The many will pay for crimes of the few

To the editor:

We must ask the question, "Who among our elected representatives in Washington, D.C., represents 'The Good'? Who represents the working, middle-class people of America?

The answer to this question is self-evident. There is no representation for us, the fools who endeavor to work hard to raise and educate our children, to prepare for our old age so we won't need to be taken care of by the government or our children. We have been abandoned by both political parties.

I answered a call last week to perform jury duty. The burglary trial lasted two days. The defendant was found guilty based on the evidence presented and will probably serve time for stealing $528 worth of costume jewelry.

The decision reached by the jury was for "The Good," but I must confess I wondered, as I reflected upon the events taking place that week in our little courtroom here in Nevada and the events taking place in Washington, what was the point of it all?

During that same week we had elected representatives in Washington and people within the business and banking sectors who were, in effect, stealing approximately $1 trillion, and they will never spend a day in jail, nor have to give back what they are stealing. These honorable thieves come from the same families and friends and have gone to the same Ivy League schools, they travel in the same social circles and have assisted one another in setting up these phony scams to loot the public treasury for as long as America has existed.

We the people, the taxpayer, will pay for their crimes. We are being told by our elected representatives that this trillion-dollar bailout is necessary and for "The Good."

There is great irony in the term "bailout," and the next time I am called for jury duty, I will try to remind myself that it is for "The Good."

David Baker

LAS VEGAS

Blowing smoke

To the editor:

In response to your Monday editorial, "Smoking bans and casinos":

As with many previous Review-Journal editorials, this one painted a dire picture of the perceived economic effects of anti-smoking laws in Nevada, while ignoring the gains in public health that such laws are designed to achieve.

As the majority of citizens in our country are now protected under clean indoor air laws, Nevadans should not even consider going backward with ours. While we need a comprehensive law that will protect all employees, including those who work in casinos, we should celebrate the fact that many citizens are now protected from the dangers of secondhand smoke -- such as grocery store shoppers and restaurant patrons.

There is absolutely no argument as to whether smoking is dangerous to the smoker and those who are exposed to the deadly addiction. There should also be no argument as to whether these laws are necessary in a civil society that respects the health and well-being of its citizenry. Do we question other laws that protect us from dangers to our health? Why should this be any different?

A minority of smokers should not be allowed to dictate the quality of the air we breathe. This is not the effort of a "Nanny State" minority. This is the right of a people to live, work and play in a healthy environment.

For decades, the tobacco companies have worked with our policymakers to ensure that millions of lives are affected by their deadly products. By publicly advocating opposition to clean indoor air laws, your newspaper has joined with them in those efforts.

Nancy L. York

HENDERSON

The ban is coming

To the editor:

Surprise, surprise. Yet another pro-smoking, let's call anybody who values good health over somebody's annoying carcinogenic habit a Nanny State supporter editorial (Monday Review-Journal).

And again, the editorial presumes a loss of income for the Illinois casinos based on the enacted no-smoking policies, while ignoring the economic downturn.

The numbers from Atlantic City, where casinos are under a partial smoking ban, reflect nothing more and nothing less then the same type of drops Las Vegas casinos -- which allow smoking -- are facing. Explain that.

Alas, the Las Vegas casinos can certainly solve this supposed issue long before it comes to an actual, full-blown smoking ban: Ensure 50 percent of the gaming areas are nonsmoking and offer the option to the casino employees to work in the nonsmoking section or nonsmoking tables if they so choose. It could be easily done, and employees would no longer be forced to work under unhealthy conditions unless they choose to do so.

Rest assured, if Las Vegas casinos don't proactively do something, smoking will be banned in the casinos in full. Perhaps not today, but soon enough.

Tony Marovitz

HENDERSON