Transfats don't affect my health if you eat them next to me, but your smoking does. My personal liberties are being violated by smokers everytime they light up in the casino. You just can't say go next door if you don't like it because they are smoking there also. Smoking is barbaric and what the casinos don't realise is that they are losing money by allowing smoking in their casinos because it chases away many non-smokers. The casino sees smokers sitting at all their tables and think this is the norm and that is why they rigorously defend their smoking policies. Many jurisdictions have banned smoking and the casinos are just as busy or even busier. Smokers better get used to the bans because they will be everywhere eventually, including Nevada. Let's just hope its sooner rather than later.bj bob said:...of our personal liberties.
Groupthink as cited in this article just makes me sick. The superficial veneer of some bogus, feel good policy such as this is just a socialistic Trojan Horse employed to gradually restrict the day-to-day lifestyle of the average American. I know that there are many of you here that don't smoke may think otherwise, however there is a much more insidious phenomenon at work here. If taken to it's logical conclusion, the same arguement will be(and is being!) made to ban those diabolical transfats (2nd hand transfats, even!).
The cliched arguement about the affect to the total environment could also be made for a disco and it's effect on everyone's hearing.
If you don't like the smoke in one casino, just go next door!!:cool2:
You don't have the right to murderbj bob said:...of our personal liberties.
Groupthink as cited in this article just makes me sick. The superficial veneer of some bogus, feel good policy such as this is just a socialistic Trojan Horse employed to gradually restrict the day-to-day lifestyle of the average American. I know that there are many of you here that don't smoke may think otherwise, however there is a much more insidious phenomenon at work here. If taken to it's logical conclusion, the same arguement will be(and is being!) made to ban those diabolical transfats (2nd hand transfats, even!).
The cliched arguement about the affect to the total environment could also be made for a disco and it's effect on everyone's hearing.
If you don't like the smoke in one casino, just go next door!!:cool2:
Take this line of thinking to another level. I'm sure there is some lawyer out there that could twist this around and call the act of producing the second hand smoke around others assault with a deadly weapon.Opinion said:You don't have the right to murder
You don't have the right to maim
If, if 2nd hand smoke is carcinogenic then you don't have the right to endanger someone's health in public.
Can always smoke at home.
What is the quote?
Your Freedoms End at My Nose
Seems very appropriate.
Really? Even if the ban covers the whole region? I know many of the bars around here have lost some revenue, but they started putting in smoking patios, and business has recovered somewhat.blackchipjim said:I knew that someone would dig up this dead horse again. Fact is fact and the casinos lose customers with smoking bans. Look at the facts and not your feelings and the drop is anywhere from 20 to 40 percent in revenue. Vices follow Vice don't like smoke go to a non-smoking casinos with thier great rules and games. blackchipjim
AC is already getting hit by the slot parlors in PA...this can't help.blackchipjim said:Fact is fact and the casinos lose customers with smoking bans.
As I see it, it goes just a little bit beyond individual rights, but I think outdoor smoking bans go too far.bj bob said:The real issue here lies far beyond the health aspects of second-hand smoke. This has become another "line in the sand" in a societal crossroads which has much more far reaching ramifications than a stupid NO SMOKING sign on the front door.
The real issue is the proprietary rights of the individual club owner. He is the one who provides a product to his customers- the games, the attitude of his employees, the atomsphere, the comps, alcohol, food etc. The customer, in turn chooses whether or not to patronize his club for the exact same reasons.Eventually, if given the market place is given the chance, some clubs may decide to employ a smoking ban or restriction. And that's the point the club decides.It's the natural economic force at work, the balance of the club's products and prices vs. the volume of customer traffic.
Your freedom to stop at the front door and turn around has not been impinged.You're free to go to the non-smoking club and at this point no one's rights have been trampled upon. If there turns out to be vast amounts of non-smoking customers the non-smoking casinos will be packed to the gills.
If one looks at other aspects of product-based decisions it bcomes apparent that these factors come into play repeatedly for those of us who are frequent casino patrons. First and foremost, the quality of the games, table conditions, penetration etc. I can assure everyone reading this that I have not patronized a Harrah's property due to there 6:5 games. I do not stay at certain other hotels because of the high room rates and avoid eating at certain clubs simply because the food is awful. Likewise, if I were a non-smoker I would utilize the same discretion in my choice of clubs, again my discretion, my freedom to choose, my rights.
This whole concept of smoking rights has gone way beyond it's original premise of unhealthy second-hand smoke. It is now an issue where rsidual smell has somehow gotten involved as being unhealthy e.g. non-smoking rooms, rental cars etc. The B.A.R.T. stations in the Bay Area now have non-smoking outdoor platforms. Now what does that have to do with some one else's heath?
The politics of smoking has also become a source of amusement for me.States spend millions of dollars on underage smoking ads while one quick stroke of a governor's pen raising the smoking age from 18 to 21 would cost nothing. Wonder why! If it's proven to be that bad, then why not render it illegal? Why not? Because cigarette taxes are a golden cash cow for the states, that's why.
Nevada has historically been the naughty step-child among the family of states. It's the only jurisdiction in the land that allows prostitution, 24 hr. booze, no holes barred strip clubs ,unlimited gambling as well as casual marriage laws. It's become the dirty Disneyland of America where any adult can let it all hang out and nobody will care. I would like to see that little piece of American liberty kept intact, even if the rest of the country is sucked into the bosom of Big Brother.
Amen, that's one of the points I was trying to make. BTW,doesn't Foxwood have their upper level casino as smoking and the lower one non? Now that makes perfect scents to me.Automatic Monkey said:As I see it, it goes just a little bit beyond individual rights, but I think outdoor smoking bans go too far.
I think it's fair to have isolated smoking areas or outdoor smoking pavilions. But being smoking is legal the smokers should have a place where they can do their thing too.
bj bob said:The real issue here lies far beyond the health aspects of second-hand smoke. This has become another "line in the sand" in a societal crossroads which has much more far reaching ramifications than a stupid NO SMOKING sign on the front door.
The real issue is the proprietary rights of the individual club owner. He is the one who provides a product to his customers- the games, the attitude of his employees, the atomsphere, the comps, alcohol, food etc. The customer, in turn chooses whether or not to patronize his club for the exact same reasons.Eventually, if given the market place is given the chance, some clubs may decide to employ a smoking ban or restriction. And that's the point the club decides.It's the natural economic force at work, the balance of the club's products and prices vs. the volume of customer traffic.
Your freedom to stop at the front door and turn around has not been impinged.You're free to go to the non-smoking club and at this point no one's rights have been trampled upon. If there turns out to be vast amounts of non-smoking customers the non-smoking casinos will be packed to the gills.
If one looks at other aspects of product-based decisions it bcomes apparent that these factors come into play repeatedly for those of us who are frequent casino patrons. First and foremost, the quality of the games, table conditions, penetration etc. I can assure everyone reading this that I have not patronized a Harrah's property due to there 6:5 games. I do not stay at certain other hotels because of the high room rates and avoid eating at certain clubs simply because the food is awful. Likewise, if I were a non-smoker I would utilize the same discretion in my choice of clubs, again my discretion, my freedom to choose, my rights.
This whole concept of smoking rights has gone way beyond it's original premise of unhealthy second-hand smoke. It is now an issue where rsidual smell has somehow gotten involved as being unhealthy e.g. non-smoking rooms, rental cars etc. The B.A.R.T. stations in the Bay Area now have non-smoking outdoor platforms. Now what does that have to do with some one else's heath?
The politics of smoking has also become a source of amusement for me.States spend millions of dollars on underage smoking ads while one quick stroke of a governor's pen raising the smoking age from 18 to 21 would cost nothing. Wonder why! If it's proven to be that bad, then why not render it illegal? Why not? Because cigarette taxes are a golden cash cow for the states, that's why.
Nevada has historically been the naughty step-child among the family of states. It's the only jurisdiction in the land that allows prostitution, 24 hr. booze, no holes barred strip clubs ,unlimited gambling as well as casual marriage laws. It's become the dirty Disneyland of America where any adult can let it all hang out and nobody will care. I would like to see that little piece of American liberty kept intact, even if the rest of the country is sucked into the bosom of Big Brother.
Several problems with this analysis. One is that I don't think you're accounting for the negative externality effect of smoking; that is, by smoking, you hurt other people. Same reason we regulate polluters; because they're making money at the expense of everyone else's air or water quality.bj bob said:The real issue here lies far beyond the health aspects of second-hand smoke. This has become another "line in the sand" in a societal crossroads which has much more far reaching ramifications than a stupid NO SMOKING sign on the front door.
The real issue is the proprietary rights of the individual club owner. He is the one who provides a product to his customers- the games, the attitude of his employees, the atomsphere, the comps, alcohol, food etc. The customer, in turn chooses whether or not to patronize his club for the exact same reasons.Eventually, if given the market place is given the chance, some clubs may decide to employ a smoking ban or restriction. And that's the point the club decides.It's the natural economic force at work, the balance of the club's products and prices vs. the volume of customer traffic.
Your freedom to stop at the front door and turn around has not been impinged.You're free to go to the non-smoking club and at this point no one's rights have been trampled upon. If there turns out to be vast amounts of non-smoking customers the non-smoking casinos will be packed to the gills.
If one looks at other aspects of product-based decisions it bcomes apparent that these factors come into play repeatedly for those of us who are frequent casino patrons. First and foremost, the quality of the games, table conditions, penetration etc. I can assure everyone reading this that I have not patronized a Harrah's property due to there 6:5 games. I do not stay at certain other hotels because of the high room rates and avoid eating at certain clubs simply because the food is awful. Likewise, if I were a non-smoker I would utilize the same discretion in my choice of clubs, again my discretion, my freedom to choose, my rights.
This whole concept of smoking rights has gone way beyond it's original premise of unhealthy second-hand smoke. It is now an issue where rsidual smell has somehow gotten involved as being unhealthy e.g. non-smoking rooms, rental cars etc. The B.A.R.T. stations in the Bay Area now have non-smoking outdoor platforms. Now what does that have to do with some one else's heath?
The politics of smoking has also become a source of amusement for me.States spend millions of dollars on underage smoking ads while one quick stroke of a governor's pen raising the smoking age from 18 to 21 would cost nothing. Wonder why! If it's proven to be that bad, then why not render it illegal? Why not? Because cigarette taxes are a golden cash cow for the states, that's why.
Nevada has historically been the naughty step-child among the family of states. It's the only jurisdiction in the land that allows prostitution, 24 hr. booze, no holes barred strip clubs ,unlimited gambling as well as casual marriage laws. It's become the dirty Disneyland of America where any adult can let it all hang out and nobody will care. I would like to see that little piece of American liberty kept intact, even if the rest of the country is sucked into the bosom of Big Brother.
Firstly, I'm not all that convinced about the so-called adverse health effects of second hand smoke. The whacko libs have made this the cause du jour just as they have with "Global warming". The reason for my skepticism is that I have been brainwashed also, way back in my college days while attending school in the Mecca of Free Thought viz. San Francisco. The profs. there filled our brains with so much bullsh*t it took me 20 years to recover. My shoes still stink. For example, the so-called "Population Bomb", "Global Cooling" and the imminent arrival of the "Permanent winter", not to mention my favorite-"The Aspirin Scare". Yessir, all those dead babies lying in the streets in cities coast to coast. Aspirin is now considered the best thing since nasal sex! What happened? Did we get smart all over again?moo321 said:Several problems with this analysis. One is that I don't think you're accounting for the negative externality effect of smoking; that is, by smoking, you hurt other people. Same reason we regulate polluters; because they're making money at the expense of everyone else's air or water quality.
What about pregnant women? What about employees that work at these establishments, don't they have a right to clean air? Factory owners used to make the same arguments you're making in favor of child labor, dangerous conditions, etc. and we rejected those arguments.
Secondly, by allowing smoking at any bar, you virtually force all bars to allow smoking, or cripple themselves from competing. You might have a few small niches where a bar owner may choose to go non-smoking, to appeal exclusively to non-smokers, but it would only be a niche.