Sean T. Higgins, General Counsel, Herbst Gaming, Inc., representing Nevada Retail Gaming Association, Las Vegas, Nevada

Laurie Headrick, Environmental Scientist, CH2MHILL, and Nevada State Certified Environmental Manager

Jim Avance, Nevada Retail Gaming Association, Reno, Nevada, representing slot route operators and Herbst Gaming

Sam McMullen, McMullen Strategic Group, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce

Mary F. Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada, Carson City, Nevada

Peter Krueger, State Executive, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association, Reno, Nevada

Van V. Heffner, President and CEO, Nevada Hotel & Lodging Association and Nevada Restaurant Association, Las Vegas, and a Commissioner of Tourism for the state of Nevada

Joe Guild, representing the United States Smokeless Tobacco, Inc.

Bob Price, former Nevada Assemblyman, representing Assemblyman Bob McCleary, District No. 11, Clark County

Buffy Gail Martin, Government Relations Director, American Cancer Society, Reno, Nevada

Larry Matheis, Executive Director, Nevada State Medical Association, Reno, Nevada

Brooke Wong, American Lung Association

Bonnie Parnell, representing The Nevada League of Women Voters and the Nevada PTA

 

 

Chairman Anderson:

I call the Assembly Committee on Judiciary to order.  I would like to remind everyone that our meetings are now broadcast on the Internet and, of course, I would remind members who sometimes forget that these microphones are always live and should anticipate the fact that people are paying attention. 

 

[Roll called.] 

 

Mrs. Angle is attending another conference in southern Nevada, on a board to which she is appointed, so she is excused; it is her intention to be in the [Grant] Sawyer [State Office] Building at a time certain, so we can hopefully help her out and make sure her testimony is taken. 

 

[The Chair reminded the Committee members and those present in the audience of the Standing Rules and appropriate meeting etiquette.]

 

Between now and 10:50 a.m., we are going to try to hear all three of these bills.  They are similar in nature.  If the information you are giving applies to all three bills, I do not believe it is necessary for you to restate that information again for the second or third time because the Committee hears the same pieces of information.  Although if you have documentation that you put together for these bills, I want to make sure that you have them included in the record. 

 

There is no magic particular order, other than some of these are recycled.  Some of us have heard these a couple of times.  Of course, we have a dramatically new Committee.  Everybody in the front row out there from left to right are freshman members of the Committee today, even though they have been here in the building for some time.  They have not been on the [Assembly Committee on] Judiciary; this is their first session.  Let us turn our attention to Assembly Bill 96.

 

Assembly Bill 96:  Revises provisions governing smoking of tobacco in public places. (BDR 15-423)

 

Helen A. Foley, representing Clark County Health District:

[Introduced herself and Barbara Hunt.]  Assembly Bill 96 is a response to ballot questions that were on the ballots in Clark and Washoe Counties during the November [2002] election.  I believe all of you have seen “Nevadans Speak Out on Tobacco” (Exhibit C) that was developed by the American Heart Association.  In the front of it, it has some polling questions and then in the back it talks specifically about the two advisory questions. 

 

In Washoe County, the first advisory question was question 8; in Clark County, it was question 12.  But they were identical.  It asked, “Should the County Board of Health be able to adopt regulations that are stronger than state law in order to protect people from secondhand smoke?”  It specifically stated that this would not include businesses that exclude persons under the age of 21.

 

The second ballot question, again identical in both counties, stated, “Should secondhand smoke be completely prohibited by state law in places frequented by children such as schools, grocery stores, restaurants, and government buildings?”

 

The results of those ballot questions we have broken down by legislative district.  And I believe that almost all of you have had an opportunity to take a look at what the results were in your districts.  For the two counties, which represent almost 90 percent of the population, the first ballot question on local control passed by 57 percent, and the second, the prohibition on secondhand smoke, broken down by legislators, passed by 67 percent.  These issues are not new to the Legislature, but we do believe that this time we really were able to get a strong consensus by Nevada voters of how they feel about secondhand smoke.  

 

Today, you will be hearing from several authorities in the area including Ms. Hunt; Jeanne Palmer of the Clark County Health District in southern Nevada; Robin Comacho from the [American] Heart Association; Dr. Sean Ameli, who is a cardiologist in southern Nevada; Dr. Mary Guinan, who is head of the Public Health Foundation for the state of Nevada and the former Health Officer for the state of Nevada and quite an authority.  We also have Kendall Stagg from the Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition, Darryl Thompson from Teachers Health Trust in Clark County, three students from Carson City High School, and we have a restaurant owner, Gregg Butler, from Buenos Grill in Reno.  I have talked to the Chairman of the Committee and he has instructed me that we will be very brief, we will not duplicate what we want to say, and we will get this show on the road. 

 

I would like to briefly go through this bill and tell you what it is and what it is not before we get our authorities up here to discuss more of the rationale for it.  It was shocking to me to discover when I first started representing the [Clark County] Health District that regardless of what other people tell you, I will tell you the only two places in Nevada where there is an absolute ban on smoking is in elevators and public buses.  Now when you take a look on page 1, the policy of the state of Nevada is to place restrictions on smoking of tobacco in public places for human health and safety, and it goes on in Section 2 about how there will not be any smoking done in these locations.  But then as you move through the actual current law, it says “however,” and it gives you all of these exemptions. 

 

In fact, in public buildings, meaning in schools and all government buildings in this state, it is against the law for any administrator or anyone in charge of those buildings such as the county commission, city council, to ban smoking 100 percent, because it says they “shall have smoking sections.”  And as all of you know, “shall” means “must” in Nevada law.  “May” is permissive; “shall” is mandatory.  So every public building must have smoking; that is outrageous.  That is outrageous that should be the case, but it is.  So this law attempts to change that.  We have followed very closely what the ballot questions were in this. 

 

We start out in subsection 4 of Section 1, giving local board of health authority to develop and adopt restrictions that are more stringent than state law.  I would have preferred to have two bills:  one discussing what the Legislature would do, and the other [discussing] what the local governments would do.  But, Clark County had one bill draft and said, “You’ve got it, so put the two together.”  I am sure that you will all decide what avenue you would like and what sections of the bill you think are appropriate. 

 

Then we get into Section 2, where there is a ban in public elevators, “Hurray,” we have kept that, [and] public buildings or the grounds of public buildings and within 100 feet of the door.  Then we go down [to] child care facilities, you have a ban there.  We get to the new sections on line 38, Section 2, restaurants, school buildings or school property, malls containing retail establishments that are open to the public, retail establishments open to the public, movie theaters, and video arcades.  The reason why so much language is deleted from subsection 2 is because that is where they would be mandated to designate separate rooms in those places for smoking and signage and things like that.  If we have taken all the smoking out, they do not have to worry about all of that signage and identifying the locations. 

 

We have specifically exempted two different types of businesses from this legislation.  One is areas of non-restricted gaming establishments, where gaming is conducted; that means a casino.  You have to have 15 slot machines to be a casino.  If you are a restaurant, a grocery store, a convenience store, a bar, you have fewer than 15 slot machines.  So you have to have a non-restricted gaming license to fall under this exemption.  Now we do say in here that it is where gaming is conducted other than a restaurant, within that gaming establishment.  So as an example, if you had a Keno board in a restaurant, that would not exempt you from the bill.  So it would be where people are gambling within a non-restricted gaming establishment, within a casino; they would be able to smoke.  If people go into the restaurant, then there would be a ban on smoking. 

 

The other business that we have exempted from this legislation is bars; bars are exempt.  And the reason why we have done that is because we geared this to secondhand smoke and specifically children inhaling secondhand smoke.  You are going to hear from the health authorities [regarding] the severe danger of secondhand smoke.  Some people think, “Well, it is a right for me to smoke.”  I say, “It is a right for me not to smoke; when it hits my nose then it is my right not to have to inhale that cigarette smoke.”  We believe that an establishment such as a bar, children are not allowed in those bars and adults have a choice whether to go there or not. 

 

Adults really should not have to decide, “Do I want to go to the grocery store?  Oh, I better not because I do not want to inhale that cigarette smoke.”  That should not be the case.  Unfortunately, it is today, and there are severe asthmatics that simply cannot go to grocery stores because as we all know the gaming is conducted right in the front of the store and that is where the smoking is, in the gaming area.  Although they are supposed to have ventilation systems and shield the public from that smoke, it does not happen.  We have handed out some packets (Exhibit H) today and you can see in the back some of the photographs of grocery stores, convenience stores, when you cannot avoid the secondhand smoke. 

 

But we believe that bars are a location where you have a choice to go in or not.  If you want to go in and inhale that smoke that is your business.  The way we describe a bar is the legal way in Nevada, and that is on line 43 of page 3, “a business other than a restaurant, which derives more than 50 percent of its gross receipts from the sale of alcoholic beverages, which are consumed on the premises.”  That is a bar. 

 

Then we get into the issue of schools.  December 14, 2001, the Clark County School District proposed a law for schools that there would be no smoking on school property.  They were informed regrettably by their legal counsel that it violated state law for them to do that.  The Clark County School District was not allowed to ban smoking in Clark County schools because the Legislature has said specifically that they are not allowed to do that.  Sad commentary.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Whereabouts at school are they allowed to smoke?  Are they allowed to smoke in the classroom? 

 

Helen Foley:

No, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Are they allowed to smoke in the hallway?

 

Helen Foley:

They are allowed in specific designated smoking areas or outside. 

 

Chairman Anderson:

Students are?

 

Helen Foley:

Students are not, but the state law even says that the school district need not provide smoking areas for children.  What?  They “need not”?  That is what is says in the state law right now.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I guess I question that since in my other job I spend a good deal of time in school and I do not see students smoking in schools.  In fact, every school that I have ever taught in, for a mere 32 years, has not allowed in the classrooms, in the hallways, the students to smoke on the physical property of the school.  I teach at the high school level.  Now maybe that is just Washoe County, I am not talking about Clark County.

