Your Health in a Casino
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2znsws">
http://tinyurl.com/2znsws</a>
************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes and doesn't
constitute an endorsement or approval of the linked article's
content by vpFREE. Any discussion of the article must be done
in accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
************************************************
Jean,
You are so correct about the unhealthy second hand smoke in many LV casinos. My wife and I are also very concerned about it. I have heart issues and my wife is allergic to smoke. We are able to avoid some of it by playing very early in the day. We are early risers so by 10 or 11 in the morning we have already had 5 or so hours to play. If all the casino owners got together and banned smoking the problem might be solved, Think of the money the casinos would save in so many ways. A smoking ban could also be legislated I would think. In places where it is banned it has shown not to reduce casino revenues. At the River Rock Casino in Canada the crowd was so big it was hard to find a place to play (table games or slots). How smoking remains so popular in light of the lethal consequences is amazing. We are looking for a smoke free casino in LV but I'm afraid they don't exist. Do you suppose that since smoking dulls the senses and is poisionous to the body and thereby
prohibits the mind from better clarity that casinos want people to smoke? Thanks for your insightful article.
Robert
vpFae <vpFae@Cox.net> wrote:
Your Health in a Casino
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2znsws">
http://tinyurl.com/2znsws</a>
************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes and doesn't
constitute an endorsement or approval of the linked article's
content by vpFREE. Any discussion of the article must be done
in accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
************************************************
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Robert Pickett <robert.pickett70@...>
wrote:
Jean,
You are so correct about the unhealthy second hand smoke in many
LV casinos. My wife and I are also very concerned about it. I have
heart issues and my wife is allergic to smoke. We are able to avoid
some of it by playing very early in the day. We are early risers so
by 10 or 11 in the morning we have already had 5 or so hours to
play. If all the casino owners got together and banned smoking the
problem might be solved, Think of the money the casinos would save in
so many ways. A smoking ban could also be legislated I would think.
In places where it is banned it has shown not to reduce casino
revenues. At the River Rock Casino in Canada the crowd was so big it
was hard to find a place to play (table games or slots). How smoking
remains so popular in light of the lethal consequences is amazing.
We are looking for a smoke free casino in LV but I'm afraid they
don't exist. Do you suppose that since smoking dulls the senses and
is poisionous to the body and thereby
prohibits the mind from better clarity that casinos want people to
smoke? Thanks for your insightful article.
Robert
The City of Helena, Montana passed a total smoking ban for all
buildings accessible by the public. No exemptions were made for
bars/casinos.
Video poker and video keno are legal in Montana with an $800 maximum
jackpot. In order to have a casino license in Montana one must have
a liquor license. One license is good for up to 20 machines. Helena
has about twenty of these bars/casinos.
The impact was felt immediately. Owners cryed foul. With many
headed toward insolvency they filed suit for the devaluation in
business equity and real estate.
Six months into the ban they had lost millions in liquor sales and
gamiing revenue.
The law was found unconstitutional for another reason--it didn't
provide a jury trial for anyone violating the ordinance. Smoking
went back in and everyone was happy again--except anti-smoking
proponents and anti-gamblers.
The Montana legislature, using the Helena smoking ban to project loss
of gaming tax revenue if all the major towns went non-smoking, passed
a bill exempting gaming establishments from any and all smoking
bans.
If I can find the story again, I will post a link about New Jersey with
just the partial ban. 75% of all casinos are now smoke free and revenue
is off something like 25% - 30% for the short time the ban has been in
effect. The % could have been higher, but I am going off memory and can
not remember the exact % now!
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:
Six months into the ban they had lost millions in liquor sales and
gamiing revenue.
Please don't start spreading these misleading facts. The revenue fall
began BEFORE the smoking rules took effect in April, after the
additional competition from casinso in PA and other areas increased
earlier in the year. After the new new smoking rules took effect, the
revenue declines continued.
There is no accurate way to determine now how much is due to each
reason, however the significant downfall BEGAN after the competition
came online and before the smoking rules did.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Jacob" <jacob36@...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "mickeycrimm" <mickeycrimm@> wrote:
>
>
>
> Six months into the ban they had lost millions in liquor sales and
> gamiing revenue.
>If I can find the story again, I will post a link about New Jersey with
just the partial ban. 75% of all casinos are now smoke free and revenue
is off something like 25% - 30% for the short time the ban has been in
effect. The % could have been higher, but I am going off memory and can
not remember the exact % now!
Please don't start spreading these misleading facts. The revenue
fall
began BEFORE the smoking rules took effect in April, after the
additional competition from casinso in PA and other areas increased
earlier in the year. After the new new smoking rules took effect,
the
revenue declines continued.
There is no accurate way to determine now how much is due to each
reason, however the significant downfall BEGAN after the competition
came online and before the smoking rules did.
Your post would make an excellent press release by the heavily
financed elitists and social engineers who are pushing these smoking
bans. The Pennsylvania casinos are just what smoking ban proponents
are going to use to manipulate opinion. It's called "deliberate
misinterpretation." And they are very good at it. Have you ever
seen a smoking ban advocates press releases with headlines like
these?
"California Heart Attacks Up 5% First Year of Smoking Ban"
"New York Hearts Attacks Increase 6% First Year of Smoking Ban"
No, this stuff doesn't serve their cause. But in the little town of
Helena, Montana there were 315 hearts attacks in the six months prior
to the smoking ban and 195 heart attacks during the six months of the
ban. Smoking ban proponents grabbed this little bit of information
and ran with it creating press releases with the headline: "Smoking
Ban Cuts Heart Attacks 40%. It appeared in papers all over the
country and the national media picked up on it.
Which of the above statistical samples do you think should be used as
evidence?
Now, I've got some bad news for all of you smokers. And I throw
myself in with you because I'm a nicotine fiend from hell. WE'VE
LOST THE WAR!! We're like the South after Gettysburg. We're like
the Germans after the Allies breached the Atlantic Wall. We can keep
on fighting, but we're beat.
Smoking ban initiatives are popping up all over the country. The
people behind them are well financed, highly talented, and highly
dedicated. They have some brilliant tricks up their sleeves. All
they have to do is crack one town in a county. Their enemies, the
people who fight these bans, initially, are smokers and the
hospitality industry. But this changes if they can get an initiative
through in one town of the county. Smokers desert the towns bars,
restaurants, and gaming establishments for the businesses in the
other towns and unincorporated areas. Now the owners in a bid to get
their business back actually become allies of smoking ban proponets,
and politicians have something to run with besides the smoking issue--
it's called "creating an equal playing field" for business. Now the
rest of the county falls like dominoes. This is going on all over
the country.
Colorado is the prime example of how this is done on a large scale.
Denver was pushing through a smoking ban. All the smokers would just
flee to the suburbs. Denver has all the political clout in the
state, so they pushed through a statewide ban to protect Denver
businesses as much as they could.
But the business never comes back to the level it was. For small
business owners it's the difference between going through 20 kegs of
beer a week and only going through 10 kegs a week. A smoker is just
not going to sit in a bar if he can't smoke. The non-smokers just do
not flood in to take the places of the smokers.
If it is a casino the gambler is going to spend as much time outside
puffing away as he spends inside.
Business people are not opposed to these bans for ideological reasons-
-they are opposed because of the economic harm it does them. Rarely
do smoking ban advocates admit that these businesses are damaged.
When enough of these bans are in place, Congress will get involved
and pass a National Smoking Ban. It's just a matter of time. I know
it and the elitist social engineers pushing this agenda know it.
Their strategy is to take the country piece by piece at first then
steamroll on the end. Brilliant.
The hustler in me has kicked in. How can vpFREE'ers exploit the
situation? When business is down casinos tend to put in better paying
machines and run better promotions. Keep an eye on those
jurisdictions where business has been dropping.
For three years now, in the little town of Breckenridge, Colorado, it
is against the law to smoke in all buildings accessible by the
public. It is also illegal to smoke on the sidewalk. It is against
the law to smoke in the alley. It is against the law to go out
behind a building and smoke. It is against the law to go up on top
of a building and smoke. It is against the law to smoke while
driving through town. However, it is legal to smoke inside your
residence. Just don't light up on the front porch--that's against
the law.
And it's this kind of restrictive law that social engineers want to
see on the National level. They won't quit until it happens.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "caribou_123" <caribou123@...> wrote:
caribou_123 wrote:
> Please don't start spreading these misleading facts. The revenue
> fall began BEFORE the smoking rules took effect in April, after the
> additional competition from casinso in PA and other areas increased
> earlier in the year ... There is no accurate way to determine now
> how much is due to each reason ...Your post would make an excellent press release by the heavily
financed elitists and social engineers who are pushing these smoking
bans. It's called "deliberate misinterpretation." ...Now, I've got some bad news for all of you smokers. And I throw
myself in with you because I'm a nicotine fiend from hell. WE'VE
LOST THE WAR!! We're like the South after Gettysburg. We're like
the Germans after the Allies breached the Atlantic Wall. We can keep
on fighting, but we're beat. ...Smoking ban initiatives are popping up all over the country. The
people behind them are well financed, highly talented, and highly
dedicated. They have some brilliant tricks up their sleeves. ...Business people are not opposed to these bans for ideological
reasons-they are opposed because of the economic harm it does them.
Rarely do smoking ban advocates admit that these businesses are
damaged. ...And it's this kind of restrictive law that social engineers want to
see on the National level. They won't quit until it happens.
The free-market, Libertarian principled side of me abhors smoking
bans. When I enter a casino, it reasons that I recognize the
realities of the presence of smokers, have little intrinsic right to
monitor their behavior, and accept the consequences if I choose to
play there.
However, there's a common sense side that finds public smoking
socially unconscionable.
Over time, I've gathered that most smokers recognize that it's rude
and boorish to expect an adjacent diner in a restaurant to simply
accept wafting smoke as an appropriate adjunct to enjoying their meal.
(Even most of my hard core smoking friends have refrained from
lighting up during a meal with them, even before the ