LAS VEGAS – On Monday, the Nevada Resort Association, which lobbies for the casino companies, filed court papers in support of the state’s new anti-smoking law. The papers oppose the bar and tavern owners’ lawsuit asking for the ban to be overturned, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.

The association supported a less-restrictive anti-smoking law on the November ballot, so its move in favor of the current ban has surprised some, including the American Cancer Society's Buffy Martin-Tarbox, who told the newspaper that she was "perplexed and shocked" at the association's move.

Yesterday, supporters and opponents of the new law were scheduled to make their arguments to District Judge Douglas Herndon. The association’s filing was prompted by some claims made by the law’s opponents that its “treatment of businesses with restricted and unrestricted gaming licenses is unconstitutional and that it is unclear whether the new smoking ban applies to hotel rooms,” the newspaper wrote.

The association’s filing said that nobody except the bar and tavern owners has suggested that the anti-smoking ban affects hotel rooms: "Since no one is claiming that it applies to hotel and motel rooms,” writes the newspaper, “and the proponents concede that it does not, where is the case or controversy today regarding this issue?"

In regard to the law's different treatment of businesses with restricted and unrestricted gaming licenses, the association wrote: "The drafters of the NCIAA made a valid decision to distinguish between the two in determining where smoking would be prohibited, a distinction the law allows them to make. To hold otherwise would invalidate decades of gaming law and regulatory structure."

State voters passed the law by 54 percent on November 7. The Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act bans smoking in restaurants and bars that serve food; smoking is allowed in casino gaming areas and stand-alone bars. The ban was scheduled to take effect December 8, but a group of tavern and bar owners filed a lawsuit against state Attorney General George Chanos and local police and health agencies to stop the law.

The lawsuit claims the ban was "impermissibly vague," unfairly targeting certain businesses but exempting others, a violation of the equal protection clauses in the state and federal constitutions, the newspaper reports. The judge issued a temporary restraining order that put enforcement on hold until his ruling.