Smoking in Casinos

Quote: mkl654321

What is garbaging up this discussion is the failure to acknowledge that a private property that allows unrestricted access/use by the public is in a legal gray area.

Nobody likes a garbaged discussion. But even the concept of property rights is not a universal, inviolate truth. There are many extant human societies that don't do "property ownership" at all. Even those that do very frequently treat property differently.

Consider intellectual property rights, which are wholly ephemeral and entirely granted by political acts. Because I'm in the U.S., I can have patents on casino games. Virtually none of my patents would be allowed in Europe because, under EPC conventions,

Quote: EPC 1973, Article 52

(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;

Quote: mkl654321

... the owner of such property does not have as much freedom as he would if his property were completely private, but he does have some say in what goes on there. The balance in favor of state authority is most often tipped when it comes to the safety of those who visit the property--the welfare of the public trumping the rights of the owner.

I would have expected Nareed to support government imposition of requirements for handrails, fire resistant materials, sprinklers, emergency exits, and the like in public areas of private facilities, but perhaps I would have been mistaken. I suppose he feels that the NGC regulations are an unreasonable imposition on the casino owners' private property right to operate games there in whatever fashion they want. Why do we even have threads discussing whether casinos cheat -- isn't that their right in their own facility?

Quote: Doc

Why do we even have threads discussing whether casinos cheat -- isn't that their right in their own facility?

No, it's not. If a casino cheats then it's committing fraud. No one has the right to defraud anyone else.

See here. A casino could run a 21 game where the dealer draws whenever he likes and throws cards back if he busts, as long as that's stated on the rules. It can pay 1 to 2 on BJ also, as long as that's stated on the rules. it would be a terrible game and I can't see why anyone would play it, but it can do so.

What a casino cannot do is say BJ pays 3 to 2 and then pay a winning customer less than that.

Quote: Nareed

No, it's not. If a casino cheats then it's committing fraud. No one has the right to defraud anyone else.

What???? Isn't a law against casino fraud an outrageous government infringement on their "rights" to behave as they want inside their very own private property? Is it even possible that one person's perceived "rights" might infringe on another's perceived "rights"?

Of course I'm being facetious, but doesn't this come back to the issue of whether an individual's "right" to a safe and healthy (and non-fraudulent) environment is in conflict with a property owner's "right" to maintain an unhealthy (or fraudulent) environment into which the public is invited? The no-smoking laws/regulations are just the government reassessing which rights should have precedence. Such assessments must be expected to evolve as knowledge of impacts increases and societal views shift.

Quote: Doc

Of course I'm being facetious,

Actually you're being fallacious. You're engaging in the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

You have a right to do what you want within your own property. you do NOT have a right to do things to other people, in your property or elsewhere, without their consent. If I consent to play against you by a set of rules we agree upon, and you break those rules then you're committing fraud.

If you allow smoking in your property then people coming in know this. They can choose whether or not to visit your property. If you post "no smoking" signs in your property, but allow people inside to smoke, then you're defrauding those who came in with the expectation of a non-smoking place.

Nareed is right. Of course, there has to be laws in place to enforce those rights. There is moral fraud, where you know you are doing the wrong thing by not adhering to posted rules, and there is legal fraud, where it's illegal to actually break the rules while on private property.

And people do have the right to do things to other people without their consent. Children everywhere get disciplined without their consent. Parents can ground children to their room because it's not illegal. You cannot smoke in your car even if the child next to you consents.

Quote: Nareed

If you allow smoking in your property then people coming in know this. They can choose whether or not to visit your property. If you post "no smoking" signs in your property, but allow people inside to smoke, then you're defrauding those who came in with the expectation of a non-smoking place.

You are morally defrauding them. However, if the non-smoking sign is not enforceable by a law, then if someone lights up in the casino, and the property does nothing about it, and it isn't illegal, the casino could not be held accountable for fraud.

Quote: boymimbo

And people do have the right to do things to other people without their consent. Children everywhere get disciplined without their consent. Parents can ground children to their room because it's not illegal. You cannot smoke in your car even if the child next to you consents.

Childhood is a temporary phase with different rules than adulthood. Children are not entirely responsible for their actions because they lack knowledge and experience. As they grow they become more responsible for what they do, until they reach adulthood. While that's happening they require adult supervision in varying degrees.

So there's no moral problem with children having limited rights, as they also have limited responsibilities. The problem arises when government attempts to treat adults as children, removing both responsibilities and rights in the process.

Quote:

You are morally defrauding them. However, if the non-smoking sign is not enforceable by a law, then if someone lights up in the casino, and the property does nothing about it, and it isn't illegal, the casino could not be held accountable for fraud.

You could make a good case for a civil lawsuit. If there's a contract involved, then the case would be easy to make.

Quote: boymimbo

Nareed is right. Of course, there has to be laws in place to enforce those rights.

Of course he is right. At least in regard to a casino committing fraud. I thought (and still hope) that it was obvious that I did not think it would be OK for a casino to cheat/defraud their customers. I was attempting to illustrate that we all accept and expect that the government will implement and enforce regulations that restrict an owner's rights on how they operate their facilities when they invite the public in.

Does this mean that smoking has to be illegal in a casino? Of course not. But it is not necessarily a violation of private property rights for the government to place restrictions on what is done there. If the government decides that it is in the public interest to prohibit smoking in restaurants, bars, offices, casinos, and similar places, that is not a violation of the owner's rights any more than the government saying they can't have open vats of acid that you walk over to get to the blackjack pit. (That's my nod to you, Nareed, acknowledging that I know how to take a point to the absurd.)

Quote: Doc

Does this mean that smoking has to be illegal in a casino? Of course not. But it is not necessarily a violation of private property rights for the government to place restrictions on what is done there.

Yes it is.

If the government decides it's in the "public interest" to prevent restaurants from serving meals containing certain ingredients, does that not violate both the restaurants' and the customers' right to decide what they want to serve and eat?

Quote: Nareed

If the government decides it's in the "public interest" to prevent restaurants from serving meals containing certain ingredients, does that not violate both the restaurants' and the customers' right to decide what they want to serve and eat?

Nope. That's why we have the FDA and the Department of Ag. Sometimes I wish they were more effective.

(OK, I may not be certain just what agency makes/enforces what regs. I just hope someone in the government is helping keep various hazards out of the food I get in the restaurant.)