Smoking in Casinos

Quote: Nareed

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

Well, duh. No program administered by fallible mortals can GUARANTEE perfect results.

However, that does NOT equate to an argument for no regulation at all. I'd still rather have imperfect regulation than a complete free-for-all. The FDA has probably saved millions of lives over the course of its existence.

Quote: mkl654321

Quote: Nareed

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

Well, duh. No program administered by fallible mortals can GUARANTEE perfect results.

However, that does NOT equate to an argument for no regulation at all. I'd still rather have imperfect regulation than a complete free-for-all. The FDA has probably saved millions of lives over the course of its existence.

Thank you, mkl. I hadn't bothered to respond, since I assumed that everyone could see the fallacy, but you are correct -- it's dangerous to make that kind of assumption around here.

As a side note, mkl, a day or maybe two ago, in one of these threads, I posted a comment to the effect that sometimes I disagree so strongly with both your input and your attitude that I think you are a troll and then you say something else that is very well presented and with which I agree wholeheartedly. I'm still not sure what to think of that, but the phenomena are continuing. I think you and I might actually have some interesting one-on-one discussions (and violence-free ones), if the opportunity ever arose.

Quote: Doc

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.

That is my point exactly. If there was a market for smoke free restaurants thirty years ago then opening one would have been a gold mine. But there wasn't. Just as today I would by far prefer to play in a smoke free casino, but evidently the owners don't think there are enough people like me to have one. From what I can see in my local casino's is that they are right. It seems to be that certain vices go together. Smoking and drinking, smoking and gambling, drinking and gambling. I guess I just don't believe it's as clear cut as what is good or bad for folks, I think that personal choice and liberty usually trump all else for me.

On a side note it may be more of local casino thing to have the majority of patrons smoking. I think at the destination cities it may be put up with because the people are on vacation and came to gamble so it's not going to make them stay away. I, for example, enjoy going to Niagara Falls since they are smoke free. I'm not even sure for me the issue is a smoking or non-smoking thing. I see the gov intruding in so many areas of my life and property that I'm beginning to push back on all gov intrusion.

Quote: wrongway

That is my point exactly. If there was a market for smoke free restaurants thirty years ago then opening one would have been a gold mine. But there wasn't.

Well, actually there probably was. I just cited a very successful example. The problem was that there was such a strong pattern, perhaps a tradition, of allowing smoking in restaurants and bars, that most establishments wouldn't give a ban a serious try (until the government required it) -- they just kept operating as always, since there wasn't any significant competition from others trying it.

I will give you this: restaurants and casinos are very different creatures. Gambling and smoking may have links somewhere in the area of compulsive behavior so that nicotine addicts and gambling addicts are significantly overlapping sets. (Yes, I know that "addicts" is probably not the right word, but my vocabulary seems to be limited tonight.) If this is true, efforts to discourage smoking in casinos may well degrade the gambling business. This was speculated for the restaurant business and didn't turn out to be the case there. But it may be the case in casinos. I'm not sure that it has been adequately investigated over an extended period.

The above addresses whether it is good or bad business practice for a restaurant or casino to voluntarily choose to ban smoking in their own establishment. The earlier discussion was whether it was a violation of rights for the government to mandate that decision. My opinions are: (1) not an unwarranted violation of rights by the government, (2) a good business decision by a restaurant, (3) not yet all that clearly either a good or bad business decision by a casino.

Quote: Doc

The earlier discussion was whether it was a violation of rights for the government to mandate that decision. My opinions are: (1) not an unwarranted violation of rights by the government, (2) a good business decision by a restaurant, (3) not yet all that clearly either a good or bad business decision by a casino.

Suppose government were to ban butter, whole eggs and other fatty ingredients from all restaurants. Explain why that wouldn't be a violation of property rights.

Well first of all, as I stated previously, they would have to establish with valid studies that such a ban would be in the public interest. I haven't seen any such study. I don't think I have even seen any (serious) recommendations suggesting that all forms of fat should be eliminated from a person's diet. So in this regard, Nareed, you are indeed right. If there is no real benefit to the public, such a governmental regulation would be an unwarranted violation of rights. And I doubt it would ever be imposed.

On the other hand, if in 2035 it is determined that normal intakes of butter are causing widespread cancer throughout the population, such a butter ban might indeed be warranted. But it won't happen.

smoking can be an addictive behavior. gambling can be an addictive behavior. it doesnt take a genius to figure out there is probably some correlation between the two. if i ran a casino, to hell with all the nonsmokers. im catering to my likely repeat customers.

Quote: Nareed

Suppose government were to ban butter, whole eggs and other fatty ingredients from all restaurants. Explain why that wouldn't be a violation of property rights.

Your question presumes that you even have such property rights to begin with. You may, depending on where you live, but if you do it is only due to popular assent.

Do I have a right to free healthcare? Not here I don't. If I were a citizen of Denmark I would, since that government has accorded its citizens that right. I wouldn't say my right to free healthcare is being violated, I'd say I don't have that right to begin with.

It follows that any right grantable by government (i.e. not the fundamental ones) can also be un-granted by government. Similarly, government can grant conditional rights, like the right to perform surgery or operate a casino only after being licensed. I'm not a licensed surgeon, and I don't think its a violation of any right to prohibit me from performing surgery. And we all know what happens when casino licensing is lax...

Quote: MathExtremist

Do I have a right to free healthcare? Not here I don't. If I were a citizen of Denmark I would, since that government has accorded its citizens that right.

No one has a right to free health care because there's no such thing. Unless you suggest medicines, hospitals and doctors don't cost anything.

At a Vegas casino you're not charged for drinks. Not directly. But if you believe you're getting them free, you've no idea how a casino works.