Yesterday, USA Today reported that smoking will no longer be allowed on the gambling floors of Atlantic City's casinos. Effective October 15, the only place you'll be able to light up in an Atlantic City casino is inside a smoking lounge.
While many casino employees are thrilled with the smoking ban, casino owners aren't so happy. In fact, Donald Trump, whose company owns three Atlantic City casinos, is urging New Jersey casino owners to sue against the new law, according to MSNBC.com. Owners fear profits will fall once the smoking ban takes effect.
What do you think? Should the Atlantic City Council be able to decide whether gamblers can smoke in casinos? Take our poll or leave a comment.
No, All studies on the ecomonic impact of smoking bans in casinos which have been published by real economists (not antismoking “healthists”) in real economic journals, (Not antismokig public health journals) report bans impact revenue in casinos about 15-20% downwards. Please view the reference section at the end of http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic.html
If you run the models, claims made by antismoking advocates are that secondhand smoke will cause the premature deaths of 25 out of every 100,000 casino employees. However, every 1% decline in income causes 21/100,000 more premature deaths in the USA. The math is obvious…a 15% decline in income causes about 12 times as many premature deaths as the secondhand smoke is claimed to be causing.
Also view http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/casinoworkers.html
Statistics are a two-edged sword, eh? Smokers will find the numbers to justify the continuance of smoking in order to prevent economic harm. Environmentalists and non-smokers will do the same. Truth is – smoking helps to kill smokers and may kill non-smokers. Smokers choose to smoke. Non-smokers don’t always have the choice to inhale. Liability fears have driven American officials at all levels of society to enact smoking bans to protect the health of non-smokers in the face of statistics that show tobacco smoke is harmful to anyone who breathes it. Democracy means voters decide whether or not to elect officials who implement bans of any kind, whether on smoking, firearms or pornography. If the voters, or businesses speaking through lobbyists, are unhappy, they can move to change the officials and change the ban. No matter to me, I won’t gamble in a smoke-filled casino, and I’m happy there are lots of smokers who will! I do feel sorry for the non-smoking employees who have little relief from the smoke except to quite their jobs, but, hey, that’s why they vote!
I’m sure you’re right, David, and that casino revenue will decline once the ban goes into effect, especially since Philadelphia-area casinos are stepping up their marketing. I’m also pretty sure that politicians pay a lot more attention to lobbyists than they do to economic analysis.
Hey, it’s not just smokers, but also the National Restaurant Association and also Federal Reserve economists who find bans kill business. Illinois casinos are down 17% so far this year. IA is up 4% and MO is up 7% (without bans in effect) Most nonsmokers don’t care if someone around them is smoking. Otherwise someone would have started a voluntairly smoke free casino years ago.
yes, they cherry-picked the economic studies which claim bans do not harm business…they cherry pickes the health studies which claim smoke harms nonsmokers too. Please visit scientificintegrityinstitute.org and see what one of the best epidemiologists in the whole world, and a professor at UCLA has to say about that.
Dave,
I agree that banning smoking can harm business in bars, restaurants and casinos. Certainly Germany’s experience with banning smoking in public places has not gone quite the way some officials thought it would.
However, I’m not sure I agree with your statement that most nonsmokers “don’t care” if someone around them is smoking. Most of the nonsmokers I know do care, but have decided that the benefits of visiting a particular bar or restaurant outweigh the costs of being exposed to cigarette smoke, to put the issue in economic terms.
Thanks for stopping by; I hope more smokers and nonsmokers will weigh in.
Oops; I meant to include a link to a Spiegel Online article, but the HTML didn’t show up. Here’s the link to an article on Germany’s smoking ban:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,544005,00.html
Hey, Nancy,
Please check out this 2007 gallup poll. Nationally, only 29% support smoking bans in bars. ( unfortunatly, Gallup did not ask about casinos) http://www.gallup.com/poll/28216/More-Smokers-Feeling-Harassed-Smoking-Bans.aspx?version=print
well smoking should be banned beacause the public of or concerning the people as a whole.Banning smoking in pulic places isn’t just a question of taking away one group freedom for the benefit of another; it is something that is in the interes of the Evouirment .The people as a whole ; itsay that
Your argument, David, is like choosing between two greens – money and veggies (health). Yes, banning smoking in casinos may cause harm in revenues but there are also people/gamblers like me who doesn’t want to go to a casino because of the annoying 2nd hand smoke that penetrates not only my lungs but also my suit. An alternative would be putting a smoking and non-smoking area in casinos or go to an online casino instead, like me who just created an account with Gamblux casino. I’m sure smart people will create solutions.