Smoking in Casinos

Quote: Doc

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

I hope you're never in a position to sing the praises of the FDA while dying because the FDA has not approved a drug that may save you.

Quote: Doc

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.)

I believe that it is definitely a violation of private property rights. Let the market decide what is best. For instance if the need for non-smoking casino's was so great then the owners would cater to that need and willingly have non-smoking casinos. Also, we don't need to have the government ban open vats of acid on the way to the blackjack pit. If a casino decided to have that in their establishment they would suffer from a lack of customers and would change or go out of business.

Quote: Nareed

I hope you're never in a position to sing the praises of the FDA while dying because the FDA has not approved a drug that may save you.

Similarly, I hope that neither of us suffers from a drug that causes great harm but slipped past the FDA with insufficient testing.

Forgot to mention that I don't smoke and don't really like to be in smokey places. And really hate it when I'm at the table and someone lights up right next to me. But I recognize their right to do so. I have been many places where if the ventilation is good it doesn't bother me at all. If there ever is a time when more people feel like I do, then I'm sure businesses would cater to us.

Quote: wrongway

I believe that it is definitely a violation of private property rights. Let the market decide what is best. For instance if the need for non-smoking casino's was so great then the owners would cater to that need and willingly have non-smoking casinos. Also, we don't need to have the government ban open vats of acid on the way to the blackjack pit. If a casino decided to have that in their establishment they would suffer from a lack of customers and would change or go out of business.

There are perhaps multiple issues: (1) What regulation can the government legally impose without improperly intruding on the rights of the property owner? and (2) What regulations should the government impose?

It is my opinion that the government can legally impose quite a few regulations, but that not all are necessarily the best way for the government to govern. If a proper evaluation of the public health issues determines that smoking should be restricted, then I think such regulations are legal and probably appropriate. If there is no such proper evaluation, then the regs might be legal, but I would consider them inappropriate. And I don't care whether the property owner really wants to present a public health hazard as just his way of doing business.

As for letting the free market determine how it is done, thirty years ago, free-market pressures did not give us smoke-free restaurants because smoking was allowed in all of the restaurants. The options were to eat in a restaurant or don't, not to go to another restaurant where there was no smoke and thereby illustrate your preference. Times changed, but some facilities did not change until it was imposed by government regulation.

Quote: Doc

Similarly, I hope that neither of us suffers from a drug that causes great harm but slipped past the FDA with insufficient testing.

Bravo! You do see that government regulations and regulatory agencies are no guarantee of anything. That's not a bad first step.

Quote: Doc

As for letting the free market determine how it is done, thirty years ago, free-market pressures did not give us smoke-free restaurants because smoking was allowed in all of the restaurants.

But neither did government regulations. Why not? Because there was no hysteria about smoking.

Besides markets did offer non-smoking sections in restaurants. In many restaurants these were sufficiently separated from the smoking areas to be effective.

Quote: Nareed

But neither did government regulations. Why not? Because there was no hysteria about smoking.

Besides markets did offer non-smoking sections in restaurants. In many restaurants these were sufficiently separated from the smoking areas to be effective.

No, there was indeed no hysteria. With the intense bombardment of advertising telling how manly (or sophisticated, for the ladies) cigarettes were, there was not a wide-spread acceptance of the health hazard of smoking. A very high portion of the people were convinced (indoctrinated?) that the health problems, if any, would never strike them and that smoking was the thing to do -- didn't that ruggedly handsome Marlboro man do it? There was hardly even any acknowledgment that there might actually be a health hazard (not just an annoyance) from second-hand smoke.

Thirty years ago probably was, indeed, when non-smoking areas started to appear. I remember the restaurant where my work colleagues and I usually went for lunch. They established a small section of their dining area as non-smoking in the early 80s. Quickly, they encountered a line of customers who would wait for non-smoking rather than going to smoking, so they increased the non-smoking area. The line waiting for non-smoking was a continuing phenomenon through three or four adjustments until the entire dining area was non-smoking with a small smoking lounge near their bar. Like many restaurants and bars, they did not anticipate that this kind of customer reaction was even plausible until they gave it a try. That restaurant, though, was innovative. Most establishments aren't willing to take such risks to see how it will work -- they keep operating like everyone else or would actually prefer the government to impost the regulation so that they and all their competitors would have to do it the same way.

I remember the casino in Montreal was entirely nonsmoking, it was quite nice to play and not get burning eyes and smell the stinkyness. They had an outdoor area a bunch of people were congregating in to get their nicotine fix, I think that is a much better idea, send everyone out onto the strip to get their fix and have clean air inside.

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?

Other than smoke, there could be non-visible carcinogens in your food that you could happily eat for years and not know it (pesticides, food additives, preservatives, additives). Even if you let the free market work, and something is linked to disease, then everyone avoids the restaurant and it closes. Fine, but what prevents it from happening again and again with new restaurants. Especially if it's non-visible?

Smoking is visible, that’s the only thing that makes it different really.

edited- well not the only thing as it travels through the air