Their economic lives may be at stake. This is Nevada, after all, home of the free and the sinful. And if they have to take a hit, why are casinos held harmless (for now)?

So I want to feel their pain. I do. But I can't.

Instead, I can't ignore the irony of these folks, who weaved this tangled web of "we love kids" and "stop the cigar-chomping powerbrokers" deceptions during the campaign for their faux ban. Now they are ensnared in a trap of their own making and are forced to deploy a tangled web of constitutional objections to stave off the real smoking ban.

It's not entirely their fault. They faced a conundrum when the do-gooder groups made it known they intended to enact a blanket prohibition and seemed unwilling to negotiate with the bar boys and their slot route cronies. They couldn't just sit back and allow it to happen, so they took a poll, thought they could finesse the issue and ignored the truly salient argument that this could hurt their businesses.

Yes, the polling showed the economic argument wouldn't resonate. Yes, their spots, on the whole, were clever and seemed effective. But their failure to be upfront is now forcing them to desperate legal measures.

None of these types of constitutional challenges to smoking bans - usually financed by the tobacco industry, which has not been active here - have found favor across the country. And while they must challenge the initiative on constitutional grounds - equal protection, due process - their real fear is not the notion of the ban itself, which is frightening, but the regulations that will be promulgated to enforce the ban, which could be stifling.

The suit itself has some heft behind it, with some talented local lawyers - Kirk Lenhard, Don Campbell (he's my lawyer, too), Colby Williams - as well as a renowned constitutional law expert, Ronald Rotunda. But while Nevada may be different than states where such constitutional challenges have failed - the different strata of tavern and gaming licenses, for instance - the legal burden is steep. Deputy Attorney General Christine Guerci said this week that the will of the voters, who approved the smoking ban and rejected the bar owners' competing initiative, carries weight. She indicated that there may be latitude for protests within the ban's applicability but not with its constitutionality.

Of course, it's her job to say so. The attorney general is bound to defend against any challenge to an initiative, whether he or she likes it or not. But her reading also seems right, too.

What really worries these business folks is that the health district may write onerous regulations that make it maximally expensive - or, in their eyes, unprofitable - for them to implement the smoking ban in their establishments.

Some will say that businesses in other jurisdictions somehow found a way to deal with smoking bans and make a profit. Others will chime in that other places are not Las Vegas.

And both would be correct. And that's where the petard hoisting comes in.

If these folks had confidently pushed the very real (to them, at least) economic arguments instead of trying to persuade us they wanted to protect children, we might not be having this discussion.