Revel to allow Smoking starting Valentines Day-Staff
Quote: EvenBobThis is an ellipse:
How can it be in this shape.
Right - an ellipse is never seen in real life as a shape...?
considering the Revel's nickname for their casino floor is "The Ellipse" I must be totally wrong
Quote: aceofspadesQuote: EvenBobThis is an ellipse:
How can it be in this shape.
Right - an ellipse is never seen in real life as a shape...?
considering the Revel's nickname for their casino floor is "The Ellipse" I must be totally wrong
That's sure what it looks/feels like to me. Maybe an oval, maybe actually an ellipse. Definitely some sort of elongated circle-like shape.
Some non smoking casinos seem to be doing okay such as The Palace in Biloxi, MS.
Seminole Hard Rock near Fort Liquordale, FL has a large alcove marked Non-Smoking Casino... lots of slots and a variety of table games. Sort of a mini-casino for those who want it.
Many non-smoking/Smoking Bingo rooms exist in Vegas with varying barriers between the two waring factions. Some casinos take the ventilation problem seriously and have glass barriers between the two portions to lessen smoke migration.
I don't think Smoking is the real issue in the Revel. Its about capital investment in a declining market or perhaps an already fully declined market. Its also about clueless management whose salaries are not based on performance or common sense. Its also about the existence of customer loyalty programs and the effects of customer loyalty programs actually capturing the market. Smoking is the non-issue red herring raised by the truly dedicated extremists on each side of the issue.
Revel's management is not willing to truly bite the bullet so they have a "policy" and they have an "implementation" and an "enforcement" ... and as is quite common its all a contradictory mish mash of conflicting goals and conflicting whims of managers who really just don't want to do anything.
Yes, smoking is a frequently encountered habit amongst gamblers, so is alcohol consumption and probably Twinkie consumption if anyone ever cares to conduct a study about it. Some gamblers however dislike smoke and admire casinos that are serious about the issue.
The Revel will sink or swim based largely on the fate of the entire market, but if the Revel collapses in a heap of rubble, I'm sure someone will go over and defiantly toss a butt onto the rubble.
Quote: rdw4potusSmoke free markets seem to do OK. Illinois is smoke-free. Colorado is smoke free. Smokers are used to being screwed over. Why should casinos be the only place where they aren't ostracized?
Add Ohio to that list...
I really don't look at it as being, "Ostracized," the majority of people are non-smokers, so the law reflects majority opinion, in many cases.
I will say that if I can smoke in a restaurant or casino, I will, but I don't actually know that being able to smoke would affect my choice of where to go or not to go. I guess that could be because I'm used to not smoking inside, anyway. I don't smoke in my house or car, and the last time I got a smoking hotel room, I ended up with a headache...having smoked exactly one cigarette. I will smoke in the detached garage, however, if my son is not with me.
I think that the majority of people would even let us have our smoking areas, if so many smokers weren't so damned inconsiderate. Take Wheeling Island Racetrack and Casino, they have a non-smoking section and there are people smoking in there ALL THE TIME, the signage is clear. It's in a separate area of the casino that I would term an, "Alcove," and there's huge lettering that says, "NON-SMOKING SLOTS," doesn't matter. They don't even get a full complement of machines over there, (there simply isn't the floor space) maybe 25% (or so) of all of the different types of machines. They do have the only Hot Shots Progressive bank in the House, though, which is unsurprisingly what the majority of the people you will see smoking in there are playing.
It also sucks, because:
1.) There is no entrance to it, other than through the casino, so the non-smokers have to go through smoking areas to get there.
2.) They have no separate bathrooms for that area, so the non-smokers must go through the smoke to get to the bathrooms...in which some people also smoke.
***They do have their own self-serve beverage area, though, so at least there's that.
The other thing about smokers is that they generally treat hotel rooms far worse than non-smokers, though that's anecdotal. I should also think that a smoker would be inclined, when sitting next to someone at the slot machines, to ask the other person/people (or even at Table Games) if they mind if you light up...but I'm one of the only people that does that.
You seem like you are a really good guy, so it doesn't apply to you, but many smokers are real @$$holes about not showing any non-smokers basic human respect, so it's not surprise that they would take their revenge Legislatively when given the opportunity.
Quote: rdw4potusSmoke free markets seem to do OK. Illinois is smoke-free. Colorado is smoke free. Smokers are used to being screwed over. Why should casinos be the only place where they aren't ostracized?
Illinois lost over 20% of their casino to neighboring states when they banned smoking in their casinos. It especially hurt them since most of their casinos were near state lines that also had casinos where smoking is allowed. This report was done by the federal reserve is St. Louis:
http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=1308
Note that neighboring states were up while Illinois was down over 20%. This report is as clear as it gets that the economy was not the reason.
Colorado revenue went down sharply too. They are only positive now from pre smoking ban because their bet limits went from $5 to $100.
South Dakota and Montana were also down about 20% after banning smoking in casinos. South Dakota has clawed back because their bet limit went from $100 to $1,000. The video lottery still has not recovered and was down 10-15% (hard to figure out cause their ban was midyear) the first year after the smoking ban.
The casinos know what they are doing. They know smoking bans hurt revenue. The only example I know of where a casino that does not allow smoking but could has been successful is Palace Casino in Biloxi.
I am not saying it is right but it is what it is. If casinos thought smoke free was the way to go they would do it on their own. I personally would like to see a locals casino try it and see what happens. Rampart seems like a good candidate.
Quote: Pokeraddict
Really? Potawatomi expanded in 2008. Horseshoe's new boat in Hammond opened in 2008. The Wild Rose in Clinton IA opened in 2008. Four Winds opened in the second half of 2007. Illinois is the only state in the region who didn't have a VERY significant operator addition in 2007 or 2008. The other states only managed small gains despite the addition of new casino floor-space within the same markets that Illinois's casinos were fighting for. Between the economy and the dramatic increase in competitive options in surrounding areas, it's not clear at all that the smoking ban was the primary cause of the revenue drop.
The big problem is how far a smoker must walk to get to the designated smoking area.
I.E. The no smoking rule is throughout the entire property. That includes all the walkways overlooking the boardwalk and other enclosed outdoor space. There is even a lounge adjacent to the hotel front desk, that's about 30' x 50' oval, complete with a bar, fire pit and a small stage. It seemed obvious to me that this was meant to be used as a smokers lounge, should that decision ever be made.
Not anymore...Quote: FleaStiffYes, smoking is a frequently encountered habit amongst gamblers, so is alcohol consumption and probably Twinkie consumption if anyone ever cares to conduct a study about it.
Quote: allinriverkingCan't wait for Obama Care to go through.. All smokers will pay an additional $5,000 on average annual insurance premiums; if not covered by employer's plan. Smokers will have to pay more to make me sick, while I try to make a living for my family.
We should be paying smokers to smoke, not taxing them, because they will die sooner and collect Social Security and Medicare for a shorter time.
Quote: WizardWe should be paying smokers to smoke, not taxing them, because they will die sooner and collect Social Security and Medicare for a shorter time.
It is my understanding that the increased medical costs, decreased productivity, increased cleaning costs, wasted agricultural resources,etc.. all add up to more than the savings from them dying earlier.
Quote: SOOPOOIt is my understanding that the increased medical costs,
We all have to die of something. Yes, lung cancer will get a lot of smokers, but if they never smoked it might have been heart disease or cancer down the road. Then again, you're the doctor, so would be interested to read your more robust argument of this point.
Quote:decreased productivity,
You make a possible good point there. Where I worked at Social Security it was a long walk to get out the door to a smoking area and back. A cigarette break could easily average 20 minutes. For a heavy smoker who takes six breaks in a shift that is two hours lost. Then again, I knew plenty of non-smokers who played solitaire, surfed the web, or just chatted with co-workers most of the day. At the end of the day I think it comes down to the character of the person, and I think lack of that cuts equally between smokers and non-smokers.
Quote:increased cleaning costs,
I worked for about a year as a low-level supervisor for a janitorial company. The aftermath of smoking did not add much time to the time it took to clean a building. We emptied the ash trays and wiped them, but that was miniscule compared to the time it took to vacuum and clean bathrooms.
A bit aside, but one time we were asked to immaculate an office building in Santa Barbara. They permitted smoking in the elevators, which had a plastic grid in the ceiling, to hide the light. That was the hardest thing to clean I've ever encountered in my life. I took it out and scrubbed it outside in a common area near a hose spigot. It left a pattern of little squares on the cement I tried hours to remove and wasn't able to. Years later I went back, and it was still there. I bet it is still there to this day, 25 years later. Every time I go to Santa Barbara I'm tempted to check. So, thinking about that, I concede that is a valid point, but I still think small relative to the big picture.
Quote:wasted agricultural resources,etc..
We already spend billions paying farmers not to farm. If suddenly ever smoker quit smoking then the tobacco farmers would get out their tin cups begging for a government handout, and they would get it.
Quote: WizardWhere I worked at Social Security it was a long walk to get out the door to a smoking area and back. A cigarette break could easily average 20 minutes.
It's nice to see that the smokers are getting plenty of exercise, that should strengthen their hearts and compensate for the lung problems.
Quote: DRichIt's nice to see that the smokers are getting plenty of exercise, that should strengthen their hearts and compensate for the lung problems.
I remember a summer job I had at a Fortune 500 company in NY. Smokers were allowed one smoke break per hour (this entailed about 3 minutes getting from office to outside, smoking the cigarette, then 3 minutes back up). Basically, a 10 minute break every hour. I knew quite a few people who took up smoking just to get the break. In an 8 hour day, if we subtract 30 minutes for lunch, a 7.5 hour workday, this is about 70 minutes less work per day for a smoker than non-smoker.
Most asylums allow one cigarette per person rather than per smoker, so all the patients in the Day Room who do not smoke when first incarcerated wind up becoming smokers by puffing on a cigarette from the nurse's station back to their smoker-roommates.
Quote: FleaStiffShould we pay people to run red lights in the hope that they too will die soon?
Most asylums allow one cigarette per person rather than per smoker, so all the patients in the Day Room who do not smoke when first incarcerated wind up becoming smokers by puffing on a cigarette from the nurse's station back to their smoker-roommates.
I want MYYYYYYYYYYY cigarettes nurse Ratchet - MYYYYYYYYY cigarettes!!!
Quote: WizardWe should be paying smokers to smoke, not taxing them, because they will die sooner and collect Social Security and Medicare for a shorter time.
How nice! How does $50 a month sound? PM me for the payment details.
Quote: WizardWe all have to die of something. Yes, lung cancer will get a lot of smokers, but if they never smoked it might have been heart disease or cancer down the road. Then again, you're the doctor, so would be interested to read your more robust argument of this point.
Um..... smoking predisposes you to both heart disease and cancers other than lung cancer...... I would guess PacoMartin can find the data on additional healthcare costs of smokers versus non smokers. The 'chronic' disease that is cigarette smoking, more upper respiratory infections, more asthmatic attacks, earlier onset of COPD, all are huge costs. Not counting the second hand smoke costs.
Maybe Mission can comment, but I thought that it was more costly to clean a smoking room than a non smoking room.
I don't go to AC, but I can assure you, if i did, I'd be donating my gambling money to the Revel. The "EV" of being in a smoke free environment is huge. As I've posted here before, we have Vegas style casinos on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls that are non smoking. They are always packed. The Revel sounds like it is failing for a variety of reasons, the least of which sounds like it is their smoking policy. It is possible that if the Revel changes nothing except their smoking policy, they might go down the drain sooner, as there are many who may ONLY be going there BECAUSE of the no smoking policy.
Quote: rainmanMy mom is 63yrs old. she is on oxygen 24/7, has COPD and a bunch of other major health issues. she was a heavy smoker her whole life up until 2008. Since 08 her emergency room visits and hospital stays are north of $400.00, lucky my parents always had top of the line insurance from my dads work.
I assume you typo'd and meant $400,000?
By the way, if she was a worker, she is probably declared disabled, and eligible for disability payments, as well as early entry into Medicare.
Quote: SOOPOOUm..... smoking predisposes you to both heart disease and cancers other than lung cancer.......
Yes, of course. I was using lung cancer as an example. Smoking aside, people who die at 90 cost the government a lot more in entitlements than those who die at 60. That is why the country is going broke, because we're living too long, but still retiring in our sixties. Many spend more years in retirement than they spent working.
I have some proof to back up what I'm saying but I can't make it public. I'll show it to you your next Vegas visit.
Quote: SOOPOOI assume you typo'd and meant $400,000?
By the way, if she was a worker, she is probably declared disabled, and eligible for disability payments, as well as early entry into Medicare.
Yup typo. :} She never worked had my brother at sixteen and me at eighteen. My dad is 65 and worked for the same company since he was 18 lol. He is retiring in six months so I finally convinced him to get a financial adviser who is now looking into disability for mom.
edit: Brother at seventeen me at nineteen
Quote: SOOPOOMaybe Mission can comment, but I thought that it was more costly to clean a smoking room than a non smoking room.
It is, but in our case, it's not so much from cleaning the ashtrays, which can be done in under thirty seconds. For whatever reason, smokers just tend to be messier in general, so you'll have more spills, debris, etc. than in many non-smoking rooms. Drug users also tend to get smoking rooms because they smoke cigarettes or marijuana, and people can be pretty messy with their paraphernalia...the housekeepers must be especially careful if they happen upon a syringe, because you don't know where there will be others (such as in the blankets/sheets) and they really don't want to be getting any diseases.
You also make sure to keep the bedding separate when you take it all down to be washed, because you don't want the NS rooms to have burn-holes in the sheets/blankets, so if we were 100% NS, laundry would technically be faster as it would not need seperated by room type.
The stuff in the room is basically where you'll see most of your costs. Blankets/Sheets/Comforters eventually get to the point, with burn holes, that one says, "Nope, I'm not even putting that in a smoking room, put it in the pile of dropcloths for painting." Fixtures such as bathtubs, toilets, vanities and even nightstands will eventually need replaced for having too many burn marks. One or two isn't the end of the world, it IS a smoking room, after all, but things become unsightly at a certain point.
Mattresses are probably the biggest single expense because the Ohio State Fire Marshal essentially doubles as a health inspector for licensing purposes, and you can't have burnholes in the mattresses. Some of them can be patched to the Fire Marshal's liking, and some cannot, so they need replaced.
However, looking at the occupancy percentages by room type, it would be significantly more expensive for this hotel to go 100% NS. I would suspect that about 90% of our smoking rooms would get distributed to other hotels that have smoking rooms, but the point at which we lose more money by losing customers compared to replacement costs is about 10% of our smoking rooms.
Quote: WizardSo, if I'm shooting craps at the location of one of the foci, and throw the dice at the wall, will they pass the other focus point assuming I throw them hard enough?
Be wary of putting ellipse and shooting in the same discussion:
"The Ellipse (officially called President's Park South) is a 52-acre (210,000 m²) park located just south of the White House fence. Properly, the Ellipse is the name of the five-furlong (1 km) circumference street within the park. The entire park is open to the public, and features various monuments. The Ellipse is also the location for a number of annual events. D.C. locals can often be heard to say they are "on the Ellipse", which is understood to mean that the individual is on the field that is bounded by Ellipse Road. It is part of the President's Park.--wikipedia.com
Quote: WizardWe should be paying smokers to smoke, not taxing them, because they will die sooner and collect Social Security and Medicare for a shorter time.
Only if we deny them life-extending treatment. The problem is, with modern medicine, we're still keeping the smokers alive well into old age, even with all their problems (see rainman's mother for one example).
I can't produce any numbers, but it is my gut feeling that we end up spending more on these people than if they didn't smoke, and lived perhaps longer but didn't incur all the smoking-related health expenses. Just a gut feeling, I have no idea if that can be proven one way or the other.
Quote: AcesAndEightsOnly if we deny them life-extending treatment. The problem is, with modern medicine, we're still keeping the smokers alive well into old age, even with all their problems (see rainman's mother for one example).
I can't produce any numbers, but it is my gut feeling that we end up spending more on these people than if they didn't smoke, and lived perhaps longer but didn't incur all the smoking-related health expenses. Just a gut feeling, I have no idea if that can be proven one way or the other.
I don't know about their cost when they are about to die. I had seen an article that said that smokers on an average cost about $4,000 more to their employers (lost productivity, higher insurance costs, more sick days....)
Quote: treetopbuddyHey Wiz......the casino is not a "public" place. It's a private business. Stick to crunching numbers and leave real world thinking to others
That's just plain rude.
Quote: thecesspitThat's just plain rude.
No, it's not just plain rude. It's also wrong;-)
Quote: treetopbuddyHey Wiz......the casino is not a "public" place. It's a private business. Stick to crunching numbers and leave real world thinking to others
That is a balnoey arguement. Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled that Any Business that caters to general Public is a 'Public' Place. A business can only be considered private if the admission is restricted to due paying members only.
Quote: treetopbuddyHey Wiz......the casino is not a "public" place. It's a private business. Stick to crunching numbers and leave real world thinking to others
this is not true, legally, in new jersey -- where the revel is located.
casinos are classified as public businesses, and are thus subject to all manner of regulation, from gaming enforcement to discrimination laws.
Quote: rdw4potusNo, it's not just plain rude. It's also wrong;-)
Good point, well presented.
Quote: WizardYes, of course. I was using lung cancer as an example. Smoking aside, people who die at 90 cost the government a lot more in entitlements than those who die at 60. That is why the country is going broke, because we're living too long, but still retiring in our sixties. Many spend more years in retirement than they spent working.
I have some proof to back up what I'm saying but I can't make it public. I'll show it to you your next Vegas visit.
People receiving SS and/or Medicare are not part of the entitlement culture because they paid into it for many years first in order to receive it. The reason the country is going broke is because the liberals want to give all our same benefits to the illegal slobs and want to give everything else to those too lazy to work.
People who smoke don't even deserve the time of day on any forum but cancer-is-us. I cheer whenever I hear that a smoker has been reduced to rubble in horrific pain from the horrors of cancer. THAT is what we need more of today so our children and their children can get some sense shocked into them.
Quote: treetopbuddyHey Wiz......the casino is not a "public" place. It's a private business. Stick to crunching numbers and leave real world thinking to others
Three-day suspension. I have a feeling it won't be your last, so feel free to voluntarily leave for good.
Quote: WizardIn my opinion, the fight should be fought at the state government level. The only way we will see smoke-free casinos is if they are forced to.
This attitude is what is wrong with this country. I can't persuade people to do things my way peacefully so let's use threats of violence to FORCE them. Mike what moral code allows you to use a gun and threats to stop peaceful people from opening a casino where they allow their patrons to smoke?
Quote: bigfoot66This attitude is what is wrong with this country. I can't persuade people to do things my way peacefully so let's use threats of violence to FORCE them. Mike what moral code allows you to use a gun and threats to stop peaceful people from opening a casino where they allow their patrons to smoke?
It's not that I disagree, but that we are both some decades too late making this argument.
And in my opinion, (the) Baltimore (Ravens) must be destroyed.
Quote: bigfoot66triple post.
Gosh, you're not fired up or anything, are you:-)
And for the most part, I agree with you. But as someone who gambles but doesn't smoke and doesn't like smoke, it seems like there should be some mechanism by which I can be included in casino gambling and excluded from smoke inhalation.
Quote: rdw4potusBut as someone who gambles but doesn't smoke and doesn't like smoke, it seems like there should be some mechanism by which I can be included in casino gambling and excluded from smoke inhalation.
Maybe there should be. I would be curious to know if you've asked at any casino, tried to pressure some casino, gotten together with other people to presuade several casinos, etc, etc.
And in my opinion, (the) Baltimore (Ravens) must be destroyed.
Quote: bigfoot66Mike what moral code allows you to use a gun and threats to stop peaceful people from opening a casino where they allow their patrons to smoke?
The moral code that casinos are killing non-smokers by allowing smoking. In my opinion, any business doing so with the public should be safe to enter. That is why I will happily vote for any law banning smoking in any public place.
Every one of them said the same thing: There have been discussions about building a smoking section in an enclosed room or rooms, but not on the main casino floor as it exists currently. Which is good news for all of us that hate smoke.
Quote: WizardThree-day suspension. I have a feeling it won't be your last, so feel free to voluntarily leave for good.
Only a Three Day.....I just flagged the Mutual Admiration Society OP.....go for the nuclear option, please end it already!
Quote: rdw4potusGosh, you're not fired up or anything, are you:-)
And for the most part, I agree with you. But as someone who gambles but doesn't smoke and doesn't like smoke, it seems like there should be some mechanism by which I can be included in casino gambling and excluded from smoke inhalation.
Yeah its been a rough day. I dont smoke, I hate smoke. There is a real attitude of entitlement here though, someone should be forced to offer me casino gambling on my terms, screw everybody else.
And Wizard, respectfully, come on, your comment is crazy. The casinos are not killing anybody. They offer a service on certain terms, you can either choose to accept those terms or not. There are smoke free gambling opportunites, such as Dotty's, 7-11's, etc. Your priority is not to avoid smoke, you posted a picture of yourself at the Riveria of all places! Your priority is to find and exploit good bets and you are willing to tolerate the smoke in order to take advantage of those bets. You simply have a preference to avoid smoke and I happen to believe that pointing a gun at your neighbors in order to fulfill your preferences is wrong.
Quote: WizardThe moral code that casinos are killing non-smokers by allowing smoking. In my opinion, any business doing so with the public should be safe to enter. That is why I will happily vote for any law banning smoking in any public place.
Hmmm... That's pretty good, An argument could be made that any entity doing business with the public that allows smoking is directly putting said public's health in danger.
it's the same issue with industrial dumping. yes, corporations would like the freedom to dump their waste into the river. but that hurts everyone else. even if you say "don't patronize that business," that business still shouldn't just have the right to dump waste in public water.
a free society needs laws and regulations to optimize total freedom. otherwise in a society of 2 wolves and 1 lamb, there's not gonna be much freedom for the lamb not to be eaten.
Quote: sodawaterthe thing about freedom is that exercising "freedom" can't impinge on others' freedoms. and everyone should have the freedom to breathe clean air. smoking impinges on that because the smoke goes into everyone's lungs, not just the smoker's. that's not right. even if smokers would like the freedom to smoke, that cannot supersede others' right to a clean environment.
it's the same issue with industrial dumping. yes, corporations would like the freedom to dump their waste into the river. but that hurts everyone else. even if you say "don't patronize that business," that business still shouldn't just have the right to dump waste in public water.
a free society needs laws and regulations to optimize total freedom. otherwise in a society of 2 wolves and 1 lamb, there's not gonna be much freedom for the lamb not to be eaten.
All fine points. But to allow smoking in 90,000 square feet of gaming space is different than dumping water in a river that will affect 100 miles of people down the stream. Your argument is equivalent to saying that we all should have freedom of expression so I cannot stop vandals from spraypainting my building. Property is the first and most fundamental right after the right to one's body and life. My right to control what goes on in the casino I own and operate is a very strong right.
Quote: bigfoot66And Wizard, respectfully, come on, your comment is crazy. The casinos are not killing anybody. They offer a service on certain terms, you can either choose to accept those terms or not.
They aren't putting cyanide in my drinks, but are taking time off my lifespan, which I equate to killing me before my time. I would compare the state's right to ban smoking to their right to inspect restaurants to ensure they are safe to eat in.
Quote: WizardThey aren't putting cyanide in my drinks, but are taking time off my lifespan, which I equate to killing me before my time. I would compare the state's right to ban smoking to their right to inspect restaurants to ensure they are safe to eat in.
Its amazing, isn't it. They've known cig's cause
cancer since the 40's, yet they are still sold. Its
the tobacco lobby, they are that powerful.
Remember Saccharin? The gov't banned it in
the 70's because it 'might' cause cancer. When
it was proven it didn't 30 years later, they dropped
the ban.
There was no Saccharin lobby to protect it. We know
for a FACT that smoking kills people and its sold in
every store. It boggles the mind.
Quote: SOOPOOGoing into a casino is not one of those inalienable rights we have.
Do you also oppose smoking bans in restaurants?
