Marijuana.com

Lothar121

Poll Finds Strong Support for Both Anti-Smoking Initiatives
Sean Whaley | Las Vegas Review-Journal | 09/26/2006

CARSON CITY -- A measure that would put minimal new anti-smoking restrictions into law in Nevada is favored by more voters than a competing and more stringent proposal also on the November ballot, according to a new poll commissioned by the Review-Journal.

If the election were held today, Question 4, the less restrictive anti-smoking measure, would receive 77 percent of the vote, with 17 percent opposed and the rest undecided. The more restrictive Question 5, which would prohibit smoking in a host of new locations, including bars that serve food, garnered support from 62 percent of those polled, with 34 percent opposed and the remainder undecided.

If both measures win a majority in November, the one with the most votes becomes law.

Voters also were asked about three other ballot questions.

Question 2, which would amend the state constitution to restrict the ability of government to take private land through eminent domain, has the support of 60 percent of the voters, with 20 percent opposed and 20 percent undecided.

Question 6, which would raise the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour from $5.15 an hour, has strong support. The constitutional amendment, which already passed once in 2004, is supported by 72 percent of voters, with 20 percent opposed and 8 percent undecided.

Question 7, which would allow adults 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, is failing, according to the poll, with 42 percent in favor, 51 percent opposed and 7 percent undecided.

The poll of 625 likely Nevada voters was conducted Sept. 19-21 by Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Michael Hackett, campaign manager for the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, the more restrictive anti-smoking measure, said he was surprised the poll showed the competing initiative so far out in front. Other recent polls have showed Question 5 ahead, he said.

If the results are accurate, then the anti-smoking coalition has a lot of work to do, Hackett said. The group plans to soon begin radio and television advertising.

"If we can be competitive, I think we will be in good shape," he said. He expressed concern that with Question 4 supported by business and gaming interests, its supporters could outspend Question 5 supporters.

Question 5 would ban smoking on school grounds and in day-care centers, shopping malls, video arcades, the slot machine sections of grocery and convenience stores, bars that serve food and restaurants.

Question 4 actually weakens existing law in some situations, Hackett said. Smoking is now prohibited under state law in day-care centers with five or more children. If Question 4 wins, that restriction would be changed to day-care centers with 13 or more children, he said.

The measure also takes away the right of school districts to impose smoking restrictions tougher than those adopted by the Legislature, Hackett said. And it does not cover private, charter and other nonpublic schools, he said.

But Lee Haney, a spokeswoman for Question 4, the Responsibly Protect Nevadans from Second-Hand Smoke Act, said the measure is ahead of Question 5 because "people in Nevada want reasonable restrictions."

Question 4 would ban smoking at public schools. It also would ban smoking in video arcades, though this already is prohibited by the Legislature. It would allow smoking to continue in the slot machine sections of grocery and convenience stores and in bars and restaurants.

It would enact tougher restrictions on smoking in government buildings, banning it in all places.

"Our measure protects children in a reasonable manner, but we don't do so to the detriment of our tourist-based economy," Haney said.

Although true that the smoking restrictions would cover fewer day-care centers, Question 4 sought to enact protections at the time the signatures were gathered, Haney said. The Legislature, after the petition had been circulated, changed the day-care center rules to ban smoking with five or more children, she said.

Mason-Dixon Managing Partner Brad Coker said he is not surprised to see both anti-smoking questions winning support from voters.

"Unless there is a real concerted ad campaign to get people to focus on what is different between the two, people generally vote in favor of smoking bans," he said.

And there may be some voters in Nevada who see the Question 5 ban on smoking in bars where food is served as too restrictive, Coker said.

With the casino industry opposed to the more restrictive Question 5, it could be that the less restrictive proposal will win out, he said.

Eminent domain

Question 2, the eminent domain measure, will appear on the ballot after surviving a legal challenge that went to the state Supreme Court. Some provisions were taken out by the court, but those dealing with the taking of private land by eminent domain remain.

Don Chairez, chairman of the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land, or PISTOL, said he believes most Nevada voters disagree with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision authorizing a government entity to take private land and give it to another private entity for redevelopment.

Question 2, which will have to pass a second time in 2008 before it can take effect, would prohibit such actions, he said.

"I think people are aware of the past abuses involving eminent domain, and they want to change that," Chairez said. "Our language is nice and simple. It won't bring about the doomsday scenarios our opponents claim."

PISTOL opponents argue the proposal has the potential to bankrupt local governments, in part, because it would require that compensation for land taken for a legitimate use would be the highest price the property would bring on the open market and not a lesser, so-called probable sale price now offered.

The ballot question was born amid furor after a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, in which a Connecticut municipality was allowed to seize property from 15 homeowners who had refused to sell their homes for the construction of private office buildings and housing.

Minimum wage

Las Vegas labor leader Danny Thompson, who helped put the minimum wage increase on the ballot, said he is not surprised by the strong support the measure is receiving from likely voters.

"Those numbers are consistent with the polls that have been conducted all along," he said. "People across the board agree it needs to be raised."

If approved, the raise would take effect Jan. 1, Thompson said.

In addition to the $1 an hour increase, the minimum wage will be tied to the national consumer price index in the proposal, allowing for further annual increases based on this measurement.

That is one of the concerns of Paul Hartgen, president of the Nevada Restaurant Association and spokesman for Nix 6.

"If it was just a dollar an hour increase, we wouldn't be having this conversation," he said.

But the measure, by including the indexing and other provisions, is overly complicated, Hartgen said.

The decision of when and how to raise the minimum wage will forever be taken out of the hands of Nevada officials, he said.

Marijuana

Supporters of Question 7, which would change Nevada law to allow adults to posses small amounts of marijuana, say they still believe a majority of voters will back the measure.

Neal Levine, campaign manager for the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana, said he believes the poll results are skewed because voters were asked whether they would support "legalizing" marijuana.

The ballot question does not use that word, which is politically charged, he said.

When voters are polled about the question using only the ballot language, most favor the measure, Levine said.

The question asks whether those 21 and over should be allowed to possess up to one ounce of marijuana.

"What we've been saying consistently is that we're proposing a very sensible approach to a very bad law," Levine said. "It will tightly regulate the market, safeguard it and tax it.

"This is a sensible change for Nevadans, and we think we have a shot," he said.

Besides allowing the use of 1 ounce by adults, Question 7 sets tougher penalties for furnishing marijuana to minors and for driving under the influence of the drug.

The Clark County Commission last week voted to oppose Question 7, and many law enforcement groups also oppose the measure. Levine has challenged the legality of the commission's vote to oppose Question 7.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference.. Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

godfather

As they should. If you force someone from their home and land that they probably thought they would never have to move from because you want to build a Super Wal-Mart, or a mall or what ever else you can think of to bring you massive amounts of income, then you should re-emberse that person for the full price of their property.