Smoking to Resume in June (AC)
I find this to be a welcome return (and it seemed silly to keep smoking banned while eating and drinking were permitted, I understood the full consumption ban). I was fearful that NJ would use this to keep smoking banned forever in AC (which would be a bad move).
https://www.casino.org/news/atlantic-city-casinos-to-welcome-back-smokers-next-month/
Quote: VegasriderThats too bad. For almost a year, smoking has been banned in Nevada casinos inside the pit. Just goes to show that people will still play even if smoking is not permitted
I think the Atlantic City model was extremely fair to begin with. Smoking is allowed in casinos by State Law (NJ). Atlantic City (which is the only City that has casinos in NJ) decided to limit this at a City-level by mandating that at least 75% be smoke-free. So, the vast majority of the casino is already non-smoking. I do not think that allowing smoking sections detracts from anyone's experience.
I was not aware of any Nevada ban? Was it just policy at certain casinos during precautions?
Quote: GandlerIt seems that smoking is to be resumed in Atlantic City in June.
I find this to be a welcome return (and it seemed silly to keep smoking banned while eating and drinking were permitted, I understood the full consumption ban). I was fearful that NJ would use this to keep smoking banned forever in AC (which would be a bad move).
https://www.casino.org/news/atlantic-city-casinos-to-welcome-back-smokers-next-month/
That’s really too bad.
This was the city’s and states chance to do the right thing. How you can compare smoking with eating and drinking is ludicrous.
The 75% non smoking system is a joke.
Thankfully now there are enough states with non smoking casinos so I don’t have to go to smoking ones.
Quote: HunterhillThat’s really too bad.
This was the city’s and states chance to do the right thing. How you can compare smoking with eating and drinking is ludicrous.
The 75% non smoking system is a joke.
Thankfully now there are enough states with non smoking casinos so I don’t have to go to smoking ones.
Why is it a joke? Why is it okay for other States to have total smoking, but NJ allowing even in limited controlled areas is over the line? I think 75/25 is a very fair breakdown for the percentage of smokers in casinos.
As for comparing it to eating and drinking, its all consumables. At first NJ casinos were allowed to reopen with no eating, drinking, or smoking (so that everyone would have to wear a mask at all times inside). This was then rolled back to allow all three, however there was outrage that smoking was allowed, so within 1 or 2 days after full consumables being allowed indoors, smoking was individually banned. If you are allowed to have your mask off while actively eating or drinking (which in a casino is virtually constantly), you are already demasked, does banning smoking slow the spread? How much more would people lower their masks to smoke (my guess is very little since people tend to smoke while they already have a drink in their hand.....)?
My thought process is simple, either ban all indoor consumables and mandate masks at all times indoors, or allow all, banning just smoking did not seem to make sense. Of course its a moot point now, but that was my view at the time.
As for your last point, exactly, there are nonsmoking casinos, if casinos that even have separated sections do not appeal to you, go to a nonsmoking casino. There is no reason to mandate that every casino in the state be 100% smoke free. It should be a local issue. And, I think AC's Policy (the 75/25 is a city-level law), is reasonable. If casinos ever get permitted in other cities in NJ they can determine what is right for their city. When it comes to smoking, NJ gets a lot wrong, but speaking strictly for casinos they have it right (permitted in casinos subject to local regulation, and then localities can determine what works for them, at one point in the mid 2000s, AC completely banned smoking, it did not work out and was quickly reversed).
Atlantic City suffered greatly this past year, this is not the time for people to push a smoking ban (which is what some in the local media seemed to be hoping for, that the smoking ban would end up being permanent, at which point it has nothing to do with COVID and everything to do with restricting smoking indoors).
Quote: GandlerWhy is it a joke? Why is it okay for other States to have total smoking, but NJ allowing even in limited controlled areas is over the line? I think 75/25 is a very fair breakdown for the percentage of smokers in casinos.
As for comparing it to eating and drinking, its all consumables. At first NJ casinos were allowed to reopen with no eating, drinking, or smoking (so that everyone would have to wear a mask at all times inside). This was then rolled back to allow all three, however there was outrage that smoking was allowed, so within 1 or 2 days after full consumables being allowed indoors, smoking was individually banned. If you are allowed to have your mask off while actively eating or drinking (which in a casino is virtually constantly), you are already demasked, does banning smoking slow the spread? How much more would people lower their masks to smoke (my guess is very little since people tend to smoke while they already have a drink in their hand.....)?
My thought process is simple, either ban all indoor consumables and mandate masks at all times indoors, or allow all, banning just smoking did not seem to make sense. Of course its a moot point now, but that was my view at the time.
As for your last point, exactly, there are nonsmoking casinos, if casinos that even have separated sections do not appeal to you, go to a nonsmoking casino. There is no reason to mandate that every casino in the state be 100% smoke free. It should be a local issue. And, I think AC's Policy (the 75/25 is a city-level law), is reasonable. If casinos ever get permitted in other cities in NJ they can determine what is right for their city. When it comes to smoking, NJ gets a lot wrong, but speaking strictly for casinos they have it right (permitted in casinos subject to local regulation, and then localities can determine what works for them, at one point in the mid 2000s, AC completely banned smoking, it did not work out and was quickly reversed).
Atlantic City suffered greatly this past year, this is not the time for people to push a smoking ban (which is what some in the local media seemed to be hoping for, that the smoking ban would end up being permanent, at which point it has nothing to do with COVID and everything to do with restricting smoking indoors).
When AC banned smoking around 2008 it coincided with the recession and also with casinos opening in Pa , business was down everywhere but the casinos quickly reacted and blamed it on non smoking.
The 75/25% solution unless it has improved was a joke. One table would be nonsmoking and the table right next to it would be smoking without any barrier.
It was enforced lackadaisically,.
Just because all three , eating , drinking and smoking are consumables doesn’t make them equal. Yes for mask usage they are similar but can you clearly not see how smoking affects other people compared to eating and drinking?
Yes consumers have a choice to avoid smoking casinos but many of the employees really need their jobs.
Yes I realize they don’t have to work at the smoking places but coal miners don’t have to work in the mines either. Some people just don’t have many choices and are forced to put up with it.
Quote: HunterhillThankfully now there are enough states with non smoking casinos so I don’t have to go to smoking ones.
Everyone is as thankful as you are....you realized that you never had to go anywhere.
Congratulations.
Quote: coachbellyEveryone is as thankful as you are....you realized that you never had to go anywhere.
Congratulations.
Thank you, now don’t you have to go walk your dog?
Quote: HunterhillThank you, now don’t you have to go walk your dog?
Nope, I don't have to go anywhere...same as you don't have to go anywhere.
I cannot under any circumstance equate mask removal to eat or drink with mask removal to blow the contents of your smoke filled lungs on anything and everything during a RESPIRATORY....VIRAL....Pandemic. Makes no sense whatsoever. It’s also reason why the Governor of Nevada was never following the science. What science or expert advised him mask removal was A-OK....to blow smoke or vape or cigar smoke during a pandemic?
There is no science..nor expert who advised him this was a tolerable allowance. Money talked. Not science. Or health.
Quote: DeMangoAgree TD. Smokers are just selfish people. Their drug dependence trumps your health especially the captive dealers.
The casino bosses lobby hard to keep smoking. Guess what?...they aren’t on the floor and I’ll guarantee every single one of them would never allow someone to smoke in their car or in their home. They will, however, allow you to smoke in their business. It was always money, never health. It’s a powerful lobby here in Nevada where every politician is bought. They all know it shouldn’t be allowed. Money talks, the science walks.
Quote: DeMangoAgree TD. Smokers are just selfish people. Their drug dependence trumps your health especially the captive dealers.
I think this is an unfair generalization.
I would not call myself a smoker. I cannot recall the last time I smoked a cigarette (it would be Pre-COVID). But, I like to smoke at casinos, it is part of the experience. I think an adult place like casinos, where people go to let loose and not worry at all about health, smoking should be allowed. Nobody who is obsessed about their health would go to a casino in the first place. It is an adult vice that some enjoy. And, casinos are unique in being a legal place to indulge in multiple vices with no stigma.
Quote: GandlerI think this is an unfair generalization.
I would not call myself a smoker. I cannot recall the last time I smoked a cigarette (it would be Pre-COVID). But, I like to smoke at casinos, it is part of the experience. I think an adult place like casinos, where people go to let loose and not worry at all about health, smoking should be allowed. Nobody who is obsessed about their health would go to a casino in the first place. It is an adult vice that some enjoy. And, casinos are unique in being a legal place to indulge in multiple vices with no stigma.
Total Bullshit. What percentage of adults smoke? And they should rule the lungs of the not so selfish, stupid customers? What about the dealers who have no say about the risks they have to face. Medically this has been settled 57 years ago. End smoking and life will go on, they are also addicted to gambling, castrate them all, so they can’t multiply. (Sarcasm)
Quote: DeMangoTotal Bullshit. What percentage of adults smoke? And they should rule the lungs of the not so selfish, stupid customers? What about the dealers who have no say about the risks they have to face. Medically this has been settled 57 years ago. End smoking and life will go on, they are also addicted to gambling, castrate them all, so they can’t multiply. (Sarcasm)
I think about 15-20% of adults smoke (U.S.), but among routine U.S. gamblers the rate is significantly higher. When you factor foreign tourists who come from countries where smoking is still socially normal, and people (like myself) who only smoke at casinos, the rate even probably even higher still.... It is well known that gamblers smoke.
This is not really an opposed figure, casino know that a significant portion of their consumers smoke or else they would not spend so much time and money trying to cater to smokers (and oppose restrictions).... If most gamers want 100% nonsmoking casinos, why would there not be more? If this was the true demand, every major casino would be nonsmoking, you would not need government restrictions.... And, the only smoking casinos would be small niche casinos....
Quote: GandlerI do not think that allowing smoking sections detracts from anyone's experience.
The most factually incorrect statement in the history of the world.
The stench from any indoor area in which smoking is allowed is nothing short of revolting.
But..... I am not against allowing smoking if that is what the private business (casino) wants to do.
Quote: SOOPOOThe stench from any indoor area in which smoking is allowed is nothing short of revolting.
How did you survive prior to 1990?
Quote: gamerfreakHow did you survive prior to 1990?
I always find it amusing how older people who grew up most of their life where smoking was accepted are the most offended by it in the modern context. It seems like young people tend to not care (at least not at bars and casinos)... In the 1960s they probably never gave it a second thought.
Honestly former smokers are even worse, a lot of adult who were chain smokers when I was a kid (and generally the type who were super aggressive about it, "you can't tell me where I can't smoke" types) are now holier than though and act like even seeing a cigarette offends them (that is just my observation).
Quote: SOOPOOThe most factually incorrect statement in the history of the world.
The stench from any indoor area in which smoking is allowed is nothing short of revolting.
But..... I am not against allowing smoking if that is what the private business (casino) wants to do.
How can an opinion be "the most factually incorrect statement in the history of the world" ..... Absurd comment...
In any case, I appreciate that you want to let it be at the discretion of casinos. There are casinos designed to be smoke free, if this is critical to people they can choose to go to such a casino. At best it should be a local city-level issue. I don't think blanket State bans are ever wise (for this issue).
Zero respect for the guy. Indefensible.
His office was asked about the issue OVER and OVER. He ignored the question every single time. His standard response was “next question”.
He couldn’t answer. He would look foolish trying to come up with a coherent answer.
Quote: TDVegasIt was beyond unconscionable that ANY state continued to allow smoking, indoors during the pandemic. Here in Nevada where the Governor was the biggest mask and science proponent I’ve ever seen...he STILL allowed removal of masks...to smoke in casinos...during a respiratory viral pandemic. Not just cigs...but vaping and cigar smoking as well.
Zero respect for the guy. Indefensible.
His office was asked about the issue OVER and OVER. He ignored the question every single time. His standard response was “next question”.
He couldn’t answer. He would look foolish trying to come up with a coherent answer.
I fully agree. And, I had no problem with a temporary ban as it was an extreme circumstance.
But, as things are renormalizing and masks are going away, its good (in my view) that smoking is coming back to casinos.
Quote: GandlerI fully agree. And, I had no problem with a temporary ban as it was an extreme circumstance.
But, as things are renormalizing and masks are going away, its good (in my view) that smoking is coming back to casinos.
I disagree it’s good from a public health perspective. You can obviously say it’s good from a business or “freedom lives” type of argument...but from a health perspective, it’s just a bad allowance. With everything we now know about the health ramifications for smokers and non smokers...the time is long past in a society where it’s been dumped in just about every public venue and private business.
Whether or not a smoking ban hurts business, IMO, my guess is not likely. Smokers who gamble aren’t giving up nor curtailing their visits because they can’t smoke. They will simply walk outside, get their fix and come back in. I know many who don’t smoke who visit casinos and after a while they will say they are “smoked out”...meaning they’ve had enough and are ready to go. They would likely stay longer if smoking wasn’t allowed.
To put it in its most simplistic form...no non smoker wants to breath in the stench of cigarette smoke.
Did I miss a memo?Quote: GandlerAtlantic City suffered greatly this past year, this is not the time for people to push a smoking ban.
Did AC or the AC casinos suffer more during the pandemic than other casinos or casino towns?
I think it’s the PERFECT time for the permanent ban.
While covid was a great excuse to ban smoking while the other rules were in place, the recovery with the restrictions is evidence that the casinos would be fine despite a permanent smoking ban.
Governor: dammit, people are dying. I need you all to mask up. This is serious. No joke.
Review Journal: Governor, will people be allowed to smoke in casinos?
Governor: next question
Las Vegas Sun: considering this is a respiratory viral pandemic, what about mask removal to smoke on casino floors?
Governor: next question
CDC: Governor, we seriously implore you to ban smoking during the worst of the pandemic
Governor: next question
AMA: Governor, we advise not to allow smoking in casinos, during this pandemic
Governor: next question
Governor: dammit you people, this virus is no joke and we will 100% follow the science.
Reno Gazette: what science expert advised you that smoking on the casino floor was an ok idea?
Governor: next question
Speaking personally, my respect for this Governor is about ZERO.
Quote: DeMangoAgree TD. Smokers are just selfish people. Their drug dependence trumps your health especially the captive dealers.
I disagree with this post completely.
It seems that we have some people in the thread who thinks the Government should step in and ban smoking in casinos in those jurisdictions in which it is still permitted.
The above-quoted post puts the responsibility on the smokers.
I'm going to make the following short points:
1.) Why do we need State Governments having more control of what people do or don't do?
2.) If smokers are permitted to smoke in casinos, then they are permitted to smoke in casinos. I recently quit, but calling smokers, "Selfish," is also an over-generalization. For my part, if I wasn't already seated at a machine (and intended to smoke) then I'd sit down and ask those around me if they mind (unless they were all already smoking). As far as dealers are concerned, though I don't play Table Games often, I'd ask them if I was the only one at the table.
3.) There's one entity that can ban smoking on property anytime that they wish---the property. Clearly, one must assume that the property believes that allowing smoking is better for the bottom line than banning smoking on property. In short, if you're going to accuse any entity of being selfish and unconcerned with the, "Captive dealers," then blame the property for not banning smoking. They could do it on their own anytime they wish.
4.) Being non-smoking (in an area that allows smoking) could also have marketability, but the general consensus (based on what the properties actually do---when they have the option) seems to be that allowing for smoking is more profitable.
5.) Finally, casinos are establishments for adult entertainment. Nobody needs to go to a casino. It's for each (non-smoker) person to simply decide whether or not the benefits of going to the property outweigh the cost of being exposed to smoke. Or, in the alternative, try to get a petition signed to present to a particular property to get them to become non-smoking of their own accord.
Quote: DeMangoTotal Bullshit. What percentage of adults smoke? And they should rule the lungs of the not so selfish, stupid customers? What about the dealers who have no say about the risks they have to face. Medically this has been settled 57 years ago. End smoking and life will go on, they are also addicted to gambling, castrate them all, so they can’t multiply. (Sarcasm)
The dealers do have a say. Were they not aware that the property allowed smoking when they applied for the job?
Quote: Mission146I disagree with this post completely.
It seems that we have some people in the thread who thinks the Government should step in and ban smoking in casinos in those jurisdictions in which it is still permitted.
The above-quoted post puts the responsibility on the smokers.
I'm going to make the following short points:
1.) Why do we need State Governments having more control of what people do or don't do?
2.) If smokers are permitted to smoke in casinos, then they are permitted to smoke in casinos. I recently quit, but calling smokers, "Selfish," is also an over-generalization. For my part, if I wasn't already seated at a machine (and intended to smoke) then I'd sit down and ask those around me if they mind (unless they were all already smoking). As far as dealers are concerned, though I don't play Table Games often, I'd ask them if I was the only one at the table.
3.) There's one entity that can ban smoking on property anytime that they wish---the property. Clearly, one must assume that the property believes that allowing smoking is better for the bottom line than banning smoking on property. In short, if you're going to accuse any entity of being selfish and unconcerned with the, "Captive dealers," then blame the property for not banning smoking. They could do it on their own anytime they wish.
4.) Being non-smoking (in an area that allows smoking) could also have marketability, but the general consensus (based on what the properties actually do---when they have the option) seems to be that allowing for smoking is more profitable.
5.) Finally, casinos are establishments for adult entertainment. Nobody needs to go to a casino. It's for each (non-smoker) person to simply decide whether or not the benefits of going to the property outweigh the cost of being exposed to smoke. Or, in the alternative, try to get a petition signed to present to a particular property to get them to become non-smoking of their own accord.
I agree completely with most of that.
My one push back is, I do think local (city-level) governments should have the ability to regulate smoking, as they are generally more accurate to the needs of the local citizens (and can generally more easily modify an ordinance if it is found to be too stringent like in AC, where at State levels this type of thing can takes years...) But, it should in ideal circumstances be up to the property owner. And, if the property owner has a policy that offends their employees and customers, they will lose out to competitors who do the opposite.
We are seeing a trend with some casinos opening (or changing) to be 100% smokefree on their own. This is great, if they are more popular than other casinos will naturally follow. And, there will end up being a mix of smoking casinos, nonsmoking casinos, and probably some mixed (with designated sections). And, you can choose where to play and where to work. If the State bans it for all casinos across the State, then 100% of casinos will be smokefree.
I like your last point because that is what I have been trying to say (perhaps poorly), casinos are adult entertainment where people go to indulge in adult vices none of which are probably good for your health overall (whether it be physical or mental), but people choose to go knowing the risk (or perhaps because of the risk).
Nonsmokers already have the majority of the world (in most cases rightfully so). But, don't go to a casino that allows smoking, and then go specifically to a smoking section (less than 25% of the casino) and then complain about second hand smoke, that is my issue.
Quote: Mission146I disagree with this post completely.
It seems that we have some people in the thread who thinks the Government should step in and ban smoking in casinos in those jurisdictions in which it is still permitted.
The above-quoted post puts the responsibility on the smokers.
I'm going to make the following short points:
1.) Why do we need State Governments having more control of what people do or don't do?
2.) If smokers are permitted to smoke in casinos, then they are permitted to smoke in casinos. I recently quit, but calling smokers, "Selfish," is also an over-generalization. For my part, if I wasn't already seated at a machine (and intended to smoke) then I'd sit down and ask those around me if they mind (unless they were all already smoking). As far as dealers are concerned, though I don't play Table Games often, I'd ask them if I was the only one at the table.
3.) There's one entity that can ban smoking on property anytime that they wish---the property. Clearly, one must assume that the property believes that allowing smoking is better for the bottom line than banning smoking on property. In short, if you're going to accuse any entity of being selfish and unconcerned with the, "Captive dealers," then blame the property for not banning smoking. They could do it on their own anytime they wish.
4.) Being non-smoking (in an area that allows smoking) could also have marketability, but the general consensus (based on what the properties actually do---when they have the option) seems to be that allowing for smoking is more profitable.
5.) Finally, casinos are establishments for adult entertainment. Nobody needs to go to a casino. It's for each (non-smoker) person to simply decide whether or not the benefits of going to the property outweigh the cost of being exposed to smoke. Or, in the alternative, try to get a petition signed to present to a particular property to get them to become non-smoking of their own accord.
State governments have banned smoking in just about every venue known to man....public and private. Smoking in casinos has stayed for one reason and one reason only...money to politicians. The lobby arm of casinos is far and above stronger and better funded than the lobby arms of malls, theaters, stadiums, retail stores, etc, etc.
If it’s better for the bottom line in Vegas...it’s because there are a few whales from Asia that adds a healthy chunk to the bottom line, and they want to smoke. Casinos cave. I highly doubt the 20% smoking are doing more action than the 80% who don’t. It’s the Asian whales. Even Murren admitted that.
Nobody needs to go to the theater. Nobody needs to go to a Raiders game. Nobody needs to go to an indoor concert. We’ve made the right decision there. Banned smoking.
Casinos are the hold out for one reason and one reason only...political clout tied to money.
Your argument would hold water IF it was left up to the business. It is not left up to the business anymore (sans casinos) because the state has decided the health risks outweigh the freedom to do as you please.
Quote: TDVegasState governments have banned smoking in just about every venue known to man....public and private. Smoking in casinos has stayed for one reason and one reason only...money to politicians. The lobby arm of casinos is far and above stronger and better funded than the lobby arms of malls, theaters, stadiums, retail stores, etc, etc.
Malls---Kids
Theaters---Kids
Stadiums---Kids
Retail Stores---Kids
I'm going to say swing and a miss, strike one. Of course, that just makes banning one and not the other defensible, which is if you think the state (rather than more localized jurisdictions) should be doing it in the first place.
That said, maybe it is lobbying money. Money or no money, that kids are allowed to be in those types of venues, and not casinos, at least makes the no-ban defensible.
Quote:If it’s better for the bottom line in Vegas...it’s because there are a few whales from Asia that adds a healthy chunk to the bottom line, and they want to smoke. Casinos cave. I highly doubt the 20% smoking are doing more action than the 80% who don’t. It’s the Asian whales. Even Murren admitted that.
The, "Casinos cave?" What do you mean, "Cave?" As opposed to when smoking was not allowed in Nevada casinos?
Quote:Nobody needs to go to the theater. Nobody needs to go to a Raiders game. Nobody needs to go to an indoor concert. We’ve made the right decision there. Banned smoking.
Casinos are the hold out for one reason and one reason only...political clout tied to money.
Your argument would hold water IF it was left up to the business. It is not left up to the business anymore (sans casinos) because the state has decided the health risks outweigh the freedom to do as you please.
Kids can go to all of those venues, and you're also wrong. Some jurisdictions allow smoking in bars, but not restaurants. Why? Kids don't go to bars. Ohio County, West Virginia allows smoking in all gambling establishments (or gambling rooms within other establishments). Why? No kids.
It just varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but where there is a difference, it's usually because it's an adults-only establishment.
Quote: DeMangoDeep bullshit rolling in. The casino dealer should have the same right as another worker for a smoke free environment. Why is this allowed to happen in a casino? Fear of losing a dollar to the selfish drug addicted smoker.
The casino dealer should have the, “Right,” to a smoke-free environment?
The casino dealer does have that, “Right,” he or she has the right to work somewhere that doesn’t allow smoking.
Did they apply to be dealers and accept the job, or were they coerced into the position under threat of death?
What a specious argument! People would prefer for casinos to be non-smoking, so all of a sudden, they care about the working conditions of the dealers?
I’m still confused why the smokers themselves are the, “Selfish,” ones. They’re simply doing what the establishment allows them to do. If you’re going to make an argument that anyone is selfish, then it would be casino ownership.
The smokers are certainly not the ones enriched by the establishment allowing smoking. Have you seen what casinos charge for a pack of smokes?
Quote: TDVegasState governments have banned smoking in just about every venue known to man....public and private. Smoking in casinos has stayed for one reason and one reason only...money to politicians. The lobby arm of casinos is far and above stronger and better funded than the lobby arms of malls, theaters, stadiums, retail stores, etc, etc.
If it’s better for the bottom line in Vegas...it’s because there are a few whales from Asia that adds a healthy chunk to the bottom line, and they want to smoke. Casinos cave. I highly doubt the 20% smoking are doing more action than the 80% who don’t. It’s the Asian whales. Even Murren admitted that.
Nobody needs to go to the theater. Nobody needs to go to a Raiders game. Nobody needs to go to an indoor concert. We’ve made the right decision there. Banned smoking.
Casinos are the hold out for one reason and one reason only...political clout tied to money.
Your argument would hold water IF it was left up to the business. It is not left up to the business anymore (sans casinos) because the state has decided the health risks outweigh the freedom to do as you please.
(Emphasis mine).
I am pretty sure that the figure I read (which I cannot find at the moment), is that the majority of gaming revenue comes from smokers (something like 55%). This is a combination of people who smoke tend to gamble more in general, and like you said, certain wealthy people from foreign countries where smoking is still normalized come to U.S. casinos to gamble. So if this figure is accurate, it means that a minority (20%) contributes the bulk of revenue. I find this believable.
Quote: gamerfreakHow did you survive prior to 1990?
Revoltingly. Plus I grew up in a small apartment and my parents smoked SEVEN packs of cigarettes per day between them. My mother sometimes would light a cigarette while the previous one was still smoldering.
I survived, but maybe I have PTSD? (Post traumatic smoking disorder?)
Do strip clubs allow smoking ,or night clubs? If so there goes the kids allowed arguments.Quote: Mission146Malls---Kids
Theaters---Kids
Stadiums---Kids
Retail Stores---Kids
I'm going to say swing and a miss, strike one. Of course, that just makes banning one and not the other defensible, which is if you think the state (rather than more localized jurisdictions) should be doing it in the first place.
That said, maybe it is lobbying money. Money or no money, that kids are allowed to be in those types of venues, and not casinos, at least makes the no-ban defensible.
The, "Casinos cave?" What do you mean, "Cave?" As opposed to when smoking was not allowed in Nevada casinos?
Kids can go to all of those venues, and you're also wrong. Some jurisdictions allow smoking in bars, but not restaurants. Why? Kids don't go to bars. Ohio County, West Virginia allows smoking in all gambling establishments (or gambling rooms within other establishments). Why? No kids.
It just varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but where there is a difference, it's usually because it's an adults-only establishment.
Quote: HunterhillDo strip clubs allow smoking ,or night clubs? If so there goes the kids allowed arguments.
In Nevada? No idea; I do not go to either of those two things. I should assume that smoking would be allowed in strip clubs if it is in a jurisdiction in which smoking is allowed in bars. I've been to two strip clubs, lifetime, and smoking was permitted in both. Of course, the most recent of those was more than fifteen years ago.
Maybe I will make some calls and find out for you, though I'm pretty sure you'll find jurisdictions in which you can smoke in a strip club.
I don't know what you mean by, "Night club." That's just a fancy bar. I'm sure if those are non-smoking (in a jurisdiction in which smoking is otherwise permitted in bars), then it is at the choice of the night club.
Also, I hope you're not confusing my position on this. I have no problem with the owners of a particular location choosing not to allow smoking; that's who should be choosing it.
Quote: Mission146Malls---Kids
Theaters---Kids
Stadiums---Kids
Retail Stores---Kids
I'm going to say swing and a miss, strike one. Of course, that just makes banning one and not the other defensible, which is if you think the state (rather than more localized jurisdictions) should be doing it in the first place.
That said, maybe it is lobbying money. Money or no money, that kids are allowed to be in those types of venues, and not casinos, at least makes the no-ban defensible.
The, "Casinos cave?" What do you mean, "Cave?" As opposed to when smoking was not allowed in Nevada casinos?
Kids can go to all of those venues, and you're also wrong. Some jurisdictions allow smoking in bars, but not restaurants. Why? Kids don't go to bars. Ohio County, West Virginia allows smoking in all gambling establishments (or gambling rooms within other establishments). Why? No kids.
It just varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but where there is a difference, it's usually because it's an adults-only establishment.
If “kids allowed” is the argument...then why was smoking banned in just about every office building and workplace? Don’t remember seeing too many kids at the law offices, accounting offices, factory floors or warehouse. The idea is protecting everyone from the ramifications of second hand smoking or smoking in general....not just kids.
Quote: TDVegasIf “kids allowed” is the argument...then why was smoking banned in just about every office building and workplace? Don’t remember seeing too many kids at the law offices, accounting offices, factory floors or warehouse. The idea is protecting everyone from the ramifications of second hand smoking or smoking in general....not just kids.
That's also an easy answer: It depends on the jurisdiction. It always does.
For example, Ohio is one state in which the public smoking ban also applies to workplaces, or there might have been a workplace smoking ban---don't remember. Ohio also has it such that the indoor smoking ban prohibits smoking within x (don't remember) feet of an entrance to an establishment, but I have absolutely never heard of that actually being enforced. Ohio directly said that, while long-haul truck drivers are not legally exempt, the law would not actually be enforced on them.
If you go to jurisdictions that have a general indoor smoking ban, then those smoking bans are automatically inclusive and can only be exclusive on a specific basis. For example, if your workplace is a bar or gambling parlor (depending on County), then you can smoke in there.
More than that, and this could be faulty memory, but I want to say that most office buildings and workplaces either never allowed smoking to begin with, or alternatively, had a separate break room for that purpose.
If pressed, I imagine that I could find a state or lower jurisdiction that does the law on an inclusive basis, meaning that they list places in which one cannot smoke, rather than not smoking indoors being the default position.
Anyway, "Office building and workplace," is cheap. That's like asking me, "Why can't you smoke in doctors offices?"
I also don't know if this is decisive, but it seems good enough:
http://employeerights.info/2/grubblawgroup/state-smoking-rights-workplace
Here are some notables:
Alabama: For the most part, if the location doesn't take a position on it, employees decide whether or not smoking is allowed in a particular area of the workplace.
Alaska: Apparently, you CAN smoke in a restaurant if it seats less than fifty people.
Arizona: Non-smoking is default indoors. The law is exclusive, which means a statute must specifically allow exceptions and name them.
Arkansas: You may not smoke in an enclosed area with three, or more, employees. Also, bars if nobody under 21 is allowed in allow smoking.
So, again, no categorical statement can be made about workplaces or offices. It depends. That said, and as it should be, the property owner can decide for themselves to make a property non-smoking anytime they wish.
That's generally not a law; it's a property barrier to entry. Legally, with no sign to the contrary, I could walk into 7-11 wearing only a banana hammock.
Same thing with workplace smoking. It's not allowed indoors in many workplaces, including in states where there may not be a specific law preventing it.
Quote: Mission146More than that, and this could be faulty memory, but I want to say that most office buildings and workplaces either never allowed smoking to begin with, or alternatively, had a separate break room for that purpose.
That’s just not true. People were smoking in conference room meetings, at their desks and anywhere in between. Numerous articles discussing that.
Its time to just get rid of the stinking smoke.
Quote: TDVegasThat’s just not true. People were smoking in conference room meetings, at their desks and anywhere in between. Numerous articles discussing that.
I don't mean, "NEVER,"---people wonder why I usually try to write so specifically. It's because you can't even have a casual conversation without getting nitpicked. Anyway, I thought that I implied that most office buildings were that way even prior to state smoking bans. If not, I certainly meant to imply that.
Hell, I even said that it could be, "Faulty memory," in that post! I'd already covered your objection!
Quote: VegasriderFact is, people will still gamble whether they are allowed to or not. Fact that the majority of people who visit the casinos are non-smokers, just doesn't make sense to continue allowing a small percentage of people to ruin a positive experience for the guests. People didn't stop flying because they could no longer smoke on planes or stopped playing poker, or dine at restaurants or even inside bars and nightclubs.
Its time to just get rid of the stinking smoke.
That post is purely a matter of opinion, so I have no real objection. It also states no direct opinion as to what state, or other, Governments should be doing or not doing.
In short, I am NOT exactly defending smoking to continue in casinos, and even if I would, it would be a lukewarm defense. I am defending that casinos should have the option to allow smoking as far as Government is concerned.
Finally, I'm defending the smokers themselves as they are only doing what the property permits them to do, which the property, in theory, could stop them from doing at anytime.
Quote: HunterhillDo strip clubs allow smoking ,or night clubs? If so there goes the kids allowed arguments.
In New Jersey, no.
The only places you can smoke inside in NJ are:
• Hotels, motels or other lodging establishments may permit smoking in up to 20% of guest rooms;
• Within the perimeters of casino gaming areas, and casino simulcasting facilities;
• Registered cigar bars or lounges that in calendar year ending December 31, 2004, generated 15% or more of total annual gross income from the sale of tobacco products;
• Tobacco retail establishments whose primary activity (51%) is the retail sale of tobacco products and accessories and the sale of other products is incidental.
The one exception is there are bars and clubs in casinos that allow smoking in NJ by claiming they are "part of the casino floor" usually by having a handful of machines, but outside of casinos, no.
However, in many other States, you can still smoke in bars and adult clubs.... In some cases the bar must only be open to those above 21 and the majority of revenue is from alcohol (I guess to prove it is an adult only establishment), but these law vary by State.
The State I currently live in (GA) you can smoke in bars and restaurants as long as all employees are over 18. I am not sure about adult clubs, not my thing, but I would imagine if you can smoke in restaurants with an 18+ staff, you can probably smoke at adult clubs (a quick Google search confirmed that you can). You can even smoke in nursing homes. (Of course its at the discretion of the property owner to allow, ban, or only allow in certain areas). And, in areas of professional employment the employer can designate indoor smoking areas as long as it is physically separated from the main office. Local cities have the ability to add additional restrictions.
I would say the southeast and Texas tend to have very liberal smoking laws compared to other parts of the country that I have lived or spent time in. NJ and CA seems to have the strictest smoking laws.
Nevada has exemptions as well for most adult activities, casinos, bars, adult clubs, and brothels are exempt from smoking restrictions.
But, there is generally a trend that smoking is for adult areas (bars, clubs, restaurants for 18+ people etc....) and that adult oriented businesses should be the ones to decide how to restrict smoking. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States
The health of the employees depends on it.
I’ll ask him, if he ever takes the stogie out of his mouth.
Quote: Mission146That post is purely a matter of opinion, so I have no real objection. It also states no direct opinion as to what state, or other, Governments should be doing or not doing.
In short, I am NOT exactly defending smoking to continue in casinos, and even if I would, it would be a lukewarm defense. I am defending that casinos should have the option to allow smoking as far as Government is concerned.
Finally, I'm defending the smokers themselves as they are only doing what the property permits them to do, which the property, in theory, could stop them from doing at anytime.
Lung cancer is not an opinion.
I don't care if people smoke BUT why are some of them so Fing rude .. I mean they blow their smoke right in my direction or allow the burning smoke from end of the cigarette to drift right in my face..than when I wave my hand like a fan to keep the smoke away from me they get even more agressive with the smoke .. and women are the worst offenders. IMOQuote: DeMangoLung cancer is not an opinion.
Quote: DeMangoLung cancer is not an opinion.
Neither is getting hit by a bus.
Quote: daveyandersen1I don't care if people smoke BUT why are some of them so Fing rude .. I mean they blow their smoke right in my direction or allow the burning smoke from end of the cigarette to drift right in my face..than when I wave my hand like a fan to keep the smoke away from me they get even more agressive with the smoke .. and women are the worst offenders. IMO
That is absolutely a fair criticism of some smokers.
Of course, when I did smoke, I wouldn’t have been smoking around you guys (if you were there first) because I’d have asked if it would bother you and you’d have politely answered in the affirmative.