 

Helen Foley:

Mr. Chairman, I cannot imagine any school in the state of Nevada allowing children to smoke.  It does not happen.  But state law allows them to and it says the school district need not provide that smoking area for children.  I think that this law needs to be updated.

 

Chairman Anderson:

But it does allow it for adults, then.

 

Helen Foley:

Yes, it does.  It allows specific smoking areas.  We do have representatives from the Clark County School District, Rose McKinney-James, as well as Darryl Thomas from the Teachers’ [Health] Trust, and Debbie Cahill is here.  They can answer more specific questions.  We also have three students from Carson City High School; they live it every day.  I will just gloss over it and let them get into it a bit.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I do not want you to gloss over it; I want you to be thorough with the bill.  But it is only a five-page bill, so you get the idea.

 

Helen Foley:

We also have included a video arcade.  Under [Nevada Revised Statutes] NRS 453, that is a video arcade area that has more than ten video games.  We believed that although that was not specifically in the ballot question, the advisory question, we felt that those are specifically aimed at children and many times you do see smoking in those video arcade areas. 

 

And then you see the text of the repealed section.  In, I believe it was, 1997 or 1999, the Legislature allowed for ventilation of smoking areas of grocery stores.  You will see in the packet of pictures (Exhibit H) that although they have about ten years to revamp, these are open clearly to where you check in and out at the grocery store.  They refer to walls and partial walls to prevent the smoke from seeping out.  Well, if you take a look at grocery stores carefully in these areas, partial walls can mean two slot machines turned backwards.  Smoking does not stay within that area, it is not enclosed in a hermetically sealed area, it goes right out into the general public, and it is shameful that we would have any type of smoking in grocery stores.  The people of Nevada clearly spoke out, at least in Clark and Washoe Counties, that that was totally unacceptable to them.  They would like to see the Legislature ban that.

 

That is the bill, that is what it does.  I would like to have Barbara Hunt speak briefly.

 

Chairman Anderson:

[Are there any] questions for Ms. Foley?

Assemblyman Geddes:

I have two questions.  On the 100-foot rule, how did you determine the 100-foot rule?  And I ask that in a leading way; we wandered around the UNLV  [University of Nevada, Las Vegas] campus where, and my memory is escaping me, they either have a 25- or 50-foot rule.  We found most people were obeying the rule and staying beyond the 25- or 50-foot perimeter, but all the ashtrays were right in the doorway.  We had to have the ashtrays in the doorway for them to throw their cigarettes out before they went back into the building.  They would smolder and you would get that smoke appearance there.  We had a hard time trying to find any standard where it was properly set—the distance.  I am wondering where the 100-foot [rule] came from?

 

Helen Foley:

I am not sure where the 100-foot [rule] came from.  We wanted them to be far enough away.  We did not want to say “smoke outside” and then have every single person that is walking by them have to have a gas mask to get inside, so we wanted them to be a respectful distance from the building.  But that is a flexible issue; if there is a better number, we are not opposed to modifying that.  We did not want them all to cluster in front of the door.  Sometimes that is even worse than hiding away in a back room.  It can be very damaging to anybody that walks in or out of the building, besides the impression that it leaves with patrons that are coming in.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

My second question, and I have to tell you my best friend got his doctorate in secondhand smoke under Dr. [Chris] Pritsos, who is out in the audience.  I have heard on the secondhand smoke issue to no end.  But the question I have is on the local board of health.  My concern in that area comes around with… after seeing all the data, seeing the statistics, seeing those mice and ducks that were exposed, I am not sure why we would want to limit it to the local board of health and not make any issue in law a statewide law.

 

Helen Foley:

Many of your colleagues felt the same way.  As we were talking to you individually, we saw that a lot of you were concerned about a local level issue.  Many of the organizations that have been fighting secondhand smoke nationally have been concerned about local governments having greater authority.  The reason why we put Clark County Health District and Washoe County Health District or any local board of health is so that the decision would be countywide.  One concern we had was if local governments imposed these standards, one side of Sahara [Boulevard] could have one law and the other side another, which would cause a competitive disadvantage or advantage to different businesses.  If you could have an outright ban and the Legislature decided to ban smoking in schools, grocery stores, restaurants, child care facilities, all of those locations—great, absolutely.  We would be very supportive of that; we would be very supportive of any change that you make to protect the health of everyone who does not have to breathe that secondhand smoke. 

 

Chairman Anderson:

Is there an example of a state that currently utilizes a health department as the primary vehicle for making decisions relative to smoking that has its successful program in place?

 

Helen Foley:

I do not know that answer.  I think the reason why we came up with the health district, besides them being the health officers of a county, is that we did not want to have different parts of the county having different rules.  If we had the county…

 

Chairman Anderson:

That is not the question.  The question is, is there a [state] where they are currently doing it?

 

Helen Foley:

I do not know the answer; maybe, Jeanne Palmer in southern Nevada would have that answer.

 

Jeanne Palmer, Clark County Health District:

I do not know either.  We could check that out.

 

Assemblyman Gustavson:

I have always been a believer in local control, which I do believe in.  But I would still like to have you explain the rationale where you are asking us to give you local control, yet you turn around just right in the same page asking for us at a state level to restrict it in other places like movie theaters and video arcades.  That does not quite make sense to me.  If you want local control, we should have local control, I believe, and not mandated by state law.

 

Helen Foley:

I agree.  I think you have one or the other.  We had an opportunity to have one bill draft and so they are both in there.  But, I agree with you.  If you could give local control so that every individual community could decide what was best for them that would be fine.  I also, on the other hand, would love to be able to have the Legislature make these decisions affirmatively. 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

I am a little bit confused by the language on page 3, line 43, where it says, “a business other than a restaurant, which derives more than 50 percent of its gross receipts…”  In our state we have an awful lot of entities or facilities that are part bar and part restaurant.  Will they all be excluded because they are restaurants even though they may derive 50 percent of their sales from drinks?  It seems to me that phrase “other than restaurants” ought to be deleted.

 

Helen Foley:

I can see where that would appear to be confusing.  A tavern specifically has a tavern license and they do derive more than 50 percent of their gross receipts from the sale of alcohol.  I do not see why it could not say “a business which derives more than 50 percent of its income” without the words “other a restaurant.”  I know that Risa Lang worked with us on this and she might have an answer why that is there.

 

Risa Lang, Committee Counsel:

“A business other than a restaurant” excludes restaurants so that even if the restaurant did derive more than 50 percent of its gross receipts, it would not apply in restaurants.  You will notice up on line 25, the language that is crossed out was the language that was currently used in this section before this bill draft.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Sounds as if you are telling us, Ms. Lang, that the reason that is there is to guarantee that if it is a restaurant, it does not get to use as an escape clause, “I derive more than 50 percent of my income from my bar sales,” because they may have bar sales that are relatively good even though the alcohol is served in the restaurant area. 

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

Could it be that any establishment either applies for a restaurant license or a bar license?  That [question] should be directed to our Counsel.

 

Risa Lang:

This is just intended to exclude restaurants regardless of what their bar receipts are.

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

I cannot understand how you can define a restaurant when it is part bar and part restaurant.

 

Chairman Anderson:

We will take it up when we take it to work session.

 

Helen Foley:

We certainly do not want to exclude the sale of food in bars; that is not the intention in any way.  But the food should be incidental in a bar to the alcoholic beverages, rather than a full-blown restaurant.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I do not want to pick on a particular establishment, but if we were thinking of a sports bar that happens to also have an extensive menu, then you would be able to smoke in it because it is a bar?

 

Helen Foley:

That is correct, Mr. Chairman.  Most of those or, I would say, all of them have to have tavern licenses.  They have special type of licensing and they are considered bars even though they have food.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Under your interpretation, would a fairground also be a no smoking area?

 

Helen Foley:

If the fairgrounds are operated and owned by a government, yes.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

To belabor a point on the bar/restaurant or combination thereof, you also have those business that are, say for instance to pick one, like a TGIFridays or Bully’s, where on weekends, Fridays and Saturdays, they almost become like a nightclub bar, but they have extensive restaurants in those.  I would probably venture a guess that those Friday and Saturday nights their bar receipts actually go through the roof, where during the rest of the week, not so much.  It seems that they would get caught up in this when, for the most part, children are not in those places during those times.

 

Helen Foley:

That is a good point, Assemblyman Horne.  I think that is why Risa put in “other than a restaurant.”  Those locations are considered restaurants and so they would not fall under the exemption the way the bill is written.  They would not be able to have smoking.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I am sure that in your response to Mr. Carpenter, relative to the fairground question, you are talking about the fairgrounds as if they are owned as a public building.  It would fit into that statute.  It kind of depends upon whether it is a privately operated fairground area or a publicly owned facility,  correct?

 

Helen Foley:

That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

 

Barbara Hunt, R.N., M.P.A., District Health Officer, Washoe County District Health Department:

[Introduced herself and provided Exhibit D.]  I will be very brief and just agree as Ms. Foley has stated the voters of Washoe County overwhelmingly supported the provisions of A.B. 96 and the two advisory questions that were on the ballot in November [2002].  The provisions of this bill are also very high priorities for the District Board of Health.  I am speaking on behalf of the District Board of Health as well as the [Washoe County] District Health Department.  I would just add to Ms. Foley’s comments that secondhand smoke has been classified as a Group A carcinogen by the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency].  You will be hearing more health information from subsequent speakers. 

 

According to statistics compiled by the Nevada State Health Division, tobacco‑related illnesses cost Nevada residents $440 million a year in medical expenses.  This breaks down to $303 for every Nevada resident aged 15 years and older.  Of that $440 million in medical expenses, $96 million are Nevada’s Medicaid expenditures for tobacco-related illnesses, which are really a significant and preventable economic burden, which is especially dismaying at this time of fiscal crisis for the state of Nevada.  We believe that the most effective method for reducing secondhand smoke exposure and the costs associated with tobacco use is to provide smoke-free environments. 

 

Assembly Bill 96 provides you the opportunity to do just that, as well as to carry out the will of the voters of Nevada’s two most populous counties.  As Ms. Foley has indicated, our overall goal is to achieve smoke-free environments in public places in Nevada, and there are obviously a couple of ways to go to reach that objective, whether it is statewide prohibition or local control.  On behalf of the District Board of Health in Washoe County, I urge you to support passage of A.B. 96 or a modification that achieves our goal of smoke-free public places in the state of Nevada.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions for Ms. Hunt?  There are none. 

 

From the sign-in, it was my intention to go to Mr. Matheis next.  I am trying to make sure that my time is equally divided between both sides, and there are people, I believe, in the south that wanted to speak also.

 

Helen Foley:

We would love to have Mr. Matheis up.  We also have Dr. Mary Guinan and just a few people to, so that we are not taking too much time, but making sure that we get all the important points across.

 

Dr. Mary Guinan, Executive Director, Nevada Public Health Foundation:

[Introduced herself and provided Exhibit E.]  I am speaking today on the health risks of environmental tobacco smoke, especially for our children.  Ten years ago the EPA designated secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen.  This means that it is known to cause cancer in people and is estimated to cause 3,000 lung cancer deaths in non-smokers annually in the United States.  Secondhand smoke contains 4,000 substances, 43 of which are known to cause cancer.  There is no known safe level of exposure.  The effects are cumulative over a lifetime. 

 

But this information only tells a small part of the health risks.  Children exposed to secondhand smoke are increased risk for respiratory infections, ear infections, and asthma.  Environmental tobacco smoke is known to be the most potent of triggers for asthma attacks.  Children with asthma are especially sensitive to this smoke and exposure can result in increased severity of asthma attacks.  Nevada has one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country, yet we are not providing tobacco-free space for our children: not in schools, not in grocery stores, not in convenience stores, and not in most restaurants.  If there is a smoking section in a store or school, the smoke is sucked into the air circulating system and re-circulated throughout the building.  There are not separate ventilation systems.  All those chemicals in tobacco smoke are re-circulated throughout the day so it is impossible to know what the true level of exposure is at any given time. 

 

A group of teens in Washoe County who are working on making a tobacco prevention commercial have adopted the following statement to use: “Having a smoking section in a store is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.”  [Laughter from the audience.]  I believe this analogy is accurate.  I have heard the opposition testify that people “vote with their feet.”  Oh, that we had the choice.  Parents in Nevada do not have the choice of sending their children to smoke-free schools.  Many schools have smoking areas for teachers.  As for grocery stores, the Nevada Public Health Foundation requested from the Nevada Retail Grocers Association a list of grocery stores in Nevada that did not have a smoking section.  They could not provide us with a single name.  They maintained that all of the grocery stores were smoke-free except for the smoking sections.  If the stores have a smoking section, they are by definition not smoke-free.  So we cannot vote with our feet, we do not have a choice in Nevada.  We do have a growing list of restaurants where smoking is prohibited and therefore are truly smoke-free.  Unfortunately, this is still a very small percentage of Nevada restaurants.

 

Some have argued that the health risks of secondary smoke are exaggerated.  Do not be misled.  The scientific evidence has been confirmed over and over again.  For children, ear infections, respiratory infections, and asthma for the short term.  The long-term risks are still not known for childhood exposure.  The evidence for other health problems is mounting.  Last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association researchers reported that children exposed to environmental tobacco smoke were more than twice as likely as non-exposed children to show signs of tooth decay.  Nevada children have one of the highest dental decay rates in the nation.

 

What is the evidence that environmental tobacco smoke gets into the bodies of our children?  What if it is just a contaminant?  The most convincing data comes from The Centers for Disease Control, which reported that on testing a random sample of the population of the United States for environmental toxins over 50 percent of children under [the age of] 18 who did not smoke had evidence of tobacco breakdown products in their systems.  Nevada has the smallest percentage of smoke-free indoor space in the nation, and it is likely that even a higher percent of our children have been contaminated by environmental tobacco smoke.  The health risks are clear to our children; how to prevent them is also clear.  The voters in Washoe and Clark County districts have by a large margin supported banning smoking in places where children frequent.  Please support A.B. 96 and give our children smoke-free space.

 

Dr. Shaun Ameli, Nevada Cardiology Associates, Chief of Cardiology, Mountain View Hospital; President-elect, American Heart Association; and member of the national faculty of the American Heart Association:

[Introduced himself. Robin Camacho, Director of Advocacy & Communications, American Heart Association, provided Exhibit F on his behalf.]  I thank you for the opportunity to speak here; actually, I will only be presenting some facts and some very easily understood information just as it pertains to this topic.  I am not surprised to be here in a political situation or controversy, [but when it] comes to tobacco in the medical community, there is no controversy as far as the issues of smoking and its harm for children and adults, both as secondary and primary exposure. 

 

Right now, I can go on by explaining how 7,000 people die every year from secondhand smoking, which is twice the number of people dying at the World Trade Center every year.  But I can also tell you that I can take any of you to any of the intensive care units in Las Vegas, right now, and if we look at any of the patients who are on an ventilator for exposure or pneumonia or because of exacerbation of emphysema or heart attack, they have either had significant smoking history or exposure to secondhand smoking.  When I see a patient in my practice and they have had either heart disease or symptoms of heart disease, if they do not smoke now, they used to smoke, or, if neither of those has happened, secondhand smoking is my second question to ask them.  It is, invariably, “yes.” 

 

At an international conference in Stockholm, when we were present discussing effects of the environment on public health, it was very interesting to note that the state of Nevada, sandwiched between the two healthiest states of the United States, was brought as an example how environmental exposure can render two populations very closely living together have entirely opposite effects on their health.  Nevada was considered the unhealthiest state in the United States.  As was already pointed out, we also have the highest cigarette smoking per capita in this United States also. 

 

But also remember, when we see our patients who are 39 years old and I ask them how long have you been smoking and they say, “from age 13,” and they have diseases in Las Vegas that I see normally in the 80s, in their 30s and 40s, that tells us something about our state right now.  Exposure to secondhand smoking for children is clearly detrimental to their health, but also when they see their teachers, they are smoking, and they see other people smoking, it clearly is a way for them to initiate smoking.  Quitting smoking at a young age is just as difficult as at an older age. 

 

And lastly, I should point out to you, in other animals it has been shown, and now in humans it has been shown, that exposure to secondhand smoking one time results in certain reflex effects on the vasculature and arteries and blood vessels of the body that are not reversible for over three months.  These are the effects that eventually result in affective heart attack, which can happen in people a few years later.  Based on these facts, and everything else that has been presented, I thank you for your attention, and as a physician, a cardiologist, a member of the American Heart Association, and a father of two children, I urge you to pass this [A.B. 96].

 

Chairman Anderson:

In your studies, did you look at whether smoking is a learned behavior?  Acquiring the smoking habit, does it seem to be related to the fact of a smoking household?

 

Dr. Shaun Ameli:

There have many studies, not my own personal studies, but, yes, there have been many studies that exposure to cigarettes, especially in the families, clearly increases the chances of the person becoming a smoker in the future.  In fact, there has not been a genetic link in between any person that develops smoking habits at all.  Therefore, it is entirely exposure to tobacco; there is no genetic craving for becoming a tobacco smoker.

 

Chairman Anderson:

As a learned behavior of being in and around a smoker, is there an indication of the fact that the probability that you will become a smoker greater or the same as the general population?  If your parents smoked?

 

Dr. Shaun Ameli:

Greater.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I have here several people who have submitted documents to me [for the record].

 

• Mr. Darryl Thomas, [Director, Health Promotions] from the Teachers Health Trust (Exhibit G) who has sent up a lengthy document, which we will include as part of today’s record.

 

• “Secondhand Smoke and Children: Health Effects” from the Campaign for Tobacco‑Free Kids (Exhibit H), which has colored pictures and other documentation.

 

• Students from Carson High School, Sarah Ragsdale, president of Carson High School’s Teens Against Tobacco Use (Exhibit I); Ashley Bauer, sophomore at Carson High School (Exhibit J); and Maria Urbina (Exhibit K) include their testimony.

 

• Greg Brown, owner and operator of a smoke-free restaurant [Buenos Grill] (Exhibit L), including his testimony.

 

• Buffy Martin from the American Cancer Society has a document (Exhibit M) in addition.

 

• Elisa Maser, Policy Manager for the NTPC, Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition (Exhibit N). 

 

I was trying to get to the people who were not going to get called on for this particular bill.

 

Mrs. Angle, did you have a question on A.B. 96 that you wished to ask?  [No response].

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I was planning to sit in the general public until I present A.B. 202.  I do not have any questions on A.B. 96, although I do support this legislation [A.B. 96].

 

Assemblyman Mortenson:

When Nevada is characterized as having the highest consumption of cigarettes in the United States, do they take the total consumption, whoever figures this out, and divide it by the population or divide it by the population plus the 30 million visitors we have every year?  Whoever might answer that?

 

Dr. Mary Guinan:

The survey is a telephone survey done in every state the same way, and it is a random-digit-dialing survey.  The residents are asked whether they smoke, and the responses are calculated.  So it is a percentage of the population of the state; that is how it is calculated.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Anybody who feels that they have not had an opportunity to make a presentation on A.B. 96 but are waiting for one of the other presentations that I have already mentioned?  In support?

 

Bill Gregory, representing Station Casinos:

[Introduced himself.]  Station Casinos is in support of A.B. 96 with two proposed amendments.  First, we would like to see any restrictions remain at the state level and not local control for consistencies.  Second, A.B. 96 does exempt non-restricted gaming establishments where gaming is conducted.  We would like to see the entire property of a non-restricted gaming establishment exempt.  Tribal gaming in California allows smoking, California being our biggest visitor volume.  We feel that properties would be at a competitive disadvantage if that were the case, so we would just like to see the entire property exempt.  And those two would be our proposals for support. 

 

Chairman Anderson:

Including your restaurants that would be on those properties, even though the restaurant might have a self-contained building almost by itself and a separate way of entering other than passing through the casino to reach it?

Bill Gregory:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, our feeling is that people can make a choice whether or not to go into a restaurant in a gaming establishment unlike other restaurants around town.  So we would want them exempt also.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I guess I think of some of the establishments in the community in which I live, the restaurants are as big an attraction, maybe even more so than the casino itself.  I am not sure that is necessarily the case, but people go there because of the restaurant.  Thank you for your suggestion; have you put that in writing?

 

Bill Gregory:

I will get it in writing and give it to the [Committee].

 

Chairman Anderson:

Let us then move to people who have some concerns relative to the bill. 

 

Jim Avance, Nevada Retail Gaming Association, and representing slot route operators and Herbst Gaming:

I will stay, Mr. Chairman, but if I could, I would allocate my time to Mr. Higgins. [He submitted Exhibit O to be discussed by subsequent speakers.]

 

Sean T. Higgins, General Counsel, Herbst Gaming, Inc., and President of the Nevada Retail Gaming Association:

[Introduced himself.]  Our members are the major slot operators in the state of Nevada and we operate gaming devices in the majority of the grocery stores in the state of Nevada, as well as convenience stores and other restricted locations, such as bars, taverns, and other locations.  In addition, I am also here representing Terrible Herbst, Inc. as General Counsel for the company.  Terrible Herbst is the largest convenience store operator in the state of Nevada, and obviously has gaming devices in location.  What I would like to do is speak after Ms. Headrick from CH2MHill, which was an environmental company hired by the Nevada Retail Gaming Association to do an environmental study of the effect of smoking at both grocery stores and convenience stores inside the gaming areas and outside the gaming areas.  I would like to turn the microphone over to Ms. Headrick and let her go through the study for you and she can answer any questions.  I will reserve a little time after that to speak to you.

 

Laurie Headrick, Environmental Scientist, CH2MHILL, and Nevada State Certified Environmental Manager:

[Introduced herself.]  I am an environmental scientist with over 17 years of experience at conducting environmental studies.  I am also a certified environmental manager with the state of Nevada, although that is really not applicable to this study that I conducted.  I did conduct the study under the same codes of conduct required for that certification. 

 

As Sean [Higgins] mentioned, we were hired to do a study looking at the secondhand smoke impact in the grocery and convenience stores in the Las Vegas area.  We looked at ten total different stores.  [Where] the gaming areas inside the stores were, some of them were in an alcove, and some of them were lined up in the front of the stores.  We chose two different markers to look at the impact of secondhand smoke.  One of the markers is nicotine and the other marker is what is known as respirable particulate matter.  We placed the sampling devices nearest the exposure area; generally this was the registers closest to the gaming area.  In one particular site it was a Vons on Windmill Parkway and North Pecos Road, there is a child care facility within that Vons, the sampling device was placed on the edge of that day care area outside the gaming area, across from the gaming area. 

 

We ran a study in July of last year [2002] and we ran it 24 hours.  The nicotine was sampled every 8 hours.  We used these absorbent tubes that air was drawn through, and they were placed at either the registers or at the day care facility.  The air was drawn through these tubes and the nicotine was absorbed onto these tubes.  For the particulate matter, we used certified, clean, pre‑weighed filters that are designed to collect the particulate matter.  Again, air was drawn through these filters to collect the particles.  We ran those for 24 hours.  You have the report (Exhibit O) in front of you, and if you will turn to Table 2 on page 9, it is a table that presents the results of our study.  On the first column you can see the store locations along with the address.  Under the nicotine column, it is just showing the sample ID.  Next to that, for the nicotine, it is showing the concentration. 

 

The concentrations that were found at these locations sampled were less than what is called the detection limit.  We took the analytical data that we got from the laboratory and we based it on an eight-hour time-weighted average, all the sample results came back below the detection limit of the analytical method.  We chose the eight-hour time-weighted average because there are several governmental agencies that set worker exposures for different chemicals.  That is the only standard that really exists for nicotine or for the particulate matter, so that is why we took this data and presented it that way.  And if you continue to go over, the RPM stands for the respirable particulate matter.  The concentrations are shown to all be “non-detect” for that analysis as well. 

 

If you turn the page, there was a 7-11 store on Eastern Windmill Lane and South Bermuda Road; it’s a convenience store.  There was no good place to put the sampler other than right on top of the gaming unit itself.  I actually did that site myself.  When I placed the sampling devices on top of the gaming unit, it was a relatively clean area; there was an ashtray that was not used at that time.  But when I came back after an 8- or 28-hour period, I noticed there was substantial use of the ashtray next to it.  That was the only location that we got any nicotine concentrations measured.  But I do want to point out that even those concentrations are only half a percent of the time‑weighted average of 5 mg/m³ (milligrams per cubic meter).  Given that, as a mother of five who spends a lot of time in the grocery store on Saturdays, almost one to two hours, I am not concerned that my children are “swimming in a pool that has been peed in.”

 

Chairman Anderson:

I got my calendar out just now to check your dates.  On Friday afternoon from 3 p.m. to 24 hours later, this is a Friday evening.  In the study, did you check what the peak business hours were?  Was there any such study that made reference to this?

 

Sean Higgins:

Obviously, we picked a 24-hour period, and a Friday night is normally a busy period and a Saturday in a grocery store and we did not want a Monday, even though it is still a 24-hour period, so Friday evening or Friday afternoon was the period of time we chose, a random 24-hour period, so that you would not say, we showed up at midnight and left at 8 a.m., which is the deadest period of time.  We were there for a complete 24-hour period.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

I have been looking at the data that is submitted, and I do not see any quality control, quality assurance samples in the data package.  I am wondering what level of quality assurance you did to demonstrate that your samplers were effective, that they truly could capture the nicotine. 

 

Laurie Headrick:

Given the short amount of presentation time, I did not go into that detail and bore everyone.  All the sampling devices were calibrated before and after at 0.2 liters per minute was the sampling rate pulled air through the devices.  They were checked as well to make sure that they were running when we did that.  All the absorbent tubes and the cartridges for the particulate matter were certified clean; they came from the laboratory.  All the samples were under a chain of custody throughout the whole procedure to ensure their integrity.  We did do some duplicate sampling at some of the sites.

Assemblyman Geddes:

Did you do any spikes, where you spiked nicotine and were able to make sure that it came out of the package okay; the cartridges would actually capture nicotine?

 

Laurie Headrick:

Not in the field.  Blanks were sent in to the laboratory, but the laboratory had their procedures to make sure that they are pulling off the amount of nicotine that will be in there; that they are getting acceptable recoveries off of the absorbent tubes.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

There was no backup data to see if the nicotine was actually caught on the tubes; there was no validation of the tubes?

 

Laurie Headrick:

Not other than the hit that we got on the one site.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

I am interested in Dr. Guinan’s presentation.  She listed that in the classification of the ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) is a Class A carcinogen and the 3,000 cancer deaths, that there were 43 cancer-causing agents in there.  Dr. Pritsos is going to yell at me, I cannot remember if nicotine is one of those 43.  I was wondering if you looked at any of the other 42.

 

Laurie Headrick:

No, we did not.  We just used these as markers to determine the impact from the smoke. 

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

Is Data Chem [Laboratories] certified by a national organization to analyze nicotine?

 

Laurie Headrick:

Yes, they are.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

By which organization?

 

Laurie Headrick:

I do not have that with me, but we can provide it.

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Have there been any studies or tests like this on a home where there are smokers present all the time?

 

Laurie Headrick:

There might be, I am not sure.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Do you smoke?

 

Laurie Headrick:

I do not.

 

Assemblyman Horne:

Is 24 hours a long enough period of time to do this type of experiment and to be conclusive, especially if we are talking of over a month?  This Friday that you used, I was of the understanding that payday or the day after payday are big days to be doing that as well.  Do you know whether this Friday fell onto that day or not?

 

Laurie Headrick:

It definitely was a snapshot in time, the study was.  But we tried, as we said earlier, to pick a heavy time, Friday and Saturday mornings.  In the report we talk about how many patrons were at the gaming units during the study, whether they were smoking or not.  One of the establishments had a worker who actually was smoking heavily [while] working there at the gaming alcove.  So, we tried to look at a worse case scenario, as best we could.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

In the respirable dust category and the concentrations that are there, how does the detection limit that you found compare to national air quality standards as far as what is considered unhealthy in Clark County and what would kick in an unhealthy response based on particulate matter?

 

Laurie Headrick:

Well, I think that is a good question.  It is 5 mg/m³ is the standard for the eight-hour exposure limit.  However, there is also a standard that is 3 [mg/m³], and 3 [mg/m³] is a one-time shot exposure limit that is considered a bad health effect.  These [study results] are significantly lower than that. 

 

Sean Higgins:

Obviously, we initiated the study not knowing what the findings would show.  We were pleased that the findings came out that way.  In 1999, this Legislature enacted legislation that dealt with this issue.  The alcoving of machines and required ventilation based on the results of the study work in these locations.  It is extracting the secondhand smoke that these folks are saying is affecting the children.  Obviously, for an individual working in that space for a full eight hours, which is what it is based on, the levels were below the limits for that person’s exposure, not for a person standing at the register for ten minutes checking out of a grocery store.  So we would respectfully say that the legislation currently in place is doing its job. 

 

We have spent, the [Nevada] Retail Gaming Association, several hundred thousand dollars retrofitting old locations already, prior to the 2010 requirement, with ventilation systems.  The grocery store chains have, since the enactment of this legislation, put their own ventilation systems in all new stores with alcoves, and they have done that on their own and they are not required to prepay for that, but they are putting separate ventilation systems within the alcove areas to take care of the smoking issue.  The health districts and the people in favor of this bill all say that this would not affect businesses that exclude persons under the age of 21.  Well, the fact of the matter is, at each one of these locations, whether it be a convenience store or grocery store, the members of my association have business licenses for gaming establishments, which exclude persons under the age of 21.  No one under the age of 21 is allowed in the gaming area.  So, the fact of the matter is, this legislation if enacted would have a direct effect on businesses that exclude people under the age of 21. 

 

Finally, we also did some polling with the MRC Group out of Las Vegas and found that [when asked if] smoking should be prohibited in grocery stores and convenience stores, over 30 percent of our patrons at these locations would either limit the amount of time they came to game at those locations, or not game at those locations at all and game somewhere where they could smoke.  So the fact of the matter is in these economic times, where we look at hard economic times with tax increases, this would have a direct financial impact on our business as well. 

 

Chairman Anderson:

The drafting of the legislation relative to new construction was indeed part of the package we put together several sessions ago.  The retroactive nature of this on older stores trying to get their buildings up to grade is going to be completed when?  Has your association done a study of how many buildings or older facilities have been converted already of the number of facilities you have?

Sean Higgins:

I can tell you, from my own knowledge, every Vons store in the state of Nevada has been converted, old or new.  We have not alcoved all of them yet, but even the ones that are still along straight lines along the front of the building have had ventilation systems placed into those locations.  Obviously, the grocery stores’ timeline for when they want to remodel stores has had some effect on when we can alcove the machines.  However, we have placed ventilation in all of the Vons stores in Nevada.  We are now going through and doing on a chain-by-chain basis the Albertsons, Safeways, [and] similar stores.  It is an ongoing process.  We are not waiting until 2009 and then going to make a gold rush to do all 150 or 200 grocery stores in Nevada in 6 months. 

 

Chairman Anderson:

Although the analogy to a swimming pool has been made several times now, these ventilation systems in the alcove areas are not mixed with the other air samples of the store?  They have a separately ventilated system in each and every case?

 

Sean Higgins:

That is correct.

 

Chairman Anderson:

They are not held in common air at all?

 

Sean Higgins:

As an example, we have one location that was pulling the air out so quickly in the summer months that we had to turn it down a little because it was overheating in the gaming area compared to the rest of the store.  The heat there was… we were pulling the air out so quickly at such a great rate, the air conditioning was not even working in the location because it was pulling the air out too quickly.  So yes, these are all separately ventilated directly to outside.

 

Assemblyman Mabey:

To go backwards just for a second, I am concerned about this study.  I walk through… I must confess I am the father of five children and rarely go to a grocery store, but when I do, just walking through for a minute or two, I will leave and my clothes will reek of smoke, so I really have some doubts about the study that was performed.  Then, just to clarify the urine, Mr. Chairman, urine is sterile; it is getting a lot of bad raps today.  [Laughter from audience.]

 

Sean Higgins:

Obviously, all of these stores have not been ventilated currently.  I cannot tell you if the store you go into on a regular basis is ventilated or is not.  But the fact of the matter is, there is legislation in place.  We took stores that were ventilated, that have been ventilated, and either was built after the legislation was enacted or had been retrofitted and ventilated.  Not all of them were alcoved, but they were all ventilated.  So, the fact of the matter is, we were trying to show that the ventilation required in the 1999 legislation is doing the job it was intended to do.  I cannot say what store you walk into, I cannot tell you if it is ventilated or not.  But the fact of the matter is, we did not look at non-ventilated stores.  We are trying to show that the legislation is working that was enacted.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Do you know how many Indian smoke shops there are in Clark County?

 

Sean Higgins:

Do I know?  I know there are at least three or four, but I do not know the exact number.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Could you find out?

 

Sean Higgins:

Sure.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Are the Indian smoke shops part of your group?

 

Sean Higgins:

No, sir.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Maybe, we could ask somebody who is in that area to find that out for you, Mr. Carpenter.  It is a good researcher question; I know Ms. Combs can hardly wait to do that one.

 

Is there an essential piece of information from your study that you feel we have to get in here, Ms. Headrick, that has not been included in your testimony?  I surely do not want to cut it off.

 

Laurie Headrick:

No, sir.

Chairman Anderson:

Mr. Avance, you okay?  [Inaudible affirmative response.]  Well, you do not want to get publicly on the record?  [Inaudible negative response.] 

 

Sam McMullen, McMullen Strategic Group, representing the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce:

[Introduced himself.]  The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce has always had a strong concern about the standardization of these requirements as set forth in state statute as you have in front of you before.  Therefore, [I speak] against the legislation that is in front of you today.  And I will just take a couple of seconds to talk through some of the business reasons why that is important.  

 

There are, of course, many other concerns in this other than business concerns, but the one main issue for them is that it is a standardization issue that allows businesses of different types across different jurisdictions to train their people to make sure that the standards are met with compliance and are done so in a way that makes their business costs and their understanding of those requirements across many employees, and many venues.  Not only easy, but most importantly implemented for maximum compliance because this is a state law and it needs to be followed and it is important that these standards be met. 

 

So one of the first and foremost, I would say in a lot of ways we found out in some senses, one of the most effective ways to enforce or increase compliance with these statutory guidelines is through the business training prospects that we have put in place.  The best example of that, of course, is the sting compliance and some of those other areas where we actually made it important to the employee to do it right.  They were trained, they were supported by the resources of the business, but most importantly, they were trained across many lines, there were many boundaries, and even if the staff shifts or things like that, there is no reason that the requirements are different or unique in any one place.  It is a business point, but it is a point that goes to standardization. 

 

I think the second point I would make that is not so much business per se but has been a clear goal for the [Las Vegas] Chamber [of Commerce] and for others, and I would say, something we support, but it is primarily your goal, and that is that this bill would take one piece of the regulation of smoking and turn it over to county health officers or the health districts.  The point I want to make with you is that there are so many aspects of smoking or smoking-related facets such as budget, as it is affected by tobacco sales, and then, more importantly for businesses, the criminal side of it.  There are some criminal laws here, there is enforcement all the way around, and it is always been our position that that should be sort of wrapped up in a whole cloth and you should keep it at a level where you can control all of those pieces and not parcel out the pieces and make it more difficult to control and standardize those things across the many fronts.  This bill only takes a piece of that and puts it in the hands of other people, but we think respectfully that you should keep control of the whole area in your hands and make sure that you have it all organized in one set of state statutes.  I would be happy to answer any questions.

 

Mary F. Lau, Executive Director, Retail Association of Nevada:

[Introduced herself.]  We have a long history in this state of having these hearings on smoking issues.  Since 1995, I have been testifying on these issues.  I guess there is going to be some relief, we are going to have an interim study on obesity and the fast food industry, so I will probably be in front of you on those issues instead.  That is going to be very interesting because that now has been deemed to be the number one killer, as I understand it.  However, the Retail Association of Nevada is opposed to any form of weakening of the preemption laws that we have in this state. 

 

We have testified before and we continue to testify that this Legislature has been very effective, very affirmative in their behavior, and consistent in their behavior, and has put restrictions and requirements on the retailers of this state.  We appreciate and work with this Committee and with this Legislature and adhere to those.  In order to adhere to those in the most appropriate fashion, we ask for consistencies of laws and regulations. 

 

It is interesting to us that the health authorities are asking for something to be diminished by state law and put into their hands at a time when financing and funding is not appropriate and everybody has difficulties with their budgets now.  It is our understanding that one of the WIC outlets was closed in northern Nevada because of funding.  Normally, they would be here screaming, “unfunded mandate.”  The state program is fully funded.  It is fully funded by tobacco settlement money, and it is fully funded by grant money.  Mr. Krueger knows a lot more about that because he has worked very hard in this state and we have cooperated with his work on the “We Card” program. 

 

Retailers, their employees, and their customers have a right to consistency.  Retailers can be fined; employees can be fined.  There are laws that are on the books that are very effective.  If this body determines to ratchet down those laws, we will of course work with this body and we will remain consistent and firm in our efforts to prohibit underage smoking.

 

Peter Krueger, State Executive, Nevada Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association:

[Introduced himself.]  Like Ms. Lau, we have been here since 1995 talking about uniformity; that is how we view this.  This is a case of uniformity among retailers.  The point, I think, that I would like the Committee to understand is, it is working; it is working very well.  As has been highlighted in previous testimony by Mr. McMullen and Ms. Lau, what we are doing, at your policy direction, is causing not only…  I was glad to see that because our locations are restricted gaming locations for the most part we have a few that are not, the scientific data that supports a feeling and a knowledge that we have as our members have spent thousands and thousands [of dollars], and in some cases hundreds of thousands [of dollars], for the largest members, as Mr. Higgins testified, to install smoke eaters, install positive ventilation, and I would suggest that those… we have made a positive effort where there have been complaints, there have been problems from a legislator or a citizen to address the particular tobacco problem in a particular business location, that remains our commitment.

 

We are concerned that the people, the supporters of this bill, have no plan.  They come before you and say, “Give us the authority,” but they have no plan other than what they have outlined in the bill.  I think there is a real question on what locations inside an unrestricted gaming facility would be licensed, where smoking would be permitted.  For example, would the shops at The Forum be prohibited from allowing smoking?  They are a retail establishment.  There are so many questions that are unanswered here.  The cost of enforcement, who are the “smoke cops” going to be?  If we want to believe local government that they are at a crisis with funding, I find it hard to believe that we have seen no testimony as to who is going to be out there to enforce this. 

 

In California now, and I think many of you travel there, the laws regarding prohibition, and they have some of the strictest in the nation, are being ignored.  When that happens, that is the worst thing that can happen to a democracy when people just simply ignore the bill or ignore the law.  There is a bill that is being referred to in California called the ashtray bill.  It simply means that another attempt to prohibit essentially paraphernalia; in other words, the proponents of the bill in California want you to not even have an ashtray allowed or any paraphernalia around.  That is how really ridiculous this has gotten. 

 

I said that at the outset it is working, the clean cuisine that was testified by the proponents of this bill is working.  Hopefully, you have all seen the commercials that run in Washoe and Clark [Counties] that encouraged employers of restaurants to make their facilities smoke-free.  They are on TV using tobacco settlement money and other grant money.  We think that is perfectly right.  What we like about current legislation is that it allows an employer, a building manager, anyone to determine the policy for his or her company building; that is the way it should mean and the way it should stay. 

 

I think, and I would be remiss to my members, if in my closing comments [I did not mention that] I just am always amazed when we are up here, that the people who supported this bill have a problem and will not get out and encourage this Legislature to adopt statutes that prohibit the use, the purchase and the use of tobacco products by underage children.  It remains to me a mystery why, if you are a zealot when it comes to tobacco, that you will not join us in the retail community supporting laws that will prohibit the use of tobacco products by underage kids.  You go to any high school, you can go right over here at Carson City High School, I guess there are some Carson students here, [we could] just walk off campus and a group of underage youth, they are smoking.  Law enforcement, smoke cops, whoever might be designated, can do nothing about that.  Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this bill, we believe that [current legislation] it is working and would like this Legislature to continue such a policy.

 

Van V. Heffner, President and CEO, Nevada Hotel & Lodging Association and Nevada Restaurant Association, and a Commissioner of Tourism for the state of Nevada:

[Introduced himself.]  The Nevada Hotel and Lodging Association represents 182 members with over 115,000 hotel rooms.  The Nevada Restaurant Association represents over 700 restaurants.  Together we employ over 160,000 workers in the Silver State, and we are the number one employer in the state. 

 

I offer today our opposition to A.B. 96 and encourage this Committee and Legislature to not preempt the state to authorize either state agencies or local governments to adopt more stringent restrictions. 

 

I was honored in 1999 in receiving the Clark County Health District “Public Health Hero Award.”  From that I also sit today on the Nevada’s Food Safety and Security Task Force.  And what we have found is a challenge with four different districts in order to reach some consensus as well as uniformity between districts.  For instance, as we are addressing this policy, and this is why the risk is to possibly return this to a local entity, in northern Nevada, in a very short few minutes, we could have three different jurisdictional controls from Washoe County to Carson City as well as the state of Nevada, which of course would be Douglas County and outlying areas. 

 

So, we are opposed to this bill.  At the same time, we would be greatly impacted by this legislation, not only from a business standpoint but also the perception of Nevada and what we offer.  Our restaurants and hotels support the freedom of choice, allowing us as the business owners and operators to serve the public and to serve the public well.  Our restaurants are private businesses and we open those and have the freedom of choice to offer both smoking and non-smoking areas.  That concludes my remarks and I would be more than happy to respond to any questions.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions for Mr. Heffner from…his position?  I cannot speak for the Committee, only for myself.  We remain concerned about the misrepresentation that seems to take place with this kind of legislation as if we are encouraging young people to smoke.  I was under the impression that we had made it very clear that the places where teenagers are is pretty much off limits, unless they happen to be sharing an area with adults, that is if they pass through to go to a restaurant in a casino.  How do you perceive, do you have any suggestions, where we can do a better job at the state level of making sure that teenagers do not have [access to tobacco] other than making it a crime for them, a misdemeanor for teenagers to have cigarettes in their possession?

 

Van Heffner:

I believe that, first of all, as a Nevadan, as a parent, as a grandfather also, I believe in education and communication.  It behooves all of us to be consistent examples for all parts of our community, from the schools to the communities to our restaurants and whatever.  I think that in Nevada we have some of the greatest freedoms.  At the same time, we have always controlled whether it is gaming or alcohol sales or whatever, and tobacco products to me are no different.  In other words, that is a choice issue of an adult, not of somebody that is under the majority age. 

 

I am very concerned about the referendums because being a statistician, I am proud to say I am a graduate of three different universities.  The ballot initiatives lumped a number of different variables so there is not defined in critical data that stated whether people were concerned about the schools, a public building, or a restaurant itself.  I think that data is skewed.  We are there as an industry to support all of our elected officials and our leaders to educate the communities that we live in as well as all the employees that work with us.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Is there anybody in opposition that feels that they need to get themselves on the record?  If you have written information to give us, that would be helpful.

 

Joe Guild, representing the United States Smokeless Tobacco, Inc.:

[Introduced himself.]  I do not have any written information; the bill will suffice.  If you turn to page 2, line 8, subsection 4, of Section 1 of the bill, I just wanted to remind the Committee that if this bill were to pass, it would give local boards of health the ability to regulate smokeless tobacco products, too, in the distribution, marketing, display, or promotion of those products.  We believe, as has been stated quite extensively before me, the statewide schemes of legislation are working.  The uniformity of the state laws on tobacco is an excellent way to prevent and keep youth from access to tobacco products, which is the stated policy of the company I represent.  I just wanted to remind the Committee that this is not just about prohibiting smoking by local boards of health.  I would be happy to answer any questions.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Let me then close the hearing on the first bill, A.B. 96.  The Chair will leave the record open for those of you who may have written comments that you wish to have submitted for the legislation. 

 

[The following exhibits were submitted per Chairman Anderson’s instructions:

 

·        Exhibit P—Susan Harty, Citizen, Las Vegas

 

·        Exhibit Q—Kendall Stagg, Executive Director, Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition, Las Vegas

 

·        Exhibit R—Michael Pennington, Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce

 

Let me move to Mrs. Angle’s bill, A.B. 202.  Mrs. Angle, we have been hearing the first bill, which was supposed to go for 45 minutes, for an hour and 45 minutes.  So, let us move to your bill, Mrs. Angle, as a courtesy to you, A.B. 202.

 

Assembly Bill 202:  Prohibits smoking in certain stores that are principally devoted to sale of food for human consumption off premises unless area is segregated by walls on all sides. (BDR 15-151)

 

Assemblywoman Sharron E. Angle, Assembly District No. 26, Washoe County:

[Introduced herself and submitted Exhibit S.]  I appreciate you allowing me to testify on this bill from Las Vegas.  I am here for a conference today, “Dancing with Darkness,” which is sponsored by the Department of Drug Enforcement Administration and the National Organization for Women Legislators.  We will be talking all day to UNLV students about predatory drugs and also about the things that lead to that drug abuse.  So I am very interested in all parts of addiction.

 

Today I am before you presenting A.B. 202, no smoking in the grocery stores, which was requested by a constituent of mine, 11-year-old Stephanie Glantz.  Stephanie testified before your [Assembly] Committee on Judiciary in 1999 and also in 2001 on this same issue.  She is now 11 years old; she was 7 when she began this quest.  She is celebrating her spring break with her family so she will not be testifying before us today.  Stephanie did submit a statement and that statement is [included in Exhibit S]…

 

Chairman Anderson:

…has been distributed to the Committee.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

Great.  She said that she asked her Assemblywoman to fight for this bill.  I believe her most compelling statement is that she has asthma and does “not want to breathe what I fear.  Tobacco smoke makes me sick.”  As we go to the bill, in NRS you will see that the law already prohibits smoking in the public area of a store principally devoted to the sale of food for human consumption; this is a grocery store.  My bill only repeals the exceptions to this law where it is devoted to the slot machines.  Assembly Bill 202 also repeals the compromise that was reached in 1999, which requires the separate ventilation for these areas and the segregation by two or more partial walls, and a bank of slot machines to be installed by 2010, instead replacing that requirement with, if smoking is allowed in those areas, that it be a completely segregated room with ventilation.  Those that do not have that kind of a segregated area would then post signs prohibiting smoking.  If they do have that segregated area, those signs would be posted that the smoking was prohibited except in those areas. 

 

I was going to refer to the advisory questions, which you have been discussing, and Washoe and Clark County questions 9 and 13, that said secondhand smoke should be completely prohibited by state law in places frequented by children, such as grocery stores, approved in both counties.  I gave you a list of all the percentages in our respective districts where that advisory question was asked.  As you can see, in my Assembly District, 71.7 percent of my constituents believed that there should be no smoking in grocery stores. 

 

Environmental tobacco smoke or passive smoking, of course, you have been hearing the facts all morning about this smoke.

 

·        It contains hydrogen, cyanide, carbon monoxide, and dozens of other compounds known to cause cancer.

 

·        It is associated with lung cancer, heart disease, sudden infant death syndrome, ear infections, asthmas, bronchitis, and pneumonia. 

 

·        Lung cancer from passive smoking risks has increased 20 to 30 percent.

 

·        Non-smokers living with smoke increase their risk by 23 percent.

 

·        Of course, the EPA concludes that environmental tobacco smoke is a Class A carcinogen responsible for 3,000 lung cancers in non-smokers annually and up to 300,000 cases annually of respiratory illness in children under 18 months old.

 

I have some pictures ( Exhibit S) showing some of these areas in grocery stores.  Here is one that is not alcoved, it is right there in the center of the food and cash register area.  Here is another that is in an alcove, but of course is just surrounded by three walls and you can still see that the smoke can get out into the area where the food is and also where the cash registers are.  Again another area not enclosed and coming out of the check stands right there where people are smoking.  And finally, a check stand that is right near the area where smoke also occurs.

 

I would like to conclude my testimony by saying that I would be more than willing to work with Mr. Krueger on prohibiting tobacco use among youth that are 18 years or younger.  I would be glad to amend that into my bill.  As part of my work with the Commission on Substance Abuse, Education, Prevention, Enforcement, and Treatment, I would like to just conclude with a statement made by one of my colleagues on that Commission, Rosemary Flores.  She talks about tobacco use, saying, “The research has shown tobacco use among adolescents is the powerful predictor of other drug use.”  That is why I bring this bill to you today, not only for the health of children right now and the health of adults that have to frequent grocery stores for not only consumable foods but also for their prescription drugs, but also for the future of our own children in this state.  With that, I conclude my statement; I would glad to answer any questions.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Thank you for once again bringing forth a strong piece of legislation from one of your constituents, whose compelling testimony I can recall very clearly and her great hope that we were going to do something more meaningful.  Questions from members of the Committee for Mrs. Angle?  Is there someone that you would like to have called next?  It is your piece of legislation.

 

Assemblywoman Angle:

I believe that most of the testimony that you have heard on A.B. 96 also applies to my bill [A.B. 202], so I will not have them restate many of the things they have already stated for the Committee.

Helen Foley:

Specifically speaking to Assemblywoman Angle’s legislation, we really appreciate her ongoing efforts to try to remove tobacco smoke from grocery stores and convenience stores.  There is an area in the packet (Exhibit H) that I gave you on ventilation.  There is one specific item that I would like to read to you.  Honeywell, which is a leading industry manufacturer of ventilation products, states, “We stand behind the efficiency and quality of our air cleaners as comfort and convenience products.  But we are not making claims that these are health products.”  Many times those carcinogens seep out into the air. 

 

I think that Assemblywoman Angle’s bill is a lot better than what current law is, to completely segregate those areas from other areas of the store by walls on all sides.  But it certainly does not resolve the problem.  The ventilation section will talk about the different types of exhaust systems that go directly outside and those that end up circulating in the air.  I know that Assemblyman Geddes is far more equipped to discuss those types of things.  But I just wanted to bring that to your attention. 

 

Also at the back we have a… and I think it is right here.  We took this [referring to a chart they held up and included in Exhibit H] from a study showing if you are just sitting in a location and not smoking what types of problems you are going to have, how many cigarettes you would be passively smoking.  You do not see schools or grocery stores on this because no other place in the country would even entertain the idea of smoking in grocery stores.  That is unique to Nevada because of the gambling that is going on.  So we do not have that there.  But you can see that if you are in an office that allows smoking for eight hours, how many cigarettes.  It is just an interesting piece of information we wanted to share with you.

 

Bob Price, former Nevada Assemblyman:

[Spoke from audience in support of A.B. 202.]

 

Buffy Gail Martin, Government Relations Director, American Cancer Society:

[Introduced herself.]  We do support A.B. 202, Assemblywoman Angle’s bill.  However, we do also support A.B. 96 in lieu of A.B. 202.  We believe that A.B. 96 is far more comprehensive…

 

Chairman Anderson:

We are talking about A.B. 202; we are already off of A.B. 96.

 

Larry Matheis, Executive Director, Nevada State Medical Association:

[Introduced himself.]  My remarks really deal with all three bills; for efficiency, I will make them all at once.  The purpose of all three bills in large part is to address access to areas where tobacco is used by youngsters.  Various approaches are being offered; we support them all. 

 

Nevada’s tobacco policies have been described as working.  Of course they are working.  They are working so well that we have the highest rate of smoking rate in the country, the highest rate of kids smoking, we have the highest rate of diseases related to smoking in the country.  If they work any better, we can all take some real time off and congratulate ourselves.  You have had some smoke blown at you, but I am not going to use one of those fancy calibrated doodads to measure it because if they could not find smoke in the grocery stores, they sure are not going to find it here.  Clearly, we know better.  Just step back a second.  We know that two-thirds of the voters in our two most populous counties…

 

Chairman Anderson:

On A.B. 202…

 

Larry Matheis:

… on A.B. 202, said that they want limitations put on smoking in areas where children are allowed, grocery stores being one of the most noticeable ones of those.  It may be, as some have described it, those two-thirds of the voters did not know what they were voting for.  But since you are all elected officials, I do not think you want to go down that track very far!  It is also true that two‑thirds of the voters may be zealots and do not want the kids in the state to start smoking, so I guess I am a zealot, too, then.  I do not think they are zealots, I think they are showing common sense and care for the people of Nevada. 

 

Our laws may be working, but they are not working for the health of Nevadans.  I think with A.B. 202, I think you have the opportunity to improve our law to the degree that the state sets a standard; it should be the floor beneath which no one can go.  If the communities want to go further, that is something the community should and normally you would encourage them to do.  Under current circumstances, since 1995, that is not the law in Nevada. 

 

For looking at a public problem, a public policy problem, to say that there is obviously nothing failing in Nevada, that public policy is causing these public policy problems, is ridiculous.  You know it, I know it, everybody in this room knows it, and everybody who voted for those advisory questions knew it.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Any questions for Mr. Matheis from the Nevada [State] Medical Association?  Anybody else in support of A.B. 202?  Let me move then to the opposition of A.B. 202.  Again, please do not be repetitive if you have already brought up your points.

 

Mary Lau:

I think the testimony on A.B. 96 should be sufficient and not waste the Committee’s time on any form of redundancy.  We feel that we have worked with the slot route operators, we have worked with this Committee, and we have worked with the legislators.  There is no smoking allowed in a grocery store, only the gaming area in a grocery store which is next to usually dog food, charcoal, this type of thing.  It is not in the meat department, it is not anywhere else.  There are several grocery stores that have no smoking whatsoever because they have no gaming whatsoever.  It is my understanding that there are some experimental stores up north that do not allow it, but that is a market decision.  We respectfully request that to be honored.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Ms. Lau, did you have an opportunity to look at, there is a packet (Exhibit S) that was given out by Mrs. Angle with some photos attached relative to some grocery stores where the cart containment area is the wall for the smoking area.  So if you go over to pick up a cart you would have to walk through the gaming area.  In some of these relatively new places they are located in alcoves but there is no divider or partition to screen this out, which is what this bill tries to do.  Do you see that as not part of the original intent in 1999, when we looked at this to make sure that there was truly a barrier or not?

 

Mary Lau:

No, I have not seen the pictures that Mrs. Angle referred to.  We have not had an opportunity to work with her on that.

 

Sam McMullen:

With respect to that question, the language about walls or partial walls was not, at least as we remember it, meant to be a completely smoke-free barrier.  That actually was a carry-on from the gaming side, which had been to basically make sure that there was a restriction or at least a boundary, a very defined area, that the kids would be kept out of.  So that was the primary aspect of that.  I would say again to echo prior testimony and not take too much time, the ventilation was the key feature.  The issue was not that the slot machine walls or partial walls or whatever would be blocking the transfer of smoke or other airborne elements.  The issue was to ventilate that out, to pull it straight up and evacuate it from the building completely, drawing in fresh air from the rest of the store.  That is the theory of it and that was the primary aspect relating to protection of the traveling of smoke.

 

Chairman Anderson:

The difficulty is in trying to define a gaming area that is within a store and make sure that it does not lose its license because that gaming area has to be visible 24 hours a day, whenever it is open, whenever the store is open, to make sure that no minor is utilizing the machines.  The question revolves around how we are going to do it.

 

Peter Krueger:

I just wanted to add that the reason the bill in 1999 was stated as it was and directing to A.B. 202 is that our stores vary in size, shape, age, and configuration, and once again it comes back to the employer, his or her ability to work within the gaming laws as well as those laws of good retailing.  I think there is no question in our mind that while some people want to make fun of it, the rules and laws regarding this particular bill, A.B. 202, that are in existence are working and we would ask that the Committee continue.  I would like to add that the bill sponsor, Assemblywoman Angle, I am more than pleased with her offer to work with me and others who are interested in this to craft the language necessary to once and for all put responsibility where it squarely belongs as far as the youth part of it with the retailers.  Both employers and employees squarely have the responsibility and have lived up to that responsibility.  I am pleased to work with Mrs. Angle to craft language that will also put responsibility on youth’s ability to buy, possess, and use tobacco products when they are underage.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Remember again my admonition to deal with A.B. 202, not with any other previous piece of legislation.

 

Sean Higgins:

Again, my association has the gaming devices, or patrols the gaming devices, in most of the grocery stores in the state of Nevada.  Apart from the fact that putting us into a room off to the side would have a detrimental effect on our financial aspect of the operations at the location, the cost to go back in and build rooms in every one of the grocery stores in the state of Nevada may also be a cost that is far and above, because we still put ventilation.  Also, when you close people off in a room, you are still going to ventilate that room.  So we are talking about additional costs, and some stores simply do not have an area that you could do that in.  We are certainly opposed to this bill. 

 

One of the reasons for the alcoving, as I recall, was to keep children out of the gaming areas as well, so that you did walk past the front of the walls, along the walls.  Again, we did not choose 2010 as the date for that to be totally enacted or retrofitted, but we are living up to that legislation, which was only enacted four years ago.  I guess the question is, are we going to be here every two years to come back, and when are we going to try to just leave standards alone and let us try to follow through and get all of our stores in compliance with that standard before people say things are working or not working? 

 

The fact of the matter is that the air quality division of Clark County was the one that sent us to CH2MHill and told us they would be the proper people to do an environmental study in the grocery stores.  I know people who do not like the results will find reasons not to like those results.  But the fact of the matter is, we hired an independent person to study those grocery stores and the ones where we had alcoved and put ventilation systems in, and the results came back as they did.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Do you know how many grocery stores are completely non-smoking?

 

Sean Higgins:

Do I know how many?  No, I do not.  I know that inside of Herbst Gaming, which is another company I am General Counsel for and a member of the association, I believe there is one Safeway in Reno that is non-smoking.  I can tell you that the amount of money we take out of that location is significantly lower than any of the locations we have in the Reno area.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

I thought it would be just the opposite if there were 70 percent of the people want to go to non-smoking grocery stores, it would seem like 70 percent of them should be non-smoking.  It does not work that way?

