_Casino smoke ruling / Just pass the ban_
(http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/146/story/82337.html)
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I wonder how many people have to die from second hand smoke before the humane solution is adopted and enforced? That being: No Smoking in Public Places (particularly those places indoors). Why is that casinos are so far behind the curve on this issue. Perhaps it is because of 2 reasons: 1) smokers are not the brightest people around and therefore will lose more money and 2) smoking dulls your senses and when combined with alcohol gives the casinos a big advantage. I had a casino host (who shall remain unamed) suggest these reasons. The host went on to say that it is the 800 pound gorilla in most casino exexcutive decisions. Once they start having to pay wrongful death suits, they might reconsider their position but only if it makes sense economically. Would those of you who support smoking please refrain from commenting as it only continues to show your ignorance.
BANDSTAND54@AOL.COM wrote: _Casino smoke ruling / Just pass the ban_
(http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/146/story/82337.html)
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Robert Pickett <robert.pickett70@...>
wrote:
Would those of you who support smoking please refrain from
commenting as it only continues to show your ignorance.
So everyone you disagree with should keep their mouths shut? Who did
you say was ignorant? Have you ever read any of the UNLV studies?
Casino executives don't want to ban smoking for one reason. Every
serious study, not propaganda, study, they have read shows a 10% loss
of gaming win across the State of Nevada. That's not a recession, sir,
that's a depression--with corresponding layoffs. They will ban smoking
when the cost/benefit analysis shows the lawsuits will cost them more
than the loss of revenue.
The problem with you big mouth anti-smokers is all you do is run your
mouths. When the smoking bans kick in you don't show up to support the
businesses who lose the smokers as customers. That's the reason for
the loss of revenue. Candy Asses. Stone cold candy asses.
mickeycrimm wrote:
So everyone you disagree with should keep their mouths shut?
Who did you say was ignorant? Have you ever read any of the
UNLV studies?Casino executives don't want to ban smoking for one reason.
Every serious study, not propaganda, study, they have read
shows a 10% loss of gaming win across the State of Nevada.
That's not a recession, sir, that's a depression--with
corresponding layoffs. They will ban smoking when the
cost/benefit analysis shows the lawsuits will cost them more
than the loss of revenue.The problem with you big mouth anti-smokers is all you
do is run your mouths. When the smoking bans kick in
you don't show up to support the businesses who lose
the smokers as customers. That's the reason for the
loss of revenue. Candy Asses. Stone cold candy asses.
I have not read the UNLV studies, but I find mickeycrimm's
analysis of casino management's thinking most likely to be
accurate.
However....
mickeycrimm, are you suggesting that there is a moral
obligation for anyone to support any business? I don't
think that opinion will find much support on this forum
or elsewhere for that matter. Also, I find your
denegration of non-smokers for not supporting a
business that obeys a smoking ban to be unwarranted.
I find it much easier to support the opinion that everyone
is morally justified in asserting their right to a workplace
that is not unneccesarily dangerous to their health.
Gamb00ler
I'm doing the denigrating? Do you have any idea of the insults I've
taken over the years? Even in the polite society of vpFREE smoking
ban proponents have layed their insults down. I find this quite
funny. I pop off one time after tolerating years of the lies, myths,
distortions by anti-smokers and now I'm the bad guy. RFLMAO!!!
All they have to do is be honest. I'm honest about it. Smoking is
bad for your health. Second hand smoke certainly can't be good for
your health. If someone says to me:
"I know the smoking ban hurts some businesses but that is the cost
we have to pay to protect our health."
I respect that opinion and that persons right to act on it
politically. At least they are intellectually honest. And if they
win on the issue, which I believe they will in the end, so be it. I
have nothing against these people.
But if one says to me "The smoking ban will not decrease but rather
will increase revenue" or "the smoking ban did not cause the loss of
revenue, they opened a casino in another state that took the
business" or "there's a recession" or "people are not vacationing
like they used to" or "people are gambling less" or any of the
various and sundry smoke and mirror reasons they will come up with
instead of admitting the one true cause of the loss of business, then
I have no respect for these people. They are intellectually
dishonest. They ignore hard evidence when it doesn't serve their
cause and spew propaganda instead.
You wanna see some hard evidence of what a smoking ban can do then
Google on Helena Smoking Ban.
Helena, Montana instituted a smoking ban that included bars/casinos.
These are small casinos. Up to 20 machines. You have to have a
liquor license to obtain a gaming license so the machines are either
in the bar or a room adjacent to the bar. There are about 20 of
these casinos in Helena.
The smoking ban lasted six months. During that time these
bar/casinos experienced a $5,000,000 shortfall in revenue. The
smoking ban was found unconstitutional for, of all reasons, the law
didn't provide for a jury trial for anyone accused of breaking it.
When the ban lifted revenue returned to pre-ban levels. That's hard
evidence.
If you are a smoking ban proponent, fine. I support you 110% in your
fight---as long as you are honest on the issue.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gamb00ler" <gamb00ler@...> wrote:
mickeycrimm wrote:
> So everyone you disagree with should keep their mouths shut?
> Who did you say was ignorant? Have you ever read any of the
> UNLV studies?
>
> Casino executives don't want to ban smoking for one reason.
> Every serious study, not propaganda, study, they have read
> shows a 10% loss of gaming win across the State of Nevada.
> That's not a recession, sir, that's a depression--with
> corresponding layoffs. They will ban smoking when the
> cost/benefit analysis shows the lawsuits will cost them more
> than the loss of revenue.
>
> The problem with you big mouth anti-smokers is all you
> do is run your mouths. When the smoking bans kick in
> you don't show up to support the businesses who lose
> the smokers as customers. That's the reason for the
> loss of revenue. Candy Asses. Stone cold candy asses.I have not read the UNLV studies, but I find mickeycrimm's
analysis of casino management's thinking most likely to be
accurate.However....
mickeycrimm, are you suggesting that there is a moral
obligation for anyone to support any business? I don't
think that opinion will find much support on this forum
or elsewhere for that matter. Also, I find your
denegration of non-smokers for not supporting a
business that obeys a smoking ban to be unwarranted.I find it much easier to support the opinion that everyone
is morally justified in asserting their right to a workplace
that is not unneccesarily dangerous to their health.Gamb00ler
The problem with you big mouth anti-smokers is all you do is run
your
mouths. When the smoking bans kick in you don't show up to support
the
businesses who lose the smokers as customers. That's the reason for
the loss of revenue. Candy Asses. Stone cold candy asses.Spoken like a smoker, LOL!!!!!!!
Freedom has always been a big thing for me, and quite simply I always
felt that a proprietor should have the freedom to choose what type of
establishment he wants to run. If he wants to have a place that
allows smoking, so be it; if he wants a non-smoking place, more power
to him. After all, a patron has the choice to go to whichever place
he wants. If you don't want to be around smoke just go to a non-
smoking place; if you smoke, go to a place that allows it. If the
non-smoking place is across town, then you decide which is more
important to you, the convenience of going someplace closer or
staying away from second-hand smoke. If you choose convenience,
don't complain. After all if a smoke-free environment isn't
important enough to you to drive a longer distance, than why is it
important enough to infringe upon another's freedom to smoke?
Some say that smoking infringes on a non-smoker's right to air free
from second-hand smoke. That would be true if smokers were going to
the non-smoker's house to smoke. But if the non-smoker chooses to go
someplace that allows smoking, they have chosen to subject themself
to the possibility of breathing smoke, and thus have given their
consent. If I decide to sleep on train tracks and a train hits me,
the train didn't infringe on my freedom to sleep wherever I want. If
I don't want to get hit by the train, I just won't go to the tracks.
An analogy...A Catholic wants to go to church, but it's way across
town and service is at an inconvenient time. But there is a
synagogue across the street that has services at better times. He
gets the idea that he should try to pass a law so that all houses of
worship only offer Catholic services because it would be more
convenient to him...absolutely ridiculous. If you want a Catholic
service, go to a Catholic church, don't try to make every place cater
to your wants, infringing on the freedom of others to do what they
want.
By the way, I quit smoking quite a while back, and as such, am
probably more sensitive to smoke than a lot of people who never
smoked. So guess what, I DON'T FREQUENT PLACES THAT GET REALLY
SMOKEY, regardless of what they offer that I can't find elsewhere.
>
> mickeycrimm wrote:
>
> > So everyone you disagree with should keep their mouths shut?
> > Who did you say was ignorant? Have you ever read any of the
> > UNLV studies?
> >
> > Casino executives don't want to ban smoking for one reason.
> > Every serious study, not propaganda, study, they have read
> > shows a 10% loss of gaming win across the State of Nevada.
> > That's not a recession, sir, that's a depression--with
> > corresponding layoffs. They will ban smoking when the
> > cost/benefit analysis shows the lawsuits will cost them more
> > than the loss of revenue.
> >
> > The problem with you big mouth anti-smokers is all you
> > do is run your mouths. When the smoking bans kick in
> > you don't show up to support the businesses who lose
> > the smokers as customers. That's the reason for the
> > loss of revenue. Candy Asses. Stone cold candy asses.
>
> I have not read the UNLV studies, but I find mickeycrimm's
> analysis of casino management's thinking most likely to be
> accurate.
>
> However....
>
> mickeycrimm, are you suggesting that there is a moral
> obligation for anyone to support any business? I don't
> think that opinion will find much support on this forum
> or elsewhere for that matter. Also, I find your
> denegration of non-smokers for not supporting a
> business that obeys a smoking ban to be unwarranted.
>
> I find it much easier to support the opinion that everyone
> is morally justified in asserting their right to a workplace
> that is not unneccesarily dangerous to their health.
>
> Gamb00ler
>
I'm doing the denigrating? Do you have any idea of the insults
I've
taken over the years? Even in the polite society of vpFREE smoking
ban proponents have layed their insults down. I find this quite
funny. I pop off one time after tolerating years of the lies,
myths,
distortions by anti-smokers and now I'm the bad guy. RFLMAO!!!
All they have to do is be honest. I'm honest about it. Smoking is
bad for your health. Second hand smoke certainly can't be good for
your health. If someone says to me:"I know the smoking ban hurts some businesses but that is the cost
we have to pay to protect our health."I respect that opinion and that persons right to act on it
politically. At least they are intellectually honest. And if they
win on the issue, which I believe they will in the end, so be it.
I
have nothing against these people.
But if one says to me "The smoking ban will not decrease but rather
will increase revenue" or "the smoking ban did not cause the loss
of
revenue, they opened a casino in another state that took the
business" or "there's a recession" or "people are not vacationing
like they used to" or "people are gambling less" or any of the
various and sundry smoke and mirror reasons they will come up with
instead of admitting the one true cause of the loss of business,
then
I have no respect for these people. They are intellectually
dishonest. They ignore hard evidence when it doesn't serve their
cause and spew propaganda instead.You wanna see some hard evidence of what a smoking ban can do then
Google on Helena Smoking Ban.Helena, Montana instituted a smoking ban that included
bars/casinos.
These are small casinos. Up to 20 machines. You have to have a
liquor license to obtain a gaming license so the machines are
either
in the bar or a room adjacent to the bar. There are about 20 of
these casinos in Helena.The smoking ban lasted six months. During that time these
bar/casinos experienced a $5,000,000 shortfall in revenue. The
smoking ban was found unconstitutional for, of all reasons, the law
didn't provide for a jury trial for anyone accused of breaking it.When the ban lifted revenue returned to pre-ban levels. That's
hard
evidence.
If you are a smoking ban proponent, fine. I support you 110% in
your
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "gamb00ler" <gamb00ler@> wrote:
fight---as long as you are honest on the issue.
mickeycrimm wrote:
If you are a smoking ban proponent, fine. I support you 110% in your
fight---as long as you are honest on the issue.
===============================================
Mickey,
I'll be honest on the issue---I swear. I live in Mpls. Our closest
gaming teepee offers crappy games, enough smoke to choke a horse, and
no booze! I visited my son in Chicago twice last fall and we didn't
go to any of the nearby casinos, even though we had plenty of time to
do so and enjoy playing blackjack together. This spring we're
planning another trip with 5 family members and at least 4 of us will
be going to a casino for a few hours of gambling. Yes, it's the same
crappy games they had before, but the big difference is that there is
no smoking---enough to make me forget about EV and just have some fun.
(There was also a smoking ban in restaurants passed last fall in MN,
and we've been to at least 6 restaurants that we would have never even
considered before the ban.)
This works both ways though. If we knew the answer to "What
percentage of revenue in AC casinos came from PA residents before the
ban and after the ban?," that would be the hard evidence we need.
Right now, neither side has anything but speculation, true?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tralfamidorgooglycrackers"
<tralfamidorgooglycrackers@...> wrote:
> The problem with you big mouth anti-smokers is all you do is run
your
> mouths. When the smoking bans kick in you don't show up to support
the
> businesses who lose the smokers as customers. That's the reason
for
> the loss of revenue. Candy Asses. Stone cold candy asses.
>
>>>Spoken like a smoker, LOL!!!!!!!
I have that big pack of nicotine gum sitting on the dresser. Haven't
opened it yet. The cigarettes are on the table. I don't have any
problem getting to the table but it sure looks like a long walk over to
that dresser.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jeffcole2003oct" <jeff-cole@...>
wrote:
mickeycrimm wrote:
If you are a smoking ban proponent, fine. I support you 110% in
your
fight---as long as you are honest on the issue.
Mickey,
I'll be honest on the issue---I swear. I live in Mpls. Our closest
gaming teepee offers crappy games, enough smoke to choke a horse,
and
no booze! I visited my son in Chicago twice last fall and we didn't
go to any of the nearby casinos, even though we had plenty of time
to
do so and enjoy playing blackjack together. This spring we're
planning another trip with 5 family members and at least 4 of us
will
be going to a casino for a few hours of gambling. Yes, it's the
same
crappy games they had before, but the big difference is that there
is
no smoking---enough to make me forget about EV and just have some
fun.
(There was also a smoking ban in restaurants passed last fall in
MN,
and we've been to at least 6 restaurants that we would have never
even
considered before the ban.)
I also honestly believe that if one of the upcoming new casinos in
Las
Vegas had the balls to go non-smoking, the place would thrive, but
they won't...they're just a bunch of candy asses. Really, if you
can
make it on $500 million/year, don't you think you could make it on
$450 million/year? And yes, if I owned the joint, that's how it
would
be run...and my staff and customers would love the place.
Mickey earlier wrote:
But if one says to me ..."the smoking ban did not cause the loss of
revenue, they opened a casino in another state that took the
business"...or any of the various and sundry smoke and mirror
reasons
they will come up with instead of admitting the one true cause of
the
loss of business, then I have no respect for these people. They are
intellectually dishonest. They ignore hard evidence when it doesn't
serve their cause and spew propaganda instead.This works both ways though. If we knew the answer to "What
percentage of revenue in AC casinos came from PA residents before
the
ban and after the ban?," that would be the hard evidence we need.
Right now, neither side has anything but speculation, true?
Doom and gloom was predicted for Las Vegas when California got the
casinos, but it never materialized. And California is on track to
pass Nevada in gaming revenue in just a few more years.
ILL enacted a smoking ban in casinos, the first month 17% drop in revenues
and 30 people laid off. I went once, and didn't stay to long. Even if
smokers go they still lose. Everytime you want to smoke you have your
machine locked and take 1/2 hr out. Thats 1/2 hr less of gambling.
In general, smoking bans will cause the casino's to lose money. If that
happens pay tables and services will be cut. Then don't blame us.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
By the way, I quit smoking quite a while back, and as such, am
probably more sensitive to smoke than a lot of people who never
smoked. So guess what, I DON'T FREQUENT PLACES THAT GET REALLY
SMOKEY, regardless of what they offer that I can't find elsewhere.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:
===============================================
I also stopped smoking "quite awhile back";September 20, 1986 to be
exact. On that day I said goodbye to a 40 year addiction to an
activity that I truly loved. When I quit I had a 2-3 pack per
day habit. I mention this so that it's clear that I wasn't an
occasional "social smoker", but a true nicotine addict. Giving up
cigarettes was probably the most difficult thing that I've ever
successfully accomplished. So, I really understand what a challenge
nicotine abstention can be for a dedicated smoker.
However, 22 years later, like you, I am also probably more sensitive
to 2nd hand smoke than folks who have never inhaled. Smoke from
other player's cigarettes (or pipes or cigars) gives me a headache,
makes my nose run and my eyes water and burn. Yet I refuse to give
up my new addiction......Video Poker. Taken up, I might add, shortly
after I gave up the weeds.
My question to you, pokegimp, is, where the heck are you playing
these days? Since you state that "you don't frequent places that
get really smoky", have you given up gambling altogether?
~Babe~
What you failed to mention from the newspaper article...the casino spokespeople
also said revenues were down but in addition to the smoking ban, the ecomony
probably had alot to do with it. I go to both Harrahs and Empress in Joliet and find
they are NOT empty.
>
ILL enacted a smoking ban in casinos, the first month 17% drop in revenues
and 30 people laid off. I went once, and didn't stay to long. Even if
smokers go they still lose. Everytime you want to smoke you have your
machine locked and take 1/2 hr out. Thats 1/2 hr less of gambling.In general, smoking bans will cause the casino's to lose money. If that
happens pay tables and services will be cut. Then don't blame us.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
vpFREE Links: http://members.cox.net/vpfree/Links.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
Consider this scenario ; the smoking ban causes the casino to
experience a loss in revenue. To counteract this dropoff in business,
and lure players back, the casinos decide to institute BETTER service,
BETTER pay tables and stronger offers.
~Babe~
====================================================
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Zelisko" <szelisk@...> wrote:
In general, smoking bans will cause the casino's to lose money. If
that happens pay tables and services will be cut. Then don't blame us.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Robert Pickett <robert.pickett70@...>
wrote:
I wonder how many people have to die from second hand smoke before
the humane solution is adopted and enforced? That being: No Smoking
in Public Places (particularly those places indoors). Why is that
casinos are so far behind the curve on this issue. Perhaps it is
because of 2 reasons: 1) smokers are not the brightest people around
and therefore will lose more money and 2) smoking dulls your senses
and when combined with alcohol gives the casinos a big advantage. I
had a casino host (who shall remain unamed) suggest these reasons.
The host went on to say that it is the 800 pound gorilla in most
casino exexcutive decisions. Once they start having to pay wrongful
death suits, they might reconsider their position but only if it
makes sense economically. Would those of you who support smoking
please refrain from commenting as it only continues to show your
ignorance.
The above post is typical of the insulting lies, myths, distortions
that anti-smokers spread. In it smokers are portrayed as dumb,
ignorant, compulsive gambling, alcoholics.
Agree, but when a smoker lets their smoke waft directly onto me, then I
think they are violating my rights. I have had smokers tell me that
they did not design the ventilation system so it is not their fault
that the smok is going onto me. I think that logic is just plain
faulty, but prevalent.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:
Some say that smoking infringes on a non-smoker's right to air free
from second-hand smoke. That would be true if smokers were going to
the non-smoker's house to smoke. But if the non-smoker chooses to go
someplace that allows smoking, they have chosen to subject themself
to the possibility of breathing smoke, and thus have given their
consent
Freedom has always been a big thing for me, and quite simply I
always
felt that a proprietor should have the freedom to choose what type
of
establishment he wants to run. If he wants to have a place that
allows smoking, so be it; if he wants a non-smoking place, more
power
to him. After all, a patron has the choice to go to whichever
place
he wants. If you don't want to be around smoke just go to a non-
smoking place; if you smoke, go to a place that allows it. If the
non-smoking place is across town, then you decide which is more
important to you, the convenience of going someplace closer or
staying away from second-hand smoke. If you choose convenience,
don't complain. After all if a smoke-free environment isn't
important enough to you to drive a longer distance, than why is it
important enough to infringe upon another's freedom to smoke?Some say that smoking infringes on a non-smoker's right to air free
from second-hand smoke. That would be true if smokers were going
to
the non-smoker's house to smoke. But if the non-smoker chooses to
go
someplace that allows smoking, they have chosen to subject themself
to the possibility of breathing smoke, and thus have given their
consent. If I decide to sleep on train tracks and a train hits me,
the train didn't infringe on my freedom to sleep wherever I want.
If
I don't want to get hit by the train, I just won't go to the tracks.
Just wondering, as far as I know it's legal to vomit. So, you would
have no problem if I walked up to you expressed my freedom to vomit
by spewing all over your face?
Further expanding on this ... since vomiting is NOT illegal anywhere
then if you don't want to expose yourself to this possibility, you
should never go ANYWHERE.
See what happens when you use fallacious logic?
An analogy...A Catholic wants to go to church, but it's way across
town and service is at an inconvenient time. But there is a
synagogue across the street that has services at better times. He
gets the idea that he should try to pass a law so that all houses
of
worship only offer Catholic services because it would be more
convenient to him...absolutely ridiculous. If you want a Catholic
service, go to a Catholic church, don't try to make every place
cater
to your wants, infringing on the freedom of others to do what they
want.
Silly analogy. I hope this isn't the extent of your logic.
By the way, I quit smoking quite a while back, and as such, am
probably more sensitive to smoke than a lot of people who never
smoked. So guess what, I DON'T FREQUENT PLACES THAT GET REALLY
SMOKEY, regardless of what they offer that I can't find elsewhere.
Be careful, vomiting is allowed everywhere.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:
Helena, Montana instituted a smoking ban that included
bars/casinos.
These are small casinos. Up to 20 machines. You have to have a
liquor license to obtain a gaming license so the machines are either
in the bar or a room adjacent to the bar. There are about 20 of
these casinos in Helena.The smoking ban lasted six months. During that time these
bar/casinos experienced a $5,000,000 shortfall in revenue. The
smoking ban was found unconstitutional for, of all reasons, the law
didn't provide for a jury trial for anyone accused of breaking it.When the ban lifted revenue returned to pre-ban levels. That's hard
evidence.
Short term effects such as this are not surprising. I agree that
anyone who thinks this won't happen is self-serving.
What is less clear is the long-term effects of such bans. CA poker
rooms do not seem to be suffereing. But as is so often the case, it
is difficult to isolate one variable. If a competing casion opens
around the same time as a smoking ban, it is almost impossible to
sift out which factor led to a decrease in revenues.
I suspect a smoking ban would do great harm to LV casinos. Many of
their best customers (whales) come from overseas where smoking is
more prevalent. These gamblers have choices such as Macau or Europe,
I suspect many of them will simply go elsewhere. I think US
customers would adapt, especially if the bans are ubiquitous within
the US.
In no way does this unfortunate side effect mean that smoking bans
should be put to a halt. Such an argument would be akin to saying
that hard hats should not be required in constrction zones.
It does mean the NV casinow will fight it to the death or until
they lose millions in law suits. This is one reason we have federal
health standards. NV casinos (and therefore the entire state)
cannot be trusted. The speical interest group (casinos) is too
strong here.
Even changes as clearly beneficial as the refrigerator
will have a negative impact upon some businesses.
Businesses must adapt to changing conditions. If they cannot, they
perish. Would you get rid of iPods so that Tower Records can keep
its market share? Or would you have outlawed refrigerators
to protect the iceman. Or maybe local taxes go up. Or whatever.
OSHA rules in places like construction sites probably cost
businesses millions in costs associated with compliance.
This is no different. If a few businesses go broke, then they
go broke. The casinos have no entitilement to protection from
such changes.
As for the lawsuits..... I am shocked it took this long before
a casino worker won such a case. Back in 2002-2003 I predicted
this exact thing would kill public smoking, including specifically
the case of dealers and their extreme exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
I believe that eventually the cost of lawsuits will become too high.
Now it seems to have begun.
QuadZilla
to the possibility of breathing smoke, and thus have given their
> consentAgree, but when a smoker lets their smoke waft directly onto me,
then I
think they are violating my rights. I have had smokers tell me
that
they did not design the ventilation system so it is not their fault
that the smok is going onto me. I think that logic is just plain
faulty, but prevalent.
Funny. Substitute some other poisonous gas, say, chlorine--and the
deliberate venting of this gas onto another person would be considered
first degree assault--a felony. Why is the carbon-monoxide-laced
cocktail of gases from a cigarette considered any different?
I am guessing that I am not as sensitive as you, so this statement
may or may not be of much use. But generally speaking the larger,
mega-resort style places with higher ceilings and better ventilation
seem to be OK for me as long as I avoid bar-tops. Smaller, local
places seem to get the smokiest. If for whatever reason I REALLY,
REALLY want to go to one of those places because of the better
offerings, I've noticed that showing up when fewer people are there
can also help. About 4 am seems to be the magic time (a little
earlier mid-week) since a majority of the drinker-smokers have gone
home and the morning crew hasn't arrived yet. But again, avoid bar-
tops. I know 4 am isn't convenient for most, but I've always been a
night owl so I would probably be going at that time anyway. So again
this statement may not be of much use to you, but I've found there to
be a noticable difference.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jackessiebabe" <jackessiebabe@...>
wrote:
By the way, I quit smoking quite a while back, and as such, am
probably more sensitive to smoke than a lot of people who never
smoked. So guess what, I DON'T FREQUENT PLACES THAT GET REALLY
SMOKEY, regardless of what they offer that I can't find elsewhere.I also stopped smoking "quite awhile back";September 20, 1986 to be
exact. On that day I said goodbye to a 40 year addiction to an
activity that I truly loved. When I quit I had a 2-3 pack per
day habit. I mention this so that it's clear that I wasn't an
occasional "social smoker", but a true nicotine addict. Giving up
cigarettes was probably the most difficult thing that I've ever
successfully accomplished. So, I really understand what a challenge
nicotine abstention can be for a dedicated smoker.However, 22 years later, like you, I am also probably more
sensitive
to 2nd hand smoke than folks who have never inhaled. Smoke from
other player's cigarettes (or pipes or cigars) gives me a headache,
makes my nose run and my eyes water and burn. Yet I refuse to give
up my new addiction......Video Poker. Taken up, I might add,
shortly
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@> wrote:
after I gave up the weeds.My question to you, pokegimp, is, where the heck are you playing
these days? Since you state that "you don't frequent places that
get really smoky", have you given up gambling altogether?~Babe~