LETTERS: Protectionism rampant in Nevada

To the editor:

Jim Armbrust’s letter defends dishonest drivers and the protectionist actions of a very well-connected authority (“Cabdrivers get bad rap in Uber battle,” Dec. 16 Review-Journal). Never, not once, have I taken a cab from McCarran International Airport without being long-hauled.

My frequent trips are always from the airport to Harrah’s. Of course that, along with my southern drawl, suggests a tourist is on board. The least I’ve ever paid on those trips was $45, for what should be no more than a 10-minute, 4-mile trip. It never is. The practice is inbred and entrenched in cab drivers for the purpose of increasing revenue to the owners.

Despite its argument to the contrary, the Nevada Taxicab Authority turns a blind eye to the practice, as do traffic authorities to the reckless, always-aggressive driving and excessive speed prevalent and almost without exception from every driver on every trip through the McCarran area. By God, you best get out of the way of taxis approaching from the tunnels inbound or in the drop-off/pickup lanes, lest you be forced out of their way. Posted speed limits are to be ignored.

Uber is just the current victim of Nevada’s protectionist practices, as are SuperShuttle and Parking Spot, which operate at many major airports around the country but are limited or not to be found in Las Vegas. Now you can add Dotty’s as a recent target and victim.

Similarly, the area allows almost no competition for Internet service. Cox Communication and Century Link have locks on the market. On average, Cox and Century Link charge $20 to $30 more per month (after a 12-month bait-and-switch period) than major competitors nationwide. That $20 to $30 from each Internet account in the region removes millions of dollars — perhaps tens of millions — per month from the local economy, passing that sum instead to corporate headquarters of these providers.

Legally sanctioned protections ensure handsome paydays to a few. Indeed, with the right motivation and funding, one willing to spend whatever it takes could entice a state attorney general and even an archenemy senator to come aboard and stifle competition nationwide in the lucrative Internet gambling market. City, county, state and federal governments are all filled with bureaucrats running big protection rackets for profit.

Good luck Uber, you’re going to need it. Pony up and buy your own judges if you expect to succeed here.

DON SAMMONS

LAS VEGAS

Indoor smoking

To the editor:

Much of the nation is moving in the direction of making all indoor businesses smoke-free. After all, why should the approximately 80 percent of people who don’t smoke suffer the consequences of the 20 percent of people who do smoke? The question is particularly relevant to Nevada because of the casino industry and the fact that gamblers like to smoke. But not all gamblers.

According to a University of Nevada, Reno, research paper in 2006, smoking rates among gamblers at Nevada casinos mirror U.S. smoking rates — approximately 20 percent of gamblers smoke. In order to accommodate the people who smoke, casinos spend a great deal of money — some more than others — to clean the air and make the breathing environment bearable for nonsmokers.

Let’s speculate on what might happen if the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, passed by voters in 2006, were amended to make all Nevada casinos smoke-free. Would smokers stop coming to the casinos? Definitely not, just as smokers didn’t stop flying when airlines made planes smoke-free. Smokers would adapt by using nicotine gum or patches, and it would be business as usual.

Nonsmokers would be ecstatic to be able to breathe smoke-free air, casino employees would have reduced health risks, casinos would have lower cleaning and maintenance costs, carpets and furniture would smell better and last longer, and new visitors who avoided casinos because of the smoke would come to Nevada.

Let’s get ahead of the curve and make Nevada casinos smoke-free. The benefits would be immediate and would be felt for generations to come.

ROGER WITCHER

LAS VEGAS

Complying with police

To the editor:

Arthur Rossman’s letter was without a doubt the most intelligent, common-sense letter regarding obeying the police (“Obey the police to avoid bad outcomes,” Dec. 17 Review-Journal). This letter should be read in every school classroom and by all parents to their children. “Hands up , don’t shoot” should be replaced with “Comply, don’t die.”

DENNIS DOCKERY

LAS VEGAS