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
I stand corrected on the vans. I do not think it is the handling. I found vans to be much more comfortable for trips than SUV's. I bought a SUV because I wanted four wheel drive and I wanted a JEEP! Now we are a culture of SUV's of all sizes. Go figure!
Perhaps but I think the majority leave because they find cheaper labor overseas. Of course we could bring the poverty conditions of Mexico or Indonesia to the US but not for me! Two days after arriving in Indonesia the inside of my nose and passages were draining black ooze from the unregulated trucks, motorcycles and wood fires in the Jakarta. All regulation is NOT bad.
Good we agree on that point.
What right do you have to operate your restaurant?
The same right as anyone else, including you, to open a business.
Your restaurant is licensed to operate in accordance with regulations set by society. It is society operating through their government representatives that set those regulations.
Yes, the laws and regulations in place at the time I was licensed to open my business.
Are all regulations required or sensible? Of course not; but that is not the argument you are trying to use.
That is very much part of my argument. The rest of my arguement you have chosen to ignore.
All the employees and the vast majority of the employees smoke - they are the bread and butter - they are the reason the business remains a viable establishment - shouldn't those be who is provided a "safe and comfortable" environment????????
You are totally ignoring the idea of the market being allowed to make the decision. If the customers would prefer a no-smoking environment they should be talking to the owner, as opposed to talk to their "representatives."
Because when they insist on going to their "representatives" the clientele of the other establishments, who have spoken to the owners are made to suffer - as are the owners who have listend to their customers.
In California you do not have that right. After Novemeber 26 you will not have that right in Delaware. If Amendment 6 passes on November 5th you will no longer have that right in Florida. and if Bloominidiot has his way you won't have that right in NYC.
There are many others, but as those are the largest and most insidious, I thought I would just stick with them.
Are you, like the poster I originally replied to, opposed to all regulations? If you do, then you oppose my position. If you do not, then you agree with me on the essence but maybe not on the specifics. That, I am not trying to argue. If you want the market to decide all, then consider it necessary to perform your own sanitary inpections of any restaurant you might eat in. Some proprietors have no concept of what is required till they read the regulations. Of course regulations come at a price but the benefit may be greater than the cost. If it is not, the regulation should be removed or modified.
WRONG - this discussion has nothing to do with the right of government to regulate.
It is about the rights of PRIVATE property owners to determine what is in the best interest of their business to accomodate their clientele with a minimal amount of government regulation.
In every state it is perfectly OK for anyone to open a non-smoking restaurant or bar so non-smokers and anti-smokers should have all the places they want or else should be opening their own.
In most states it is not legal for someone to open an entirely smoking permitted establishment.
That is what this discussion is about. No one is entitled to EVERYTHING - but anti-smokers INSIST that it is their way or the highway and I for one am getting a bit tired of it.
That's why I am against city ordinances banning smoking in all restaurants and bars. It isn't that cigarettes are bad for you, they are. It isn't that other people can't smell the smoke, they can. The point is "Is this trip really necessary?" There are already laws that mandate non-smoking areas, no smoking in elevators, etc. If the bar patroning public really wanted non-smoking bars, there would have already been supply to rise up to meet the demand. There is no law against running a bar or restaurtant as an all non-smoking establishment. I know that some exist already. Why do we really need a law to mandate all establishments be non-smoking?
Why -- does he smell like an ash tray?
You are perfectly able to open an entirely smoking permitted establishment anywhere. Just make it a members-only.
In all candor, what's the difference?
I support the right of a business owner to run his business as a smoke free one. Why can you not support the right of a business owner to run his business to allow smoking?
Are you one of those hopeless cases who can't resist lighting up where it's illegal, like the high school athletic events?
If so, you'd be better off staying at home, close to the TV and the ash tray.
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.