It’s called a "kitchen sink" motion, in which lawyers throw every argument they can think of into court papers and hope something sticks. That’s clearly what’s happened in the lawsuit against anti-smoking Question 5 filed by a number of bars, casinos, slot route operators and even my favorite cigar bar.

But make no mistake: This is a really nice kitchen sink. Brushed stainless steel, with nice big basins, built-in hand soap dispensers, a huge garbage disposal and one of those little hoses with the spout that lets you wash dishes more easily. We wish we had a kitchen sink this nice in our flat.

As regular readers know, we strongly opposed Question 5, dubbed the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act. We enjoy a good cigar on occasion (if you define "occasion" as "every day," as we do). But having declared that bias, let’s take a look at the lawsuit.

§ Who gets the ticket? The act only says that "a person" who violates the law will be cited, but is that "person" the smoker? Or the bartender who allows him to smoke? Or the manager or owner of the bar, who failed to implement rules about smoking? This is one of many examples the plaintiffs use to describe why the law is too vague "…for a person of ordinary intelligence" to understand. And it’s clear at least a couple people of extraordinary intelligence were involved in writing this brief, which exploits every flaw in the act with surgical precision.

§ No fair! The act says that smoking is allowed in a "casino," but refers to the section of Nevada state law that defines "casino," in part, as a place that holds an unrestricted gaming license, and is thus entitled to have 16 or more slot machines, table games, etc.

But here’s the rub: Before 1989, places like bars and even grocery stores were allowed to get unrestricted gaming licenses for their facilities, which puts them, at least in part, within the definition of "casino" in the anti-smoking act. So it fails to totally outlaw smoking in the very places it claimed it would.

And here’s yet another rub: A grocery store or tavern that opened in the days of unrestricted gaming licenses may presumably continue to allow smoking, while a bar or tavern that got a restricted gaming license (15 or fewer machines) in the years since cannot. Is not the newer bar treated differently under the law as a result? And isn’t the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution implicated as a result?

§ Mystery of the wacky definition. In addition to the restricted/nonrestricted issue, the definitions in the act create some mystery about where it applies, too. For example, the act bans smoking in "indoor places of employment." So where is that? A District Court judge ruled before the election that such language would cover hotel and motel rooms, since maids, repairmen, security officers and others need to work there. But the act’s authors say it doesn’t cover such places.

"If the [act's] authors and the District Court could not agree whether the Act exempts hotel and motel rooms, it can hardly be said that the [act] gives average persons or ordinary intelligence notice of whether smoking is allowed there. Confusion on this critical issue illustrates the vagueness that pervades the [act]," the lawsuit reads.

In addition, the act creates an all-new definition for "stand-alone bar, tavern or saloon," which isn’t found elsewhere in law. It defines such a place as one where food service "is incidental to its operation." (How much is incidental? Good question.) But it further references a state law that requires health permits. Fun fact: All Nevada taverns require health permits, because booze is defined as food! (The Germans do call beer "liquid bread," after all!)

"The result is that if the [act] is construed to prohibit smoking in taverns with health permits, all taverns would have to stop serving alcohol in order to allow smoking," the lawsuit reads. "Taverns would have to choose, in other words, to cease being taverns and become purely ’smoking dens’ with no food, liquor or snacks whatsoever."

Oh, and remember that whole "equal protection" thing? Under this ordinance, if a tavern stopped serving food, it could continue to allow smoking. And that means it would be treated differently under the law than a similar tavern, even one right next door, that continues to allow smoking!

§ Hitting home. Hard. Our favorite cigar bar, the Havana Cigar Co.  on Paradise Road, is hit especially hard by this law. On the one hand, it’s a tobacco retail store, wherein smoking is specifically allowed. On the other hand, it has a food-handling license, for a small deli in the back. That deli was required by the county in order to get a beer and wine license for the connected International Vintage Wine Cellar.

So, where some taverns might simply stop serving food, Havana cannot, lest it lose its wine license and a good portion of its business. But if it banned smoking, it would also lose a good portion of business. What to do?

(By the way, speaking of vague, we asked anti-smoking act advocate Michael Hackett before the Nov. 7 election about Havana specifically. He said in his view the operation would be forced to go non-smoking. But isn’t the very fact that we have to guess — that one of the authors of the law has to guess — at the act’s true meaning an admission that this law does have plenty of vagueness?)

§ The law doesn’t do what it set out to do. The Clean Indoor Air Act was supposed to help children. But because of the way it was written, it does nothing for children walking into, say, a grocery store or tavern that has a pre-1989 unrestricted gaming license. What’s up with that?

"Obviously the lungs of children and families that enter taverns with more than 15 slot machines are no less susceptible to the dangers of secondhand smoke than those children and families who enter a business with 15 or fewer slot machines," the lawsuit says.

§ Don’t look to case law. The plaintiffs clearly admit that, in other cities, equal protection arguments haven’t worked. But in those cases, the arguments were advanced on behalf of different kinds of businesses, say a casino versus a bar versus a restaurant.

"As detailed above, what makes the [act] so invidious is not that it treats different kinds of establishments differently, rather that it would treat similarly situated establishments differently (e.g. non-restricted license holding grocery stores, taverns and bars differently from restricted licensed grocery stores, taverns and bars) or would treat businesses with exactly the same licenses differently (e.g. grocery stores, taverns and bars with nonrestricted licenses differently than other ‘casinos’ with nonrestricted licenses)," the lawsuit says.

§ Help! The lawsuit asks that the act, set to go into effect Friday, be put on hold until its validity can be worked out. After all, smokers and/or owners stand to be cited, jailed or fined, and they may not know if they are truly breaking the law or not. Food servers in some taverns may be laid off, as taverns drop food service in order to keep serving smokers with drinks alone. And plenty of business stands to be lost, the lawsuit argues.

Moreover, non-smokers just have to deal with the status quo, and if they don’t want to expose themselves or their kids to secondhand smoke, they need only not go to places where smoking is allowed, the lawsuit says.

Hey, wait. "Just don’t go where people smoke" sounds like a perfectly dandy answer to this entire mess! Too bad the funeral for common sense was held Nov. 8.