Atlantic City Reconsiders Casino Smoking Ban
Politicians have refused to accept the argument that casinos should be allowed to give patrons the option to smoke as a matter of individual rights. However, one thing that makes a politician think twice is a threat to his revenue stream, and smoking bans have been established as a major cause of declining casino revenues.
Atlantic City had been scheduled to impose a city-wide ban on smoking in casinos October 15th. But Donald Trump is leading a group of casino executives warning of the dire consequences for both casinos and the governments dependent on them if the ban is enacted.
Gambling analysts have projected that casino income, already in an annual decline of over five percent a year, may reach into a double-digit yearly drop if smoking is outlawed.
City Councilmam Marty Small has discussed postponing the ban until the economy is stronger and more prepared to deal with the negative effects. He said,"We have to do what is in the best interests of Atlantic City as a whole. Casinos pay eighty percent of our taxes and provide thousands of jobs for city residents."
Trump warned that if smoking were no longer permitted, thousands of gamblers would seek venues in neighboring states to play. Instead of the old model of gamblers crossing borders to play Atlantic City casinos, a great exodus could occur, leaving millions in lost revenue marked for care of seniors and disabled citizens.
Illinois casinos have suffered major losses in revenue after imposing state-regulated smoking bans, and Colorado casinos have defied new state laws demanding smoking be forbidden, while they search for legal loopholes. Meanwhile, online casino membership grows.
Sherman Bradley, gaming analyst for Online Casino Advisory, said, "Here is an example of a confluence of what is right and what is prudent. Government should not be interfering with either the businessman's right to decide the nature of his shop nor the individual's right to decide his own life choice. Now, state regulation will not only breach issues of personal freedom, but also cost the state dearly in taxes.
"The answer is clear; leave smoking choices to operators, and let those who find smoking establishments objectionable enjoy themselves elsewhere."
Recent Comments
| Posted by: Thomas Laprade | When: 10/04/2008 04:38:58 PM EST |
| The anti-smoking cartel knows no boundrys. They could care less about business losses. The owners should have and 'must' have the right to allow or permit a legal product on 'private' property. These no-smoking laws are not about health and they were never about health. They use the 'Health Card' as a way to persuade the public to pass no-smoking laws. There are two reasons for no-smoking laws. 1. Quarantine/isolate the smoker. 2. De-normalize smoking Unfortunatley the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire. http://smokersclubinc.com http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com | |
| Posted by: virgilk | When: 10/05/2008 11:59:45 AM EST |
| There is a third reason and as I see it, the leading cause of Smoking bans. It is profit for the Pharmaceuticals. If it were not for the millions being put up to fund this push there would be no one willing to spend their time and effort. This is nothing less than a marketing plan to sell smoking cessation products. It has always been about profit not health. All studies showing a nagative health effect from SHS/ETS are based on the EPA report that 3,000 non-smokers die a year has been vacated and proven a fraud many times. If SHS killed very few of us would be alive today. | |
| Posted by: bill egatz | When: 10/20/2008 08:31:36 AM EST |
| was just at a c yesterday. harrahs have smoking rooms set up. very inconvenient but better than nothing. i will not be spending nearly the amount of time there as i used to, if any. i think it's about time smokers said enough to the discrimination and protested all places where smoking is banned. the workers won't have to worry about working in a smoke filled environment. they won't have to worry about working at all. by the way i wonder how many anti's are pro choice. that would seem to be more than hypicritcal. | |
| Posted by: Dale | When: 10/24/2008 08:47:54 PM EST |
| In my honest opinion. There are gaming tables that provide air filtration options. A soft pillar of air blows to the dealers face and a curtain of surrounds the dealer to blow away that is blown towards the dealer smoke. It will cost the casino more money. About $3000 month for the lease on the table. I know of a casino that has one. They just up the table limits to pay for it. Also segregate build seperate rooms for the smokers and non-smokers. Let the employees have a pick where they want to work. It will all even out. Litlle extreme but sure beats the alternative. Or listen up casino workers. Do as I done. I went to collage got my RN and made a better career for myself. | |
| Posted by: Michael J. McFadden | When: 10/25/2008 09:59:45 PM EST |
| Dale wrote, "Also segregate build seperate rooms for the smokers and non-smokers. Let the employees have a pick where they want to work. It will all even out." Dale, you're making the mistake of believing that the driving force behind the bans is actually a concern over workers' health. Think for a moment: if that were truly the case, then the antismoking lobbyists would have no objection to comfortable, separately ventilated smoking rooms being set up complete with slot machines and possibly even drinks service through "windows." Do you see them offering such a thing? Why not? Are they afraid the slot machines will get cancer? Or are they just afraid of allowing smokers anywhere to be comfortable because the real purpose of the ban is simply to discourage smoking and "denormalize" smokers? Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. They lie about the economic effects on bars and casinos and they lie about the health effects of small amounts of smoke exposure in well-ventilated workplaces. While it's harder to demonstrate the latter, it's easy to see the former. Visit: http://banthebanwisconsin.com/Documents/MNGraph.pdf to get a good, clear, simple look at how they've lied about the effects of bans on casinos. And then think what a 30% loss will do to the jobs and the taxes in Atlantic City. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" | |
