vpFREE2 Forums

Check out Casino smoke ruling / Just pass the ban

#21

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?

I would expect a person to react in exactly the same way as if
someone walked up to them just to blow smoke in their face. I have
seen that happen just as often as someone walking up to someone to
vomit on them...never.

On the other hand, if you go to room in which it is common knowledge
that everyone is violently ill and projectile vomiting, should you be
surprised when you get hit with splatter or should you have avoided
the room?

> 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.

Not only is at silly it is ABSURD--which is the point. You have a
smoking place, and a non-smoking place. You would think that someone
who wants to avoid smoke would logically go to the non-smoking
place. But for some reason they want to go to other smoking place
and then try to force that place to change to accomodate them,
thereby imposing their way of life on the people who have already
been congregating there. Replace the words with religion, and it
just makes it more apparent how absurd that is.

For any activity you want to do, there are non-smoking venues you can
go to. If you choose to go to a place that allows smoke instead,
then that is the sacrifice you are making. I assure you that if a
non-smoking casino all of a sudden put in a 10% play on dollars,
smokers would go there. They would realize that the sacrifice they
are making to take part in this play is that they can't smoke. They
would not try to change the place into a smoking venue, thereby
eliminating a place for non-smokers to play. Sounds like the "un-
intelligent, ignorant" group (as some here have suggested about
smokers) are acting more reasonably then the all those enlightened
non-smokers trying to impose their way of life on everyone else.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#22

A friend of mine, Tim Tang, who played poker and video poker died of
lung cancer from 2nd hand smoke several years ago. He was 44 years old.
He never smoked a day in his life, but spend endless hours in smokey
card rooms and casinos.
I agree an outright ban for smoking indoors is the only solution to
2nd hand smoke problem. Here in Nevada, the ban in all places but
casino floors doesn't work either as people continue to smoke in
hallways, restrooms, etc. since they often dont realize those are non-
smoking areas, or they just don't care.
This being Nevada, I never expect to see such a ban passed during my
lifetime. TomSki

PS Although I must admit, I was SHOCKED when most card rooms in Nevada
banned smoking. Many players used to bring little table fans to blow
the smoke away from them. I remeber one smoker complained that the wind
from the fan was making him cold and the floor manager said the person
with the fan had to move it away from him (thus allowing the smoke to
injure him) LOL. Another time, a player, now seen on the WPT, wore a
full gas mask with filters while at the table, and the card room
manager told him he could not wear it because it was too unslighlty to
the other players!

#23

Another time, a player, now seen on the WPT, wore a
full gas mask with filters while at the table, and the card room
manager told him he could not wear it because it was too unslighlty

to the other players!

I played poker with the gas mask guy at the Horseshoe. He WAS scary
looking. The fighting over the smoking at the Shoe was downright
ugly. I'm glad it's over with.

I seem to remember another guy who wore a glove on one hand and refused
to touch the cards with his other hand which was bare.

One of the dumbest things I ever seen was when the Horseshoe banned
cigars. The rule read like this "Cigar Smoking is not allowed, except
for Puggy Pearson."

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "TomSkiLV" <tomskilv@...> wrote:

#24

pokegimp wrote:
...You have a smoking place, and a non-smoking place. You would think
that someone who wants to avoid smoke would logically go to the
non-smoking place.
...For any activity you want to do, there are non-smoking venues you can
go to.

···

==================================================
If the above were true, there would be much less discussion about
smoking on this forum. My chosen activity is to play FPDW...where in
Vegas (or anywhere) can I do that in a smoke free environment? If
there was just one decent place to play, I would go there. Would
anyone have a problem with the east (or west) side of the strip going
smoke free? Then we would truly have some choices...I don't see any
choices right now.

#25

pokegimp wrote:
...You have a smoking place, and a non-smoking place. You would think
that someone who wants to avoid smoke would logically go to the
non-smoking place.
...For any activity you want to do, there are non-smoking venues you

can

go to.

If the above were true, there would be much less discussion about
smoking on this forum. My chosen activity is to play FPDW...where in
Vegas (or anywhere) can I do that in a smoke free environment? If
there was just one decent place to play, I would go there. Would
anyone have a problem with the east (or west) side of the strip going
smoke free? Then we would truly have some choices...I don't see any
choices right now.

What I mean is there are non-smoking gaming venues. If they do not
offer what you want or are not in convenient locations, then if you
choose to place FPDW or the convenience of location as being more
important than being in a smoke-free environment, then that is your
choice and your sacrifice (just like a smoker going to that
hypothetical 10% dollar play mentioned earlier, he puts the play above
his smoking so makes that sacrifice of not smoking).

Now I admit, there are far fewer non-smoking gaming venues and as such
far fewer non-smoking plays. So by all means, use all your campaigning
time and energy to 1) try to get better machines into the non-smoking
places 2)try to get existing smoking venues to turn separate wings into
non-smoking areas 3) try to convince gaming companies that opening a
new non-smoking casino would draw hordes of non-smokers. What you
should not do is try to make EVERY place non-smoking. Obviously, those
3 options would be difficult to accomplish, but so would getting a law
passed to ban smoking from EVERY place.

It simply boils down to...wouldn't it be better if each group had their
own places to go where they can be comfortable? Why do non-smoking ban
proposers say that instead of having places for everyone, they should
be comfortable EVERYWHERE and to hell with anyone else?

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jeffcole2003oct" <jeff-cole@...> wrote:

#26

Then we would truly have some choices...I don't see any

choices right now.

Oops, sorry, forget to include...

I agree there are very few choices right now. I too wish there were
more. And hope a lot more do appear soon. But to ban smoking from ALL
places is giving NO CHOICE AT ALL. It doesn't matter which side a
complete elimination of choice serves, to have one's ability to choose
taken away is just plan wrong. It would be wrong to pass a law to say
that no place is allowed to have a non-smoking policy; it should be
just as wrong to say that no place is allowed to have a smoking policy.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jeffcole2003oct" <jeff-cole@...> wrote:

#27

I agree there are very few choices right now. I too wish there were
more. And hope a lot more do appear soon. But to ban smoking from

ALL

places is giving NO CHOICE AT ALL. It doesn't matter which side a
complete elimination of choice serves, to have one's ability to

choose

taken away is just plan wrong. It would be wrong to pass a law to

say

that no place is allowed to have a non-smoking policy; it should be
just as wrong to say that no place is allowed to have a smoking

policy.

Wrong, pt. 1: You can choose not to smoke. You can choose to smoke
elsewhere. You can choose to smoke only in nonpublic places, such as
your home or car. You can choose to quit smoking altogether.

Wrong, pt. 2: Smoking in public shouldn't BE a "choice", any more than
urinating in public, discharging weapons into the air in public, or
playing a tuba in public are "choices". This is the distinction that I
can't believe actually needs pointing out--PUBLIC behavior is and
should be subject to some restrictions, particularly intrusive or
offensive public behavior.

#28

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "tralfamidorgooglycrackers"
<tralfamidorgooglycrackers@...> wrote:

1: You can choose not to smoke. You can choose to smoke
elsewhere. You can choose to smoke only in nonpublic places, such as
your home or car. You can choose to quit smoking altogether.

You can choose not to enter a building where smoking is permitted.

#29

pokegimp wrote:
...It simply boils down to...wouldn't it be better if each group had
their own places to go where they can be comfortable?

···

-------------
Total agreement.

pokegimp wrote:
Why do non-smoking ban proposers say that instead of having places for
everyone, they should be comfortable EVERYWHERE and to hell with
anyone else?
----------------
Probably because that's their only chance. They can't pick and choose
which places would need to ban smoking, so it's an all or nothing
proposal.

pokegimp wrote:
I agree there are very few choices right now. I too wish there were
more. And hope a lot more do appear soon. But to ban smoking from
ALL places is giving NO CHOICE AT ALL. It doesn't matter which side a
complete elimination of choice serves, to have one's ability to choose
taken away is just plan wrong. It would be wrong to pass a law to say
that no place is allowed to have a non-smoking policy; it should be
just as wrong to say that no place is allowed to have a smoking policy.
---------------------
But there aren't ANY choices in Las Vegas now. A smoker can go to any
casino and feel right at home. A nonsmoker can't go anywhere. Give
the nonsmokers something, that's all I ask...I'm not in favor of
having every casino be nonsmoking---we'll give you a couple places in
Montana (just kidding).
There was some talk about Silver City...what a joke! We went there in
the 80s and actually thought it would be the place to be for us. They
had absolutely nothing to offer and when we did play a little vp
there, a guy sits down next to us and he's smoking. I reminded him
that this place was nonsmoking, but he said he just has to finish this
one. Nobody representing the casino came to tell him any different,
we cashed out and left.

#30

Well, you were not in Biloxi with me about 5 years ago when I asked a
person to please not let his smoke go on me. He proceeded to start a
rant that I must be a loser and that was why I was being such a
******* s^^^ head and that he would show me real smoke. He then
proceded to blow smoke all over me for several seconds.

A couple of ladies playing adjacent to me started chastizing him. He
proceded to call them fat pigs and dirty *****. I started
hollering for security and he decided to leave.

So that is my lasting impression of asking someone to please not let
their smoke go on me.

So:

I had a less violent but similar reaction from a woman in another
casino where she continued to lecture me about asking her to remove
her smoke instead of fanning the air. She stated that she was a
polite person and if she had been asked she would have complied, but
since I chose to fan the air she would smoke all the more. She then
proceded to hold her cigarette so that it went directly on me. I
just got up and left.

Needless to say, not all smokers are like that, and non smokers can
be just as rude, but the impression is lasting.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:

I would expect a person to react in exactly the same way as if
someone walked up to them just to blow smoke in their face. I have
seen that happen just as often as someone walking up to someone to
vomit on them...never.

#31

Not only is at silly it is ABSURD--which is the point. You have a
smoking place, and a non-smoking place. You would think that

someone

who wants to avoid smoke would logically go to the non-smoking
place. But for some reason they want to go to other smoking place
and then try to force that place to change to accomodate them,
thereby imposing their way of life on the people who have already
been congregating there. Replace the words with religion, and it
just makes it more apparent how absurd that is.

Sorry, but the analogy is only absurd because it is not anything like
casinos and smoking.

The big thing you are missing here is that places of business DO NOT
have the freedom to whatever they please. There are hordes of
regulations they must adhere to. A smoking regulation is no different
than many of the health regulations businesses must already follow.
They are put in place for the public good.

For any activity you want to do, there are non-smoking venues you

can

go to. If you choose to go to a place that allows smoke instead,
then that is the sacrifice you are making. I assure you that if a
non-smoking casino all of a sudden put in a 10% play on dollars,
smokers would go there. They would realize that the sacrifice they
are making to take part in this play is that they can't smoke.

They

would not try to change the place into a smoking venue, thereby
eliminating a place for non-smokers to play. Sounds like the "un-
intelligent, ignorant" group (as some here have suggested about
smokers) are acting more reasonably then the all those enlightened
non-smokers trying to impose their way of life on everyone else.

Please explain how a smokers health is put a risk for abstaining in a
non-smoking casino. Oh, and be sure to add just how the employees are
put at risk too.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:

#32

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jeffcole2003oct" <jeff-cole@...> >

···

========================================

pokegimp wrote:
Why do non-smoking ban proposers say that instead of having places

for

everyone, they should be comfortable EVERYWHERE and to hell with
anyone else?
----------------
Probably because that's their only chance. They can't pick and

choose

which places would need to ban smoking, so it's an all or nothing
proposal.

I disagree that it is there only chance. I think it would actually
be easier to convince companies that there is a market for non-
smoking casinos and/or non-smoking wings than it would be to get the
law passed to ban smoking altogether (especially given the amount of
monetary power casinos have to fight the ban). All the considerable
lobbying already done to ban smoking probably would have already
succeeded in getting some non-smoking venues in town if that time and
energy were directed towards a goal that would make everyone happy.

pokegimp wrote:
---------------------
But there aren't ANY choices in Las Vegas now. A smoker can go to

any

casino and feel right at home. A nonsmoker can't go anywhere. Give
the nonsmokers something, that's all I ask...

I totally agree. unfortunately, it will take longer for non-smoking
venues to appear, because all the lobbying being done is misdirected
towards all-or-nothing bans, instead of encouraging casinos to have
non-smoking wings or open non-smoking casinos. There is certainly a
market for it, and casinos know that. But by putting them on the
defensive by trying to ban smoking altogether, they won't bother to
spend the resources on creating non-smoking venues/wings. Why bother
to drop that money, if they will still have to defend against a
smoking ban, which they might lose anyway (so all that money spent to
accomodate non-smokers would have been wasted)? If the lobbyists
said that they wouldn't fight for the ban if the casinos offered non-
smoking wings/casinos, it is highly likely that the casinos would
gladly make that available since it just increases their market. But
by threatening to ban smoking altogether, decreasing their market,
casinos will fight with all they have. By fighting for an all or
nothing solution instead of one that pleases everyone, people are
just delaying the arrival of what they want...a decent choice of non-
smoking gaming in Vegas.

#33

The big thing you are missing here is that places of business DO

NOT

have the freedom to whatever they please. There are hordes of
regulations they must adhere to. A smoking regulation is no

different

than many of the health regulations businesses must already follow.
They are put in place for the public good.

Good point. I think that we should follow the example of another
regulation. We've all seen the warnings on menus about the dangers
of undercooked food and that asking for food prepared in this way is
being done at your own risk. So we should mandate placing a sign at
the entrance of all places that allow smoking (since admittedly not
everyone can figure this out on their own).

"This is a SMOKING establishment. By entering you are implicitly
giving your consent to be surrounded by smoke and the dangers
inherent therein. If you do not consent to this, DO NOT ENTER!"
(and go to a non-smoking establishment)

Certainly the food warning made more sense than banning raw bars,
rare steaks, sunny-side-up eggs, etc... Instead of making the
decision for people, you give them the power to decide if they want
to risk their health.

Please explain how a smokers health is put a risk for abstaining in

a

non-smoking casino. Oh, and be sure to add just how the employees

are

put at risk too.

Hmmm...scratching my head on this one. I don't recall ever saying or
implying that being in a non-smoking environment is dangerous to
anyone's health. If you quote the exact section of my posts that led
you to mistakenly infer this, I'll be happy to clarify what I
actually meant.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

#34

>
> For any activity you want to do, there are non-smoking venues you
can
> go to. If you choose to go to a place that allows smoke instead,
> then that is the sacrifice you are making. I assure you that if

a

> non-smoking casino all of a sudden put in a 10% play on dollars,
> smokers would go there. They would realize that the sacrifice

they

> are making to take part in this play is that they can't smoke.
They
> would not try to change the place into a smoking venue, thereby
> eliminating a place for non-smokers to play. Sounds like the "un-
> intelligent, ignorant" group (as some here have suggested about
> smokers) are acting more reasonably then the all those

enlightened

> non-smokers trying to impose their way of life on everyone else.
>

Please explain how a smokers health is put a risk for abstaining in

a

non-smoking casino. Oh, and be sure to add just how the employees

are

put at risk too.

Oops, sorry, I forgot that I had already cut out the part of your
post quoting my earlier post. If you tell me which part of the above
excerpt seems to imply that non-smoking environments are dangerous to
the health of smokers, I'll be happy to elucidate my true meaning.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@> wrote:

#35

Who was sitting there first? If you were he was very rude and should of
never done that. However, if he was, then thats a totally different story.

···

On Feb 17, 2008 8:30 PM, deuceswild1000 <deuceswild1000@yahoo.com> wrote:

  --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>, "pokegimp"
<wincerwj@...> wrote:
> I would expect a person to react in exactly the same way as if
> someone walked up to them just to blow smoke in their face. I have
> seen that happen just as often as someone walking up to someone to
> vomit on them...never.

Well, you were not in Biloxi with me about 5 years ago when I asked a
person to please not let his smoke go on me. He proceeded to start a
rant that I must be a loser and that was why I was being such a
******* s^^^ head and that he would show me real smoke. He then
proceded to blow smoke all over me for several seconds.

A couple of ladies playing adjacent to me started chastizing him. He
proceded to call them fat pigs and dirty *****. I started
hollering for security and he decided to leave.

So that is my lasting impression of asking someone to please not let
their smoke go on me.

So:

I had a less violent but similar reaction from a woman in another
casino where she continued to lecture me about asking her to remove
her smoke instead of fanning the air. She stated that she was a
polite person and if she had been asked she would have complied, but
since I chose to fan the air she would smoke all the more. She then
proceded to hold her cigarette so that it went directly on me. I
just got up and left.

Needless to say, not all smokers are like that, and non smokers can
be just as rude, but the impression is lasting.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#36

I rest my case.

mickeycrimm <mickeycrimm@yahoo.com> wrote: --- 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.

···

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#37

>
> The big thing you are missing here is that places of business DO
NOT
> have the freedom to whatever they please. There are hordes of
> regulations they must adhere to. A smoking regulation is no
different
> than many of the health regulations businesses must already

follow.

> They are put in place for the public good.
>

Good point. I think that we should follow the example of another
regulation. We've all seen the warnings on menus about the dangers
of undercooked food and that asking for food prepared in this way

is

being done at your own risk. So we should mandate placing a sign

at

the entrance of all places that allow smoking (since admittedly not
everyone can figure this out on their own).

"This is a SMOKING establishment. By entering you are implicitly
giving your consent to be surrounded by smoke and the dangers
inherent therein. If you do not consent to this, DO NOT ENTER!"
(and go to a non-smoking establishment)

Certainly the food warning made more sense than banning raw bars,
rare steaks, sunny-side-up eggs, etc... Instead of making the
decision for people, you give them the power to decide if they want
to risk their health.

This might work if there were an equal number of establishments that
provided the same exact services for both smokers and non-smokers. Of
course, if this were done the establishments that allowed smoking
would only be marketing to 20-30% of the total population. Not sure
too many restuarants would pick the smoking group. For casinos, the
choice doesn't really exist in NV and even with a 50-50 ratio none of
the casinos appear to be interested in the non-smoking crowd.

>
> Please explain how a smokers health is put a risk for abstaining

in

a
> non-smoking casino. Oh, and be sure to add just how the employees
are
> put at risk too.
>

Hmmm...scratching my head on this one. I don't recall ever saying

or

implying that being in a non-smoking environment is dangerous to
anyone's health. If you quote the exact section of my posts that

led

you to mistakenly infer this, I'll be happy to clarify what I
actually meant.

You stated:

"I assure you that if a non-smoking casino all of a sudden put in a
10% play on dollars, smokers would go there. They would realize that
the sacrifice they are making to take part in this play is that they
can't smoke."

If a non-smoker goes into a smoking casino and thereby is forced to
breathe smoke, their health IS put at risk. If smokers go into a non-
smoking casino they are NOT put at any health risk. Hence, the
ONLY "sacrifice" they are making impacts them and them alone.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "pokegimp" <wincerwj@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mroejacks" <rgmustain@> wrote: