Arizona's Top Attorney

How does 201 or 206 protect all Arizonan's at the workplace when it says two or more people in a vehicle. If a smoker drives a vehicle and than a non-smoker drives the same vehicle after this. How is the non-smoker protected? It is the same as the two in it at the same time.
PS-201 IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO FOR THE MOST PROTECTION

It's not as easy for a non-smoker to avoid second hand smoke as some smokers would like to think. A few days ago, I went to a concert at a small venue near downtown Phoenix where smoking was allowed. As a non-smoker I found this bothersome. For me to enjoy the music of one of my favorite bands, I had to put up with a smoke-filled room. By the time it was over, I was so drenched in the smell of nicotine that I still smell it on me today, even after numerous showers, washing my hair, and immediately washing all the clothes I was wearing.

Is it really so hard for smokers to go a couple of hours without feeding their addiction?

I'd like to find out why the proponents of Proposition 206 think that 206 would do a better job than 201 to protect non-smokers' health, particularly since they wrote no funding provisions into 206 for the enforcement of their weak and ineffective ban. Their expensive and slick advertising, 98% funded by RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co., indicates that 201 would cause a $5 million tax increase. Yet in reality the proponents of 201 wisely included a mechanism for funding enforcement: 2 cent/pack cigarette tax and not a general tax increase.

I'd like to hear more about propsition 207 -- I'm just beginning to learn about it, and it seems that it's being sold as an "eminent domain" law, BUT there seems to be huge legal implications of the proposition and total loss of city and neighborhood input regarding what happens on private property because of this act. As someone involved with the redevelopment of downtown historic neighborhoods, this is VERY worrisome.

I am interested why we haven't heard more about the Indictment of Dave Petersen, the X state treasurer. Why didn't the attorney general go after such an abuse of power rather than letting Petersen walk away with a slap on the hand and a comfortable State retirement plan (which by the way seems awfully high considering he wasn't in office long (including his senate tenure).