 

Chairman Anderson:

I believe Mr. Higgins is talking about gaming revenue as compared to store revenue.

 

Sean Higgins:

I would not know store revenue.  Our gaming revenue in that store is significantly lower than the gaming revenue in any other store in the Reno metropolitan area.  Speaking to the ballot questions, I do not know how anyone in the state of Nevada could vote against those questions the way they were worded, to be quite honest with you.  Even I could say that because they were worded horrendously.

 

Assemblyman Carpenter:

Could you find out what their receipts on their groceries are compared to any other ones?

 

Sean Higgins:

I am sure that Ms. Lau might be able to do it better than I.  I am not privy to that information.

 

Chairman Anderson:

We can do that.

 

Mary Lau:

I may be able to get a percentage or something like this.  Specific dollar figures I think would be proprietary information.  There is a large chain of Big Box stores that has no gaming and in their super stores; therefore, all of their groceries would have non-smoking because they have no gaming as opposed to listing a specific name.  Big Box Super Stores.

 

Jim Avance:

[Introduced himself.]  One point I would like to make to you as a follow-up to some of the things that have been said, the stores and the slot route operators are under long-term contract between each other.  That contract is based on existing circumstances.  Four years ago it was based on existing circumstances.  Some of the contracts have expired and been renewed since 1999.  Those contracts were based on anticipated revenue, anticipated conditions in the stores, based on state law, feeling that we had the ten-year window to improve and at the same time that our revenue would be consistent based on that. 

 

Along those lines, we feel we have a contract with the state.  We sit on this side of the table and negotiated as much as we can on this side of the table.  We were told what the conditions would be.  We agreed to those conditions; that was in 1999.  This issue was brought to us in 2001.  That contract, as I prefer to call it, was reaffirmed by this Committee.  My clients feel that we have a contract with the state, we are living up to it, you are living up to your side, we are living up to ours, and we see no reason to change that contract.  

 

Chairman Anderson:

Anybody else speaking against A.B. 202?  Let me close the hearing on A.B. 202. 

 

Open the hearing on the third bill of the day, which is A.B. 154, governing smoking tobacco in public places.  Assemblyman McCleary must still be in committee.  Let us take a five-minute break while we wait for Mr. McCleary.

Assembly Bill 154:  Revises provisions governing smoking of tobacco in public places. (BDR 15-362)

 

Let us turn our attention to A.B. 154; Mr. Price is substituting for Assemblyman  McCleary.  For the freshman members, Mr. Price was, in the last session, the second most senior member of the Assembly in terms of service, and has been the past Chair of [the Assembly Committee on] Taxation, and a longtime advocate for issues relative to the elimination of smoking here in the state of Nevada.  Both he and his wife, Nancy, have championed this cause for some time.

 

Bob Price, former Nevada State Assemblyman, representing Assemblyman Bob McCleary, District No. 11, Clark County:

This has been extremely interesting this morning, listening to the various testimonies.  You had asked at least a couple of people so I want to make sure that it is on the record that I personally do not smoke.  I did, many years ago, smoked a couple of cigars.  Then in 1970, I did take a puff on something that was represented to me to be a marijuana cigarette, but I did not inhale.  [Laughter and jokes from the audience.] 

 

To be quite honest, the reason that really got me going on this a number of years ago is, I did in fact have a member of family, one of my daughters, who contracted cancer, 99 percent sure in doctors’ opinions that it was from the work environment.  Over these years, I think we all, whether we smoked or not, do recognize that there is a very potential danger to our health and those around us. 

 

I want to thank Assemblyman McCleary for offering to handle this bill.  As you know, those of us who made bill draft requests prior to the election, half the ones that they in fact had gotten ready for us, we were allowed to ask someone else to carry them.  But anyhow, what brought this about, it was called to my attention after the last session, and I was a little bit surprised, that there were no prohibitions to smoking in child care centers or small private schools with our children.  In fact, the circumstances were pointed out to me in a couple of cases.  Of course, I do not know how many, I did not do any research to find out how many child care centers or private schools we have, and so forth.  But basically that is how and why this came about. 

 

When you look down at line 7 on the front page, Section 1, it talks about a public building, but it does not include private buildings, private schools, child care centers, and so forth.  And we do get into the public schools a little bit later on.  Anyhow, what we were basically trying to do was to make the environment as safe as possible for our children whether they are going to school, child care centers, or so forth. 

 

There has been some question, and I think it was spoken to by someone else today, on designating a separate area and it says only if the area is outside the school building.  That language was talking about private schools, but it is not clear, so we may want to look at what we provide for in our public schools, private schools, and so forth. 

 

It is not my intention to try and stop anyone from smoking.  That is not the intention of this bill.  I have many friends, as we all do, who have been smoking for years, would like to quit if they could, or perhaps would not like to quit, but at any rate, what this essentially is trying to do is provide a safe area for our youngsters. 

 

It talks about cigarette vending machines down on line 43, page 3, and that is existing language, but it does add subsection (i) into the existing language.  I prefer to answer questions if I could.  I do not want to take up your time; you have had a busy morning.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Do you perceive that the intent then would be that you would not be able to sell cigarettes on university campuses at all in a vending machine?

 

Bob Price:

It would not be an area that minors were permitted access to, so there might be…  Yes, I had not thought from the university system, but yes, I think you are right.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I have never seen a vending machine at school, at a public school, but I have not been in every public school in the state.  I am trying to envision where this vending machine exists, where a kid would have access to it. 

 

Bob Price:

That was existing language in the statute, which would have applied to the university system even before this was changed. 

 

Chairman Anderson:

Questions for Mr. Price?  I see none, sir. 

Bob Price:

Someone made a comment in the back that I jotted down, “Evil continues when good people do nothing.”  I am not sure that I would characterize this as evil, but I do feel that we have an obligation amongst ourselves and the state to try and do the best we can to provide safe living environment for our children and ourselves.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Anyone else wishing to testify in support of A.B. 154? 

 

Brooke Wong, American Lung Association:

We had several teens here today to testify regarding their feelings on secondhand smoke and what they are doing in their communities and on their school campuses.  Unfortunately, they had to return to their classes as they were only excused for a few hours.  On behalf of the 600 teen advocates in our state, we would support prohibiting smoking on school campuses.  Our teens are actively working to prevent smoking among their teachers, peers, and administrators on school campuses.  We feel this bill is a step in the right direction.  We would support prohibiting smoking in school buildings and throughout all the school property.

 

Chairman Anderson:

I can only speak for the school that I teach at, and I also am not a cigarette smoker and rarely even smoke my pipe anymore.  The people who are cigarette smokers, then when it comes to their lunch half hour, would be required, as you see this, if they are going to smoke and behavior is behavior, will then get in a car and drive across the street and park in the parking lot or leave the school grounds at any rate for their 25 minutes so they can eat their lunch and smoke, is that how you see this working?  I am trying to see how the practicality of it is going to be.

 

Brooke Wong:

I suppose that is their choice; they could wait through the day until the end.  The problem that we have is we are on campuses teaching cessation classes for kids and they are coming out watching their teachers walk out of the teachers’ lounge smelling like smoke.  That is a problem.  A prime example is one of our cessation classes, they gave us a room to teach it in, and it was actually a teachers’ lounge, and the teachers were in there smoking when we got the kids in there.  That is a problem.  We have to set an example for our kids, and if the teachers and administrators are smoking on campus, I can understand why a kid would say, “Why can’t I smoke on campus, too?”  Stepping across the street does not do much either.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Changing human behavior is not apparently the kind of thing that is going to come from this kind of law.  I am just trying to envision how it might.

 

Bonnie Parnell, representing The Nevada League of Women Voters and the Nevada PTA (Parent Teacher Association):

I would say that I am sure that we are all very concerned, even the people in the room that are private business owners and have some concerns about state regulations.  I think, bottom line, everyone in this room is very concerned about the health of our children, what they see, and how we can protect them in their school environment.  I think the public school building and the property is certainly an appropriate place to prohibit smoking.  And to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that Douglas County School District was the first school district to make a local policy of prohibiting smoking either in the building or on the property, because I remember at a time even if you went to a football game there was no smoking allowed.  Carson City School District followed shortly after.  So I do believe that some local school districts long ago made a policy of having it a non-smoking school district.  So it has been implemented and I see people drive around the block or walk around the block at lunchtime.  But again, if we can do nothing else with these three bills, we at least need to look at the health and welfare and safety of our students.

 

Chairman Anderson:

Any questions for former [Nevada] Assemblywoman Parnell?  Anyone else feel a compelling need to speak on behalf in support on A.B. 154?  In opposition to A.B. 154?  Close the hearing on A.B. 154.  We now have… I want to call the members attention to the handout we gave you already relative to these three pieces of legislation (Exhibit T).  Indicate to Mr. Horne the intent of the Chair to have a report back from your subcommittee at the next [Committee meeting].  Inquire of Mr. Conklin as to how the scheduling of your subcommittee is doing, for tomorrow if you would, just tell me how we are doing.  Any other issues to come before the Committee? 

 

We have an additional handout (Exhibit U).  Before you leave, we have a “Synopsis of Laws Passed by the Nevada Legislature Regarding Tobacco Sales and Use” that was prepared not by our Research Division, but kind of as a review.  We will make that part of today’s record also.  

Again, if you have a specific piece of information that you feel needed to be included in today’s [record], make sure that you do not e-mail it to me, drop information off [at my office].  Please make sure that it is specifically earmarked for one of the three bills or on this topic, so that we can get into today’s [record] and I will leave it open until Thursday.  Anybody else?

 

We are adjourned [at 10:56 a.m.].

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Deborah Rengler

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

 

 

DATE: