Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LAS VEGAS! Casino profits could go up in (no) smoke
PressAtlanticCity.com ^ | 24 September 2002 | JOE WEINERT

Posted on 09/24/2002 4:22:36 PM PDT by SheLion

LAS VEGAS - Perhaps the biggest threat to growth in the U.S. casino industry comes not from antigambling interests, but from health-conscious public officials.

A group that sets the country's indoor air-quality standards is under "enormous" pressure to make casinos and other hospitality venues smoke-free, an expert warned attendees at the Global Gaming Expo on Thursday.

"With the collapse of the tobacco industry, (?) the hospitality industry is next to come under attack," said Elia Sterling, president of Theodor Sterling Associates, an indoor air-quality firm based in Vancouver, B.C.

If the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers, or ASHRAE, were to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for smoke particles, casinos could lose billions in revenue, according to legislative analyst Wayne Mehl of the American Gaming Association.

Forty percent to 50 percent of casino gamblers are smokers, about double the percentage of the U.S. population as a whole, Mehl said. A 1993 gaming-industry study showed that
Nevada casinos alone would have lost $1 billion in revenue if casinos were forced to go smoke-free.

"It's not just the loss of customers, but also the loss of gambling time - 12 percent less time for smokers. They would spend that time going out for a smoke," Mehl said.

Of course the casino industry is concerned about the effects of second-hand smoke on its employees, Mehl said, but Thursday's panel discussion was all about the bottom line.

The industry will get a glimpse of the possible future beginning Nov. 27,
when the three Delaware racetracks become the first casino jurisdiction to go smoke-free as part of a broader state law.

"There's a lot of talk about how much (gaming-tax) revenue the state will lose, and not only that, but jobs, too," said Don Johnson, deputy director of the Delaware State Lottery, which controls the racetrack slot-machine operations.

Delaware officials have been in touch with counterparts in Australia, where every gaming establishment was required to provide a smoke-free gaming area by Sept. 1. Johnson said he was told that the Australian smoking ban caused a sharp decrease in casino revenue initially but that business is beginning to recover.

At issue for U.S. casinos is ASHRAE Standard 62-1999, which governs how casinos, restaurants, bars and lounges filter and dilute their air to control tobacco particles, tobacco odor and body odor.

"It's intended to accommodate smoking in buildings," Sterling said. "This ASHRAE standard is a practical standard and is working well in the field."

For example, he said, the lavish Bellagio casino hotel here "provides better air quality indoors than you'll find outdoors."

Special interests, however, are aggressively pushing for standards so tight they "would effectively ban smoking in the hospitality industry," Sterling said.

ASHRAE (which conveniently rhymes with ashtray) is a 108-year-old non-government trade group of indoor-air specialists whose standards governance has been taken over by public funding and public officials, Sterling said. Today, the group's standards committee is chaired by an official from the Environmental Protection Agency and has only two representatives from the hospitality industry, he said.

"They're in the process of adopting a zero-tolerance approach to tobacco smoke. One molecule of tobacco smoke is unacceptable," Sterling said. "The debate is clearly not about health as it is about social engineering to denormalize smoking."

Matthew Iandoli, a Washington-based lobbyist and lawyer, said the Hospitality Coalition on Indoor Air Quality is trying to pre-empt the proposed new rules by adopting its own guidelines for smoke and ventilation. The group's members include the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, which represents more than 14,000 Atlantic City casino workers, and the Nevada Resort Association, which represents the gaming industry here.

Iandoli warned that any action, or non-action, by the hospitality industry could expose it to substantial legal damages.

"Trial lawyers are trying to find that avenue, trying to find that chink in the armor where they can pursue those class-action lawsuits," he said. "If the ASHRAE standard goes forward, that will be the point at which the lawyers will try to show that the casino industry has harmed its employees."

From the casinos' point of view, Mehl said, the "ideal" solution to shielding employees and customers from smoke is a combination of effective ventilation and smoke-free areas.

To e-mail Joe Weinert at The Press:

JWeinert@pressofac.com


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government; US: Nevada
KEYWORDS: antismokers; butts; cigarettes; individualliberty; michaeldobbs; niconazis; prohibitionists; pufflist; smokingbans; taxes; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-309 next last
To: cinFLA
Regulate business? Regulating business is a favorite of the RATS. Are you a RAT? Why not allow the casinos themselves to decide? And if only one casino decides to go smoke free, than you can take your business there and withhold from the others. Isn't that better than government mommying you?
181 posted on 09/25/2002 2:17:32 PM PDT by Bella_Bru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Bella_Bru
Oh, and out here, the "fight" is from the enviro- whackos who say that SUVs are bad for the air (i.e. Bad for you), so they need to make them less desirable for people to own by jacking up the taxes. If this is your idea of conservative, you are wrong.

The SUV's slip through a loop-hole that is driving them crazy. Trying to close this loop-hole is the fight! The "state" cannot usurp federal regulations so they are trying other tactics! Don't be mislead by the rhetoric and stick with the facts. Don't try to put words in my mouth. My idea of being a conservative ALSO means that I DO NOT distort the facts! That is a LIBERAL tactic you are employing! That does NOT give you the right to discredit my conservatism. I did NOT advocate additional restrictions/taxes on SUV's. Read, think, post!

182 posted on 09/25/2002 2:19:01 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
The government does not have rights. People have rights. Governments are granted the authority to do a limited number of legitimate things by the people.

Perhaps you should reread the constitution!

183 posted on 09/25/2002 2:20:35 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"Give me a break."

ROTFLMAO!!! Silly boy!

You 'outed' me on nothing. Either you are merely a deceitful troller, playing verbal games here to amuse yourself and your DU buddies, or a typical 'progressive and modern' American, willing to believe anything at all, provided it seems to be socially acceptable.

This would include, of course, whatever crap the Ministry of Truth is churning out these days.(tobacco statistics, for instance)

Hunch: You are a sucker on the taxpayer teat--one of those 'regulators'. ;^)

If not, why not? You don't have any moral compunctions about such meddling, apparently.
184 posted on 09/25/2002 2:21:09 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
So you like "capitalism with regultion" then. Are you unable to vote with your feet? If The Bellagio allows smoking, but the Golden Nugget does not, what would be so hard about going to the casino that better fits your needs? Why do you need the government to do that for you?
185 posted on 09/25/2002 2:22:10 PM PDT by Bella_Bru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
I wrote:
The government does not have rights. People have rights. Governments are granted the authority to do a limited number of legitimate things by the people.

To which you replied:
Perhaps you should reread the constitution!

Perhaps you should read the consitituion.

186 posted on 09/25/2002 2:22:44 PM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
How did we get from the right of business owners to conduct their business as they see fit, to a total repudiation of traffic law? I think we're getting into apple and orange territory.

This was a sub-thread dealing with Adam Smith. By regulating traffic laws, one is regulating commerce and a proprietors conduct of business.

187 posted on 09/25/2002 2:23:05 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
How did we get from the right of business owners to conduct their business as they see fit, to a total repudiation of traffic law? I think we're getting into apple and orange territory.

You are wrong on all counts. You have shown yourself unable to engage in a discussion without name-calling and verbal abuse. Bye!

188 posted on 09/25/2002 2:25:29 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: cashion
I've spent almost everyday of the last five years working with illegal aliens. I know what they look like, smell like, talk like and I know their mannerisms. Every single one I saw was either Mexican or Central American. They didn't talk to anybody because they don't speak any English. All they did was whistle and stick calling cards for prostitutes in everyone's face. If you have ever been to Mexicali, Juarez or Tijuana this is the exact same thing street vendors do when non-Spanish speaking tourists walk by.

You didn't even have to be a Border Patrol Agent like I am to tell that they were illegal. It was quite obvious. Many of the tourists around me commented on the illegals as well.

Unfortunately, the INS is not allowed to pick them up off the streets. Eventually, Las Vegas is going to have the same problems San Diego had before there was 2400 Border Patrol Agents to clean up the area. Vegas will have people doing drugs in the middle of the strip, in front of the hotels. Rapes and assaults will occurs on a nightly basis etc. Of course, I think the hotel owners in Vegas probably have a more inventive way of handling such problems than the Border Patrol:)

189 posted on 09/25/2002 2:27:01 PM PDT by Ajnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
For your convenience:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The constitution provides the powers to the government. Of course, it can be said that we have the ability to change the constitution therefore we are only giving the government the power therefore the government has no rights.
190 posted on 09/25/2002 2:36:41 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Bella_Bru
So you like "capitalism with regultion" then.

And what is wrong with "capitalism with regulation"?

191 posted on 09/25/2002 2:38:32 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Where does the regulation end? We have regulated some industries to the point that they leave the U.S. and move overseas to do their manufacturing. That isn't too good for our economy, now is it?
192 posted on 09/25/2002 2:40:43 PM PDT by Bella_Bru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Are you reading the same sentence the rest of us are?
This speaks of "powers" not "rights".

193 posted on 09/25/2002 2:42:01 PM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
You 'outed' me on nothing. Either you are merely a deceitful troller, playing verbal games here to amuse yourself and your DU buddies, or a typical 'progressive and modern' American, willing to believe anything at all, provided it seems to be socially acceptable.

Sorry. I misquoted you on a previous quote by inserting the words of another in your place. The above is an example of the "crap" (I use a word from your post) you spew. BYE!

194 posted on 09/25/2002 2:42:17 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Are you reading the same sentence the rest of us are? This speaks of "powers" not "rights".

Please READ, THINK and then post. I addressed this issue in my very short two paragraph post!

195 posted on 09/25/2002 2:43:56 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
"The debate is clearly not about health as it is about social engineering to denormalize smoking."

Hey chickie... Bump for Free-Smoke-America... Funny what bandwagons folks get onto every so often. Don't people have anything better to do with their lives than run around trying to conform everybody else to some arbitrary "standard of living"? Geezus. Some people need to GET OVER THEMSELVES...

196 posted on 09/25/2002 2:45:36 PM PDT by maxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bella_Bru
Where does the regulation end? We have regulated some industries to the point that they leave the U.S. and move overseas to do their manufacturing. That isn't too good for our economy, now is it?

Ah, the essence of capitalism and conservatism. Those businesses are "voting with their feet", to use a phrase from a previous post by you. And we have regulated some industries to an economic advantage in order to keep them in the country. Is that good when it means we have to pay higher prices? Regulation can be either good or bad and sometimes both at the same time. I am not trying to discuss the merits but trying to keep on topic from a challenge by another poster to discuss property rights as it applies in the regulation of business.

197 posted on 09/25/2002 2:50:02 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Please READ, THINK and then post. I addressed this issue in my very short two paragraph post!

I did read, I did think, and I did post.
This thread is SUPPOSED to be about property owners rights, not the powers of the government.
Does the government have the POWER to regulate what a property owner does?
To a certain degree when the health of the GENERAL PUBLIC will be affected by something the propert owner does.
Again, for the large portion of the GENERAL PUBLIC ETS is no more than an annoyance.
So where should the power of the government be allowed to regulate this?
Are we talking about mob rule democracy? If we are, that ain't right and you still show yourself not in conservative light.

198 posted on 09/25/2002 2:51:08 PM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Yes, those businesses did vote with their feet, and left many workers here dry. And that is what over regulation did.

199 posted on 09/25/2002 3:01:46 PM PDT by Bella_Bru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
BYE!
200 posted on 09/25/2002 3:03:24 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-309 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson