As visions of starving waitresses and fry cooks stalk across the consciences of Nevada's hasty voters, the R-J lets a UNLV professor chime in, lamenting the "unintended consequences" of the antismoking law. A closed restaurant "has affected my whole thought processes on the issue."
So if that's the "reality"—shuttered eateries and unemployed waitresses—what is it that got buried three days later in the R-J's business section? On Page 4, two-thirds of the way through a piece headlined "State jobless rate increases," the director of Nevada's Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation reports there was a "small uptick" in the number of people employed in food services and bars in December. Department Director Terry Johnson suggests that it's too early to tell what, if any, employment impact resulted from the antismoking legislation. The R-J quotes Johnson: "... [I]t's possible there may be an increase in jobs at bars and restaurants. It's possible there are people who frequent an establishment more because it's a nonsmoking environment, and that could make a positive contribution [to job formation]."
If restaurant business increased because of the antismoking law, it would be consistent with what has happened elsewhere. In LA, a year after the passage of antismoking legislation, restaurant owners who had opposed the law admitted, "It's the best thing that ever happened to us." Not only were revenues up from an increase in nonsmoking patrons, those customers were staying longer and ordering coffee and dessert—and for many restaurants, desserts have the highest profit margins on the menu.
Whether that'll happen in Nevada, or whether we'll see a net loss in restaurant business and jobs—just as the Department of Employment's director has indicated—it's too early to tell. That's reality.