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 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 301-309 next last
To: cinFLA
"They would get more playing time from me if they went smokelss."

AS long as the high rollers enjoy their cigarettes or cigars, you'll never win. When you start dropping 100 large per visit, they will cater to you. That, I can gurantee.
221 posted on 09/25/2002 3:37:49 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
You are perfectly able to open an entirely smoking permitted establishment anywhere. Just make it a members-only.

Your statement will be incorrect when the NYC ban goes into effect and is probably incorrect in other places.
These bans are not for the health of the PATRONS, they're touted as for the health of the EMPLOYEES. In that case even a private, members only club would not be able to allow smoking.

222 posted on 09/25/2002 3:39:39 PM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: RikaStrom
I suggest Antigua or Barbados. You can smoke all the Cuban cigars you want there also.
223 posted on 09/25/2002 3:43:27 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Clovis_Skeptic
I wonder how the judge would feel about the brown streak on my citation when I mailed it back to the court.
224 posted on 09/25/2002 3:44:40 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
' entirely smoking permitted establishment'

We call these 'Indian casinos' in the west, and they seem to be re-vitalizing the social lives of serious smokers . . .

225 posted on 09/25/2002 3:45:19 PM PDT by Crowcreek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Your statement will be incorrect when the NYC ban goes into effect and is probably incorrect in other places. These bans are not for the health of the PATRONS, they're touted as for the health of the EMPLOYEES. In that case even a private, members only club would not be able to allow smoking.

A very good point which I overlooked.

226 posted on 09/25/2002 3:45:29 PM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
You are perfectly able to open an entirely smoking permitted establishment anywhere. Just make it a members-only.

Then some idiot would come up with a discrimination lawsuit.

The only way you can have a smoking bar in Cali is if it is owner operated. However, there are plenty of establishments that have adopted Prohibition style ways to get around it. She Lion posted a thread about that. There are also bribes a plenty going around.

227 posted on 09/25/2002 3:45:48 PM PDT by Bella_Bru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"You have the right to smoke on your property as long as the smoke is diluted before leaving your property. However, society has a right to conduct commerce and enjoy entertainment in a safe and comfortable environment."

Ahhh, so you, Karl Marx, have the right to tell me how to run my business, who to sell to, how to construct the building, who to hire. Guess what Mr. Mao? I can close my business and throw your butt out too. And refuse to sell to you. And then what do you do?

"That includes my right to have hotels and restaurants that provide a safe and comfortable atmosphere; i.e., free of smoke."

You are correct. That is your right. WITHOUT THE GOVERNMENT DICTATING SUCH. But you poor socialists just can't handle that. You remember this when they ban your fast food, your clothes you enjoy, your favorite vehicle, etc. Because I'll be laughing my a$$ off.
228 posted on 09/25/2002 3:47:21 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Why do we really need a law to mandate all establishments be non-smoking?

End of the day for my arguments as I have to attend to some errands. I will close with the following thoughts; not arguments, just reflections. Years ago I had to put up with smoking office-mates as they had a "right" to smoke. Times change, society changes, laws change. I am greatful for the laws since employers were slow to accomodate those wishing to work in a non-irritating environment. Years ago I had to expect that I would be subjected to smoking in restuarants. Times change but restuarants were slow to accomodate. Then when non-smoking areas were introduced (volutarily or regulated) it was a joke. I often stood in line for the non-smoking section while those of less determination would "accept" a seat in the half empty smoking section although desiring non-smoking. It was "convenient" for the restaurant to operate in this manner. I am glad the laws have changed so now I can generally feel free to be able to go out to eat without having an irritant being expelled nearby. Years ago I had to endure being cooped up in an airliner with smokers. Times change. Years ago, smokers could pollute elevators. Times change. Yes, there are some militant anti-smokers, but this issue is driven by the many that just find smoking disgusting and want to be free to mingle in society without that irritation. Years ago, I had to wait for a plane and there was ONE cigar smoker in the area. I went to the other side but it was still nauseating. It only takes one of these to kill any good will by other smokers. Hence more and more regulations because "society" wants it. Times change. Good Day!

229 posted on 09/25/2002 3:48:44 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"If a person decides to open a business to the general public, he has an obligation to the public to provide a safe and comfortable environment. That environment should be safe and comfortable to the standards that society requires. Presently, society in America is requiring that this atmosphere should be free of smoke."

Uh no. We have an obligation as businessmen to abide by the laws. If a law is passed requiring us to have a "smoke-free" environment to accomodate whining communists like yourself, then we have the right to close our businesses and then what do you gain?
230 posted on 09/25/2002 3:48:50 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Uh no. We have an obligation as businessmen to abide by the laws. If a law is passed requiring us to have a "smoke-free" environment to accomodate whining communists like yourself, then we have the right to close our businesses and then what do you gain?

You have proven yourself unable to engage in dialog without verbal abuse. Bye.

231 posted on 09/25/2002 3:50:34 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
" I hope you have a better understanding now of rights and power. Many people become inconsistent when they confuse their desires with their rights. It is obvious that if a business wants to partake of society then that business is obligating itself to the rules of society."

That is correct. I hope you enjoy the new McDonald's Casino opening up in Vegas. But you are on crack my communist friend. As long as high rollers drop big money and want to smoke, then there will be smoking in casinos.
232 posted on 09/25/2002 3:50:53 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Give it up. You are in a discussion with an obvious communist. He can't accomplish what he wants in life, so he's going to use the goverment to impose his beliefs and way of life on everyone else. If he was a "conservative" he would open up chains of non-smoking businesses and be as wealthy as Bill Gates. But we all know the fallacy of that.
233 posted on 09/25/2002 3:52:16 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"Logic error! You have NO right to a SUV. Right now, SUV's have an economic advantage over cars. That is why we see so many of them rather than vans and station wagons. Station wagons were popular years ago and not that much different from SUV's of today. Vans are much more convenient for most families than SUV's but do not have this economic advantage. The "fight" is to bring equality to those regulations which have given SUV's an unfair advantage."

Please, get on your bicycle and ride back to DU.
234 posted on 09/25/2002 3:53:47 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"This discussion is about the RIGHT of government to regulate."

Yes. And when you proclaim that you drive a Yugo, hug a tree, and agree that they can dictate to you what you eat, who you talk to, and what clothes you wear, then please, scream about that "right to regulate" from the rooftops. If that's not banned.
235 posted on 09/25/2002 3:55:40 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Good day to you, too. :)
236 posted on 09/25/2002 3:57:33 PM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Rye
" Good.....their are few things I despise more than sitting at the blackjack table while some 50-something multipule divorcee hag with rotting teeth, $5 dollar perfume, death breath, and a voice that's two octaves lower than it should be blows Marlboro after Marlboro in my face."

I would suggest moving to the $100 tables.
237 posted on 09/25/2002 3:58:09 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
No where have I ever said that no regulation is necessary.

There is a major difference between allowing the market to determine smoking policy and sanitary conditions.

Sanitary conditions is something a customer must rely on trust, as most of them are not seen by the customer, therefore it is necessary for the regulations for the cleanliness and health of everyone involved.

Smoking policy is a different story - a sign on the entrance is all that is needed. If someone does not like the stated policy one does not have to enter. It's very simple.
238 posted on 09/25/2002 4:02:44 PM PDT by Gabz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Regulations are entirely consistent with good old capitalism.

I'm sorry to have to correct you again,,but,,,

Communism is a system where property is owned and controlled by the state (communists call this the people),
capitalism is a system whereby property is privately owned and contolled,
and fascism is a system whereby property is privately owned but controlled by the state.

Therefore, regulation is entirely consistent with good old FASCISM. It is important to define your terms correctly.

239 posted on 09/25/2002 4:08:19 PM PDT by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
"Hence more and more regulations because "society" wants it. "

Okay, let's go over some of the other regulations that "society" wants:

1. Banning SUVs. Dictating what you are to driver for the benefit of "society". Yup, that will be popular.
2. Banning alcohol. That one worked good too.
3. Banning drugs. That's been a real gem to "society" so far.
4. Banning fast food. Yep, can't have those business selling their garbage to "society". Gotta have tofu for all.
5. Banning firearms. Those pesky things just go off on their own causing harm to "society".

I think we should ban ugly people, increase abortions so stupid people can not be brought into the world, and hell, while we're at it, if you smell bad, yep, out you go. You're inviting disaster. But you don't care. You can walk into a bar that could care less if you were there, and impose your way of life on all the patrons. Pure communism. Enjoy your way of life.
240 posted on 09/25/2002 4:08:31 PM PDT by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 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