Should casinos be exempt from smoking restrictions?

Quote: Mgruetze

Here's the question: Should casinos be exempted from government-approved smoking bans that apply to other workplaces and sites open to the public?

Hell no.

First, and paramount: Workers have a right to safe conditions in the workplace. If the workplace is a casino, that changes nothing. We moved past "if you don't like unsafe working conditions, find a different job!" almost a century ago.

Second: Clean air is of huge importance to the public for reasons of both health and comfort. It's very tempting to say that the market should decide, but this is a situation in which the market has repeatedly failed. That's why we have all these smoking bans in the first place.

Smoking in cardrooms in California is a textbook example of market failure. California cardrooms fought tooth and nail and spent millions lobbying to get excluded (along with bars) from the initial indoor smoking ban in 1994. The industry predicted doom, cardrooms closing all across the state, when that exclusion expired in 1998.

Instead, business went UP. Nonsmokers were obviously delighted by the change. Many smokers, possibly even most, eventually came to like not being immersed in a smoky haze more than they disliked having to step outside for a smoke. And huge numbers of poker players who would never have considered going into a cardroom when they were carcinogenic hellholes, started going to cardrooms now that they could play and breathe at the same time.

So if the public overwhelmingly wanted cardrooms to be nonsmoking, and it improved business, why didn't they do it without government intervention? Well, suppose you're a cardroom. You have a lucrative business. You could take a bold step to go nonsmoking... what's the impact?

First, you immediately lose a big chunk of your customers. Your smokers go to the other cardroom across town. It's immediate and obvious.

Second, gradually, you gain customers as nonsmoking regulars from the cardroom across town hear about your change, decide to check it out, and eventually become your regulars instead. Not immediate, not obvious.

Third, VERY gradually, you gain customers who never went to cardrooms before because they hated the smoke. They're not going to know immediately. They'll hear about it, in passing, a few months or years after it happens, that one of the cardrooms in town is now non-smoking. Huh. They'll check it out, once or twice. Maybe they will eventually become regulars.

It's probably a net positive to make that change, but who's going to take the risk? Who's going to take ownership for the immediate drop in business in exchange for possible, eventual, increases that outweigh it? People get fired for decisions like that. You already have a wildly profitable business, it ain't broke, so don't try and fix it. (And if your business is struggling? You're more likely to be able to sell management/ownership on the change, but you're less likely to survive the initial loss of business. You never get to that third stage. See Revel, see Bill's in Tahoe.)

But if the big bad government steps in and makes everyone do it, all at once, with a huge amount of publicity behind it so even non-customers know immediately... that's a positive for everyone. As has been shown over and over, in state after state, in economic study after economic study.

It's irrelevant, because the workplace safety argument trumps everything. But, yes, nonsmoking businesses are a good thing, and there are solid reasons why they only tend to be achieved through legislation rather than market forces.

Quote: zoobrew

I have a question for the board, in states where marijuana is legal for everyone, what are the rules in casinos? For people who are in favor of smoking at casinos does your view change for smoking marijuana in a casino?

In California, you can use medical marijuana anywhere that you can smoke tobacco - including in public - except in a vehicle or near schools. In theory, using marijuana in a casino should be fine... in practice, best to go outside and stay downwind of casino security.

I'm going to say no. Part of it is a sociological reason. Part of it is smoking has so little upside and some big downsides.

The sociological reason is it is usually easier to change attitudes by changing behavior first.

Don't know how many here have successfully quit smoking. But generally, trying to change your attitude, with the mantra or similar "I am a non-smoker" while still lighting up every hour is probably not going to work. I would be interested in hearing if something like that worked though.

No, it's usually they other way around. You stop the behavior. The mind keeps going, "I want to smoke." But if the behavior lasts long enough the mind follows suit. It would be difficult for all us previous smokers to stay non-smokers if we were eternally tortured by the desire and thought. The desire can certainly last a long time though. But it does go away. Some don't make it before that happens. People around you smoking all the time certainly doesn't help either, and there other reasons.

Anyway, as I said, I believe smoking tobacco is too much of a pox with very little upside. The little buzz you get? You really think you'll never get over it? Have you really researched all the possible negative effects of smoking long term and compared it to the buzz. How do you think us non-smokers get through life? It's possible. I'm an ex-smoker of 15 years. Not a lifetime, but long enough.

Anyway, I'd argue a number of things still have upsides even with big downsides. Most of those things aren't necessarily appropriate for public bans. As bad as the downside effects of alcohol is, I can't expressly say we need to do more than things like trying to keep people from driving and drinking and promote other forms of awareness. No doubt someone may think alcohol doesn't have any real upsides. I willing to concede it's a problematic difference saying it's better than tobacco, but I will stick by that opinion. I think the more practical concern is too many people will never accept a ban in enough numbers to make a difference. I think they might with something like tobacco. I think we've already proven we can bring down tobacco use, and many people recognize the health risk and also realize there isn't really a big upside. Smokers often go outside to smoke in their own home so their house doesn't stink.

I see smoking as almost unnecessary and a big public health concern. That's why I believe we are doing the right thing by banning it as many places as possible. We really do need to change the behavior of the public as much as possible.

Quote: Mosca

I'm pretty vehemently anti smoking, and I have no problem with smokers in casinos. It's my choice to enter a place where they are welcomed. My home casino, Mohegan Pocono, is 50/50, but all the good table games are in the smoking section, so I go there for the PaiGow and Mississippi. What I have found is that smokers will be very accommodating as far as little things like moving an ashtray without being asked. Politeness on both parts goes a long way.

That is about 70% IMO. I experience a lot of people who are just a holes and couldn't care less if they blew smoke in your face. Sometimes you are just down wind of smoke. If I were smoking and noticed smoke going towards someone I would make every effort to keep it from doing so. Unfortunately, most smokers don't think there is anything wrong with the smoke so it doesn't even phase them that it is happening.

Quote: Mission146

I have always maintained that business decisions that could affect revenue, related to things (such as smoking) that are otherwise legal, should be left up to the business owners.

This +1000

If a casino wants to not allow people to play the darkside in craps, so be it.
If a casino wants to put only 7/5 jacks or better on their floor, so be it.
If a casino wants to let people who are 25 and older gamble, so be it.
If a casino wants to ban monkey figurines while playing baccarat, so be it.

Let the business owner make the decisions and let them reap/sow the repercussions of their decisions.

Quote: Mgruetze

Here's the question: Should casinos be exempted from government-approved smoking bans that apply to other workplaces and sites open to the public?

Quote: Mission146

I have always maintained that business decisions that could affect revenue, related to things (such as smoking) that are otherwise legal, should be left up to the business owners.

OK, that's fine, but I believe the key phrase for this discussion is related to things (such as smoking) that are otherwise legal.

So if I understand the premise correctly, the state of PA has a ban on indoor smoking. So it is NOT legal to smoke indoors in a public area of a business in PA. Casinos are a business.

Q: Why should they be exempt from that state law ?
A: Because that's how willy-nilly the State Legislature wrote up the regulation. They are exempt from the regulation because the regulation says they are exempt from it.

EDIT:

Mr Gruetz's article says:

"Pennsylvania allows smoking on up to half of a casino floor, although smoking and nonsmoking areas may be interspersed. While Allegheny County's smoking ban covers Heinz Field and PNC Park, it cannot apply to Rivers Casino because of a statewide exemption for casinos."

So interesting that apparently the State of PA cares about the health of everyone except people who go to a casino ? WHATEVER ! So sure, keep your "competitive advantage" vs Ohio casinos.

I got in a real heated discussion at the bar about smokers rights back in november. The whole bar ended up joining in on one side or the other. I ended up going there with a friend to watch a game. There's a set of machines with ultimate X on them. When the group that was occupying them ends up leaving I move down to them to check them out. I light up a cigarette as I'm checking them out. My friend comes over to sit down at the machine to the left of me. I was currently smoking the cigarette in my left hand with the ashtray on my left side. He asks if I can move it so I accommodate him by moving it to my right side. He then asks if I can lean back while I'm smoking because I'm still smoking. I refuse and say if it bothered you so much why did you sit right next to me? You see me smoking. I'm not going to make myself uncomfortable just to make you comfortable. I was already not smoking when we were at the other end of the bar. Now I want to enjoy my cigarette and you're pestering me. I accommodated you by moving it to the other side. That's as far as I'm willing to go. Then other people at the bar started joining in on the argument. Like the bartender jumped in saying this is a smoking establishment so if the smokers want to smoke they can smoke. My friend started comparing smoking to rape. Then some lady joined in saying how dare you compare it to rape and she started talking about how she was a feminist and that was disrespectful to women. Then my friend starts arguing to the lady about feminism saying he knew more than her about feminism because he was going to college for sociology. Yeah real smart move there telling that to a woman. It just got so insane. People all across the bar were shouting at each other. All over smoking a cigarette.

Quote: djatc

This +1000

If a casino wants to not allow people to play the darkside in craps, so be it.
If a casino wants to put only 7/5 jacks or better on their floor, so be it.
If a casino wants to let people who are 25 and older gamble, so be it.
If a casino wants to ban monkey figurines while playing baccarat, so be it.

Let the business owner make the decisions and let them reap/sow the repercussions of their decisions.

Since smoking bans are usually focus on the benefits of the workers, you, Mission146 and others think that casino workers are second class citizens. So I guess you also support that unions should be outlawed in America. Slavery and forced child labor. Forced prostitution, because we know that there are many on this board who would go to the casino more in they could get comp BJs.

Non-smoking in public areas is the general law in PA. Whenever you allow businesses to be exempt from laws because of revenue or profit reasons you are leading America back to the dark ages.

Quote: zoobrew

Since smoking bans are usually focus on the benefits of the workers, you, Mission146 and others think that casino workers are second class citizens. So I guess you also support that unions should be outlawed in America. Slavery and forced child labor. Forced prostitution, because we know that there are many on this board who would go to the casino more in they could get comp BJs.

Non-smoking in public areas is the general law in PA. Whenever you allow businesses to be exempt from laws because of revenue or profit reasons you are leading America back to the dark ages.

Good grief you cannot be serious! Allowing smoking in casinos is going to bring back child labor and then slavery? How exactly is this going to happen?

It has nothing to do with casino workers being "second class citizens." Nobody forces anyone to work there. During the application process the casino will state or ask, "can you work in a smoky environment?" If you hate cigarette smoke you might very well say "no." You might not apply because of this. So the casino says, "can you work in a smoky environment for $35K per year?" Well if your alternative is $20K you might just put up with the smoke and work there.

I said it before and will make the offer now. There is not much "special" about this "exemption." Come to my house now, when the bars open later today I will take you to at least two where you can light up. It would be three if I could get straightened out at the VFW and get a members card.

Workers make trade-offs all the time vis-a-vis money vs. comfort. Want to make $700-1,0000 a day? It will take welding in 0F cold or working on an oil rig offshore. Maybe underwater welding, that one really pays well. Want to make $35K first year with about six weeks training? You will have to drive a truck and sleep on the side of the road, being away from family. Want to make $40K with a one month training? You have to stand all day, be in a smoky room, and DUAD.

People do all of those jobs and more.

Quote: zoobrew

Since smoking bans are usually focus on the benefits of the workers, you, Mission146 and others think that casino workers are second class citizens. So I guess you also support that unions should be outlawed in America. Slavery and forced child labor. Forced prostitution, because we know that there are many on this board who would go to the casino more in they could get comp BJs.

Non-smoking in public areas is the general law in PA. Whenever you allow businesses to be exempt from laws because of revenue or profit reasons you are leading America back to the dark ages.

+100000 This is why we have Osha businesses will do what's best for them with no regards to people's health or safety.

Quote: zoobrew

Since smoking bans are usually focus on the benefits of the workers, you, Mission146 and others think that casino workers are second class citizens. So I guess you also support that unions should be outlawed in America. Slavery and forced child labor. Forced prostitution, because we know that there are many on this board who would go to the casino more in they could get comp BJs.

Non-smoking in public areas is the general law in PA. Whenever you allow businesses to be exempt from laws because of revenue or profit reasons you are leading America back to the dark ages.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm. I'm not sure how supporting designated smoking areas is equivalent to child labor or union abolishment...

I have seen some unions oppose smoking bans because they know it will cost them buisness.

Forced prostitution? You can't be serious.

For one thing the second hand smoking craze is way overblown. Especially since casinos particularly the gambling floors are large open well ventilated areas.

Smoking in casinos is common and traditional. Everyone applying for a job there surely knows that. I would never apply for a job in a mechanics yard and complain about exhaust fumes.

The fact that you essentially evoked Godwin's law by brining up extreme examples of child labor and sex slavery to equate it to smoking bans pretty much discredits any legitimate portions of your argument which was based more on emotion than what is beneficial to the industry.

Quote: Gandler

For one thing the second hand smoking craze is way overblown.

Really? I was curious about it - I also had the impression that the risks might be overstated, or minimal - so I spent a couple of hours researching it last night. (Surgeon General's 2006 report on Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, Cal EPA's 2005 report, etc.) It looks like the best estimates are that over 4000 deaths a year in the US alone can be attributed to nonsmokers breathing secondhand smoke in the workplace. Most from cardiopulmonary disease or lung cancer, an assortment from other causes. The error bars on CPD are pretty big, but the cancer link is absolutely proven. That doesn't sound "overblown" to me.

Quote:

Smoking in casinos is common and traditional. Everyone applying for a job there surely knows that.

Yeah, that's not how workplace safety works. It used to be common and traditional that people working in factories risked losing limbs occasionally, and people who didn't want to risk losing limbs were told not to work there. We moved past that in the early 20th century. Now, if you run a workplace that endangers your workers, you'd better take every possible step to mitigate those risks, or you're either going to get shut down or sued into oblivion. This has been delayed in the case of casinos exposing their workers to smoke by the fact that it's really hard to prove causation for any particular case of injury or death, but it's coming, and even the casinos fighting it know that they're dinosaurs and it's only a matter of time before they'll have to do the right thing.

The Cal Neva Resort in Lake Tahoe will re-open on Frank Sinatra's birthday. It will be smoke-free.

My vote is a strong NO. All public places should be smoke-free.

However, I'm a realist and would happily settle for compromise, as my side is losing this fight, for now. For example, making non-smoking areas at least 50% of any given casino seems a reasonable compromise. I'm okay with smoking outdoors, as long as it is legitimately outdoors. You can't call an enormous tent "outdoors." I would even be okay in big markets like Vegas that each corporation with multiple properties have at least half of them, measured by gaming revenue, smoke-free.

Of course, once that is achieved, I'll press for a full-on ban!

Quote: fivespot

Really? I was curious about it - I also had the impression that the risks might be overstated, or minimal - so I spent a couple of hours researching it last night. (Surgeon General's 2006 report on Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, Cal EPA's 2005 report, etc.) It looks like the best estimates are that over 4000 deaths a year in the US alone can be attributed to nonsmokers breathing secondhand smoke in the workplace. Most from cardiopulmonary disease or lung cancer, an assortment from other causes. The error bars on CPD are pretty big, but the cancer link is absolutely proven. That doesn't sound "overblown" to me.

So lets give those completely arbitrary figures the benefit of the doubt for the moment and say yes 4000 people died at least in part as due to 2nd hand smoke exposure.

1. How do you know they have 2nd hand smoke exposure? And how much? Did they pass a smoker on a sidewalk once in their life or did they hang out in smokey rooms everyday?

2. How many of them were smokers (even up to their death)?

3. What other more significant environmental risks were they subjected to (pollution, exhaust, general air quality, etc...)?


There is no way to prove a lung cancer death is due to 2nd hand smoke. There are endless amounts of environmental hazards that increase lung risk, many much much worse than the occasional whiff a smoker on the sidewalk...


Yeah, that's not how workplace safety works. It used to be common and traditional that people working in factories risked losing limbs occasionally, and people who didn't want to risk losing limbs were told not to work there. We moved past that in the early 20th century. Now, if you run a workplace that endangers your workers, you'd better take every possible step to mitigate those risks, or you're either going to get shut down or sued into oblivion. This has been delayed in the case of casinos exposing their workers to smoke by the fact that it's really hard to prove causation for any particular case of injury or death, but it's coming, and even the casinos fighting it know that they're dinosaurs and it's only a matter of time before they'll have to do the right thing.

Casinos do mitigate the risk. Casinos have some of the best ventilation systems in any industry largely due to the large number of smoking customers.
And, they rotate dealers frequently (there are many reasons for this, smoking is not even a major one, but it means nobody is at a smokey table for too long).


How do you respond to some dealer unions and organizations pushing to keep smoking in certain regions?

I have know quite a few dealers (none of them are smokers, except one or two maybe the very occasional cigar), none seemed to be concerned about 2nd hand smoke (granted they were all young males).

I know we have quite a few dealers and various casino staff on here, I am curious if there are any who are actually concerned about smoking in casinos?

All of this hooray about dealer rights, I simply don't hear many dealers concerned about it... Nor many customers for that matter, just the few that do care seem to make the biggest deal....

Quote: zoobrew

Since smoking bans are usually focus on the benefits of the workers, you, Mission146 and others think that casino workers are second class citizens. So I guess you also support that unions should be outlawed in America. Slavery and forced child labor. Forced prostitution, because we know that there are many on this board who would go to the casino more in they could get comp BJs.

Non-smoking in public areas is the general law in PA. Whenever you allow businesses to be exempt from laws because of revenue or profit reasons you are leading America back to the dark ages.

I could use a slave to light my cigarettes while running a factory employed by children. Come on this is nonsense, because i agree to A, i must be in support to B.

Quote: Gandler

So lets give those completely arbitrary figures the benefit of the doubt for the moment and say yes 4000 people died at least in part as due to 2nd hand smoke exposure.

1. How do you know they have 2nd hand smoke exposure? And how much? Did they pass a smoker on a sidewalk once in their life or did they hang out in smokey rooms everyday?

2. How many of them were smokers (even up to their death)?

3. What other more significant environmental risks were they subjected to (pollution, exhaust, general air quality, etc...)?


There is no way to prove a lung cancer death is due to 2nd hand smoke. There are endless amounts of environmental hazards that increase lung risk, many much much worse than the occasional whiff a smoker on the sidewalk...


Yeah, that's not how workplace safety works. It used to be common and traditional that people working in factories risked losing limbs occasionally, and people who didn't want to risk losing limbs were told not to work there. We moved past that in the early 20th century. Now, if you run a workplace that endangers your workers, you'd better take every possible step to mitigate those risks, or you're either going to get shut down or sued into oblivion. This has been delayed in the case of casinos exposing their workers to smoke by the fact that it's really hard to prove causation for any particular case of injury or death, but it's coming, and even the casinos fighting it know that they're dinosaurs and it's only a matter of time before they'll have to do the right thing.

Casinos do mitigate the risk. Casinos have some of the best ventilation systems in any industry largely due to the large number of smoking customers.
And, they rotate dealers frequently (there are many reasons for this, smoking is not even a major one, but it means nobody is at a smokey table for too long).


How do you respond to some dealer unions and organizations pushing to keep smoking in certain regions?

I have know quite a few dealers (none of them are smokers, except one or two maybe the very occasional cigar), none seemed to be concerned about 2nd hand smoke (granted they were all young males).

I know we have quite a few dealers and various casino staff on here, I am curious if there are any who are actually concerned about smoking in casinos?

All of this hooray about dealer rights, I simply don't hear many deanlers concerned about it... Nor many customers for that matter, just the few that do care seem to make the biggest deal....

Casino's rotate dealers.
In some casinos dealers rotate. In many casino's dealers are assigned to the same table for their full shift. I have known many dealers who refused to learn how to deal the Asian games specifically because the smoking in the asian pits is even worse than on the main floor.

Quote: Hunterhill

In some casinos dealers rotate. In many casino's dealers are assigned to the same table for their full shift. I have known many dealers who refused to learn how to deal the Asian games specifically because the smoking in the asian pits is even worse than on the main floor.

Then that seems like their choice not to deal games in smoking areas. Or don't apply to work at smoking casinos. Or don't get into an industry that is largely accepted as a smoking heavy industry.

Quote: Wizard

I would even be okay in big markets like Vegas that each corporation with multiple properties have at least half of them, measured by gaming revenue, smoke-free.

At the very least, CET should designate just one of their Vegas properties smoke-free (I'd suggest Bally's or Planet Hollywood) and likewise for MGM (I'd suggest Aria or Mirage).

All 127 Westin hotels in the U.S. and Canada are 100% smoke-free. Every hallway, lobby, room, restaurant, elevator, at every Westin in America... except, of course, smoking is still allowed in the casino at the Westin Las Vegas.

MGM & CET are probably worried about accomodating the smoking desires of high rollers from Asia. But Westin? It's certainly a luxury brand, but I doubt many serious Asian high rollers are picking Westin when they fly into Las Vegas.

Quote: JohnnyQ

So if I understand the premise correctly, the state of PA has a ban on indoor smoking. So it is NOT legal to smoke indoors in a public area of a business in PA. Casinos are a business.

The only thing I can say in response to this is that for a casino to allow indoor smoking is legal in the State of PA.

Moreover, while I certainly see your point, your point does not conflict with my position at all. My position is that the State of PA should not ban public indoor smoking AT ALL, for casinos or otherwise, and that the business owners should decide if they wish to appeal to the niche market that will frequent a location, if not exclusively, then mostly because it does not allow smoking. Or, perhaps it is (or could one day be) the niche market that wants to smoke indoors. Either way, businesses can decide whether or not that is a good decision for them, individually.

Quote: zoobrew

Since smoking bans are usually focus on the benefits of the workers, you, Mission146 and others think that casino workers are second class citizens.

Oh, yeah, that's exactly what I said. I bartended in an establishment in which smoking was allowed when I was younger, regardless of the fact that I was, in fact, a smoker, I still wouldn't have viewed myself as a second-class citizen if I had been a non-smoker and had to work in a smoky environment. I'd probably reconsider my choice to be a bartender if it was something that bothered me, though. I don't particularly care for cleaning toilets after droves of small children have used the facilities, so I'm not a school janitor...see what I mean?

Quote:

So I guess you also support that unions should be outlawed in America. Slavery and forced child labor. Forced prostitution, because we know that there are many on this board who would go to the casino more in they could get comp BJs.

Bordering personal insult.

Quote: Wizard

My vote is a strong NO. All public places should be smoke-free.

However, I'm a realist and would happily settle for compromise, as my side is losing this fight, for now. For example, making non-smoking areas at least 50% of any given casino seems a reasonable compromise. I'm okay with smoking outdoors, as long as it is legitimately outdoors. You can't call an enormous tent "outdoors." I would even be okay in big markets like Vegas that each corporation with multiple properties have at least half of them, measured by gaming revenue, smoke-free.

Of course, once that is achieved, I'll press for a full-on ban!

I think that's just good business, or, maybe more like 25%. One thing that I noticed about The Cannery (NLV) was that they have a non-smoking slots area (across from the Bingo) that is completely closed in and self-contained. Granted, it might represent more like 1-2% of their total gaming space, but I couldn't help but be impressed that it was fully contained.

Moreover, I think that there is even less of a point in having a casino with a non-smoking section when it is impossible to get to said section without going through a smoking section. There probably aren't too many examples of this, but Wheeling Island Hotel, Casino, Racetrack (for one) has a non-smoking area that you can't get to without going through a smoking area. It's in a back corner of the casino, there is no entrance to it from outside of the casino AND, while there is a bathroom near that area, the bathroom is actually back in the smoking area.

Further, no VP in the NS section, whatsoever. According to the law, though, they can do whatever they like. I don't even think they're actually required to have a non-smoking section provided they don't allow smoking in the restaurants or common areas such as hotel check-in area.

Personally, irrespective of size, I think a strong design plan would be to have at least one door from the outside (this is for anyone) that enters directly into the non-smoking area, and you would have large lettering over that door/area making that clear. The area would also be otherwise enclosed so that you would have to go through some kind of door to enter the smoking section, sliding glass door, or something.

Quote: fivespot

First, and paramount: Workers have a right to safe conditions in the workplace. If the workplace is a casino, that changes nothing. We moved past "if you don't like unsafe working conditions, find a different job!" almost a century ago.

Is there no question of reasonable safety?

I mean, why does exposure to second-hand smoke not qualify as an, "Occupational Hazard," in the way that I could list potential occupational hazards of nearly countless jobs. I'll spare you reading such a list in exchange for you sparing me typing it.

I mean, the business (within the law) should have the right to do business as they see fit. To the best of my knowledge, any casino could become a non-smoking property if they so choose, and it seems that most casinos do not believe that would be a profitable decision...or they would be doing it. I would be shocked if there were a law on the books of any State that mandates that a casino MUST allow their patrons to smoke. If one is a worker and that person doesn't like it, don't wok there. If one is a player and they don't like it, don't play there. It's nothing more or less than an individual decision, at that point.

Quote:

Second: Clean air is of huge importance to the public for reasons of both health and comfort. It's very tempting to say that the market should decide, but this is a situation in which the market has repeatedly failed. That's why we have all these smoking bans in the first place.

I would say that the market has decided in such cases where certain measures (such as Ohio) have been put on the public ballot. That's fair, I guess, although I think there should be separate votes for restaurants, bars and then casinos. While I don't support restaurant smoking bans, I'm not vehemently opposed to them, but I AM opposed to the public dictating policy in venues that certain individuals would not frequent in the first place. I should hope that an individual who is not a patron of any bars or casinos, for instance, would simply abstain from voting on measures that address bars and casinos, specifically, if there were to ever be any such specific measures.

Quote:

Smoking in cardrooms in California is a textbook example of market failure. California cardrooms fought tooth and nail and spent millions lobbying to get excluded (along with bars) from the initial indoor smoking ban in 1994. The industry predicted doom, cardrooms closing all across the state, when that exclusion expired in 1998.

Instead, business went UP. Nonsmokers were obviously delighted by the change. Many smokers, possibly even most, eventually came to like not being immersed in a smoky haze more than they disliked having to step outside for a smoke. And huge numbers of poker players who would never have considered going into a cardroom when they were carcinogenic hellholes, started going to cardrooms now that they could play and breathe at the same time.

Okay, so in the case of card rooms, the businesses (as a whole, not necessarily individually) may have been wrong. In other individual cases, such as Revel, they all but admitted that they made the wrong business move to NOT allow smoking, because they eventually did.

Quote:

So if the public overwhelmingly wanted cardrooms to be nonsmoking, and it improved business, why didn't they do it without government intervention? Well, suppose you're a cardroom. You have a lucrative business. You could take a bold step to go nonsmoking... what's the impact?

First, you immediately lose a big chunk of your customers. Your smokers go to the other cardroom across town. It's immediate and obvious.

Second, gradually, you gain customers as nonsmoking regulars from the cardroom across town hear about your change, decide to check it out, and eventually become your regulars instead. Not immediate, not obvious.

Third, VERY gradually, you gain customers who never went to cardrooms before because they hated the smoke. They're not going to know immediately. They'll hear about it, in passing, a few months or years after it happens, that one of the cardrooms in town is now non-smoking. Huh. They'll check it out, once or twice. Maybe they will eventually become regulars.

It's probably a net positive to make that change, but who's going to take the risk? Who's going to take ownership for the immediate drop in business in exchange for possible, eventual, increases that outweigh it? People get fired for decisions like that. You already have a wildly profitable business, it ain't broke, so don't try and fix it. (And if your business is struggling? You're more likely to be able to sell management/ownership on the change, but you're less likely to survive the initial loss of business. You never get to that third stage. See Revel, see Bill's in Tahoe.)

Perhaps it would be a strong long-term decision for some businesses, but now you're getting into MY point of differentiation and appealing to a niche market. Specifically, the market that is so opposed to indoor smoking that they might frequent an establishment for that reason and that reason alone. All of that is perfectly fine, and I would encourage businesses to do that if they think there will be long-term financial gain. In the meantime, the smokers from the location that once allowed smoking may well, as you mentioned, go to the places that still do.

Quote:

But if the big bad government steps in and makes everyone do it, all at once, with a huge amount of publicity behind it so even non-customers know immediately... that's a positive for everyone. As has been shown over and over, in state after state, in economic study after economic study.

Mind citing a few?

Quote:

It's irrelevant, because the workplace safety argument trumps everything. But, yes, nonsmoking businesses are a good thing, and there are solid reasons why they only tend to be achieved through legislation rather than market forces.

The workplace safety argument trumps nothing. It's a reasonable occupational hazard of which a person would be aware prior to taking the job.

I'm in favor of non-smoking casinos. To me, it seems most logical to do it slowly, maybe increase the non-smoking space by 10% annually? I also like the idea of non-smoking and smoking sections split off with the same games available. With that setup, the most important thing is standardization. If the conditions are separate but have different games, rules, promos, etc. than it seems to be a "separate but equal" issue and that's concerning from the past.

In an article by Jeffrey Hart, columnist, and teacher at Dartmouth from 4/25/01 titled " The anti-smoking frenzy is way out of control"

I couldn't find a link, but I have the article, in it he says..."there is no evidence second hand smoke is injurious and all the claims are only PC" The EPA statement that second-hand smoke kills 3000 from passive inhaling did not even do its own testing but depended on 11 studies conducted around the country. Ten of the eleven studies failed to deliver the results the EPA wanted so they changed the statistical requirements and came up with one out of the 11 that seemed to indicate negative results"

The congressional research service, an independent agency found there is no scientific evidence that passive smoke is injurious.

In 1998 the WHO after a study in 21 countries over ten years at a cost of millions found no connection between passive smoke and cancer. The WHO only published these results in London.

Of course casino's that can allow patrons to smoke will do so. Smokers are naturally attracted to addictive and risky behavior, but across the country where patrons were no longer allowed to smoke in bars, it didn't stop drinking.

In Vegas it seems easy enough to put a lot of gaming outside. I think if casinos were able to allow anything else on the floor to increase the bottom line, that is exactly what they will do. Smoking indoors did not save Caesars and not smoking indoors won't kill Vegas, at least for American gamblers. Smoking in the casinos is proof of who runs the NGC in Nevada. Money talks, it'll tell you a story [JJ Cale]

Since I quit smoking I am one of the "worst kind", I can't stand second hand smoke. I am at the stage of hyper olfactory awareness, but getting some on me won't seriously affect my health.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: JohnnyQ

So if I understand the premise correctly, the state of PA has a ban on indoor smoking. So it is NOT legal to smoke indoors in a public area of a business in PA. Casinos are a business.

The only thing I can say in response to this is that for a casino to allow indoor smoking is legal in the State of PA.
.

Yes, initially I thought the PA casinos were asking for an exemption from the law. BUT then I realized (after reading the OP's newspaper article) that:

"Pennsylvania allows smoking on up to half of a casino floor, although smoking and nonsmoking areas may be interspersed. While Allegheny County's smoking ban covers Heinz Field and PNC Park, it cannot apply to Rivers Casino because of a statewide exemption for casinos."

So the lobbyists for the PA Casinos got ahead of the curve and the indoor smoking ban does NOT apply to them, by law. They ALREADY have the exemption.

So back to the OP's question, which is basically, SHOULD the law apply to casinos in PA ?

From page 1, post 1:

"Here's the question: Should casinos be exempted from government-approved smoking bans that apply to other workplaces and sites open to the public?"

To re-cap my 2 cents (and I don't gamble much in PA so I don't care that much), IF there is merit in the law itself, I don't think there should be exemptions to it, EXCEPT perhaps for private clubs.

Lots of good and lively discussion. After the OP's article is written, I hope he stays around to participate in the WoV forum.

If there are supposedly less smokers than non smokers in this country, why do they get more space than us? If anything, there should be just a small smoking section and the rest non smoking.

Smoking is not a right, people!! It's a privilege.

The headaches, the eye burning, the repugnant stench, gross.

And, if you want to kill yourself with poison, fine. Do it at home. Don't bring it near me!

Iowa is talking about making casino's non smoking. One county in West Virginia has gone non smoking which will include the Mountaineer Casino. Mass is going to be non smoking. Slowly we are winning the battle. This will just make the smoking casino's have morr smokers in them.The native American casino's will never stop since it helps them sell cigarettes. It's about time for that sovereign nation bs to be changed also.

Colorado casinos are non smoking now too after previously being exempt, they have covered heated patios outside. In two years since, ambulance calls to casinos had dropped by 20%. They attributed it to second hand contributing to increased chance of blood clots and blocked arteries, which can in turn increase the chance of heart attacks. I also love how the defense gets switched to it's not as harmful as you think it is when there isn't a reasonable defense of the current status.

Quote: Hunterhill

Iowa is talking about making casino's non smoking. One county in West Virginia has gone non smoking which will include the Mountaineer Casino.

as a sidebar, I have to compliment the council bluffs/Omaha area Iowa casinos for their enforcement of not allowing visibly intoxicated players to gamble from the times I've been there, a responsibility that is ignored in most of Las Vegas, where a blacked out customer will be served alcohol so long as there's money in their pocket.

Quote: mcallister3200

Colorado casinos are non smoking now too after previously being exempt, they have covered heated patios outside. In two years since, ambulance calls to casinos had dropped by 20%. They attributed it to second hand contributing to increased chance of blood clots and blocked arteries, which can in turn increase the chance of heart attacks. I also love how the defense gets switched to it's not as harmful as you think it is when there isn't a reasonable defense of the current status.

You say ambulance calls have dropped by 20%

Has attendance dropped?

Was the year prior to the ban am unnaturally high year?

you would need to see more long term data to get a better read out on this number.


There is a very reasonable defense, if you don't like a buisness's way of doing buisness (IE allowing smoking), don't engage in trade with them.

Gandler, you simply are an unreasonable human being, I can listen to th argument from others, but you spew pure garbage, call anyone who disagrees a health nut, call entire smoking buildings "designated smoking areas", wholly incapable of being reasoned with.

Quote: mcallister3200

Gandler, you simply are an unreasonable human being, I can listen to th argument from others, but you spew pure bullshit.

I asked you a series of questions about your data?

And that makes me unreasonable?

Seeing as you can't answer any of the questions it's probably safe to assume those numbers are rough estimates if anything...

Why would I reason with someone who can't be reasoned with, you do know the definition of insanity right? Just done reading your posts unless someone else quotes it.

As a smoker, I don't mind non-smoking facilities. I don't even like smoking indoors, and I don't like smoking around people. It's not so much that I want to be nice, but that I actually feel bad about it. Dunno why. I don't even like smoking around smokers. If I'm in a place that allows it, you'll always find me in some corner, away from other people. I also have no qualms whatsoever with full bans in places where the inhabitants are either unable to make choices for themselves (children, mentals) or where people do not have a choice to leave (hospitals, jails).

That being said, some places really gripe my ass. Airports, for example, should have giant, 16-man hookas filled with the finest Burmese opium at every terminal for the BS they put us through. Would it kill you to have one, out of the way, sealed off place we can smoke, like ATL has? I'm already seconds away from killing everyone I see; you could be saving a life. And while I have no problems with smokeless buildings, and I have no problem walking 50' away from any entrance, as is law in some places here in NY, but the campus I play hockey in is now entirely tobacco free. The entire campus. No. Kiss my ass. I'm not walking 300' back to my car, driving three quarters of a mile to park on the side of the road, and smoking in traffic. Or driving 3 miles to the nearest business so I can park safely. Ain't happening. I'm 300' away from any building in an open air parking lot inside my own GD car. DEAL WITH IT.

Just wait until smoking is illegal face, we aren't stopping until it is.

Quote: mcallister3200

Why would I reason with someone who can't be reasoned with, you do know the definition of insanity right? Just done reading your posts unless someone else quotes it.

I'm glad that you concede defeat.

Refusing to debate after me asking for sources of your data just proves that there is not merit to your side.

I don't think any sane person would view asking for sources as unreasonable.

Quote: mcallister3200

Just wait until smoking is illegal face, we aren't stopping until it is.

I'm glad you put your agenda out there clearly for everyone to see.

So now we know your are a prohibitionist.

Basically I'm too lazy to look it back up, you're belligerence has driven me to be belligerent. Why would I link it if you're incapable of accepting a different viewpoint as credible regardless!

Quote: Gandler

I'm glad you put your agenda out there clearly for everyone to see.

So now we know your are a prohibitionist.

not for everything. Legalize mj

Quote: mcallister3200

Just wait until smoking is illegal face, we aren't stopping until it is.

Illegal? So is weed, and coke, and LSD, and MDMA, and fully automatic weaponry, and driving 170mph on public roads, and keeping wild animals as pets, and disposing of paint in a fire, and open carry (in NY), and not reporting self employment on taxes, and not re-registering a vehicle to reflect a change in color, and possessing a firearm within 1,000' of a learning institution, and possessing stolen governmental property, and operating a water vessel while consuming alcohol, and operating a motor vehicle without registration or insurance, and, and, and...

And yet I've still found my ways. I'm not worried about it.

But do your very best. My kid is now 6. If you could get it done within 6-8 years, you'd have my eternal gratitude.

I don't actually think it should be illegal, it was meant as sarcasm, but I do think it should not be legal indoors unless in the privacy of your own property not to include businesses open to the public.

Quote: mcallister3200

I don't actually think it should be illegal, it was meant as sarcasm, but I do think it should not be legal indoors unless in the privacy of your own property not to include businesses open to the public.

What if you opened the front door to your home, put up a sign that all are welcome to enter, should you no longer be able to smoke in your home?

Quote: rudeboyoi

What if you opened the front door to your home, put up a sign that all are welcome to enter, should you no longer be able to smoke in your home?

I'm not getting baited into a philosophical what's the difference question.

The only reason tobacco is still legal in the first place is the billions of dollars your politicians are being bribed with from the tobacco companies. As a non-smoker, I'm disgusted with the fraud the government perpetrates that they what people to quit when in reality they want you to keep smoking.

Quote: mcallister3200

I'm not getting baited into a philosophical what's the difference question.

Why not? They're both your property. If you're willing to let the public in either then what's the difference?

Quote: rudeboyoi

Why not? They're both your property. If you're willing to let the public in either then what's the difference?

ok fine. I believe that businesses should be held to a higher standard in regards to safety of employees and customers than a private residence should be for their guests, I think it's reasonable to require more regulation for the business.

Quote: rudeboyoi

What if you opened the front door to your home, put up a sign that all are welcome to enter, should you no longer be able to smoke in your home?

And if a non smoker puts up the same sign, should you be able to go in, tip their head back and pour asbestos down their throat? What about my property rights? Matter of fact, my only property [my body] and I don't really own that either, but for sake of argument lets say I do. Where is my compensation for smokers trespass of my lungs?

Do I have to allow your dog to come into my yard and kill my chickens? Or your smoke to poison my kids? I say no. Your smoke invading my lungs is assault and I should have the right to defend myself, by force if necessary.

Your weapon of choice in this conflict is poisonous gas [smoke], I need to bring a bigger weapon. Non smokers should be allowed to shoot up to 3 smokers per day. And no limit on cigar smokers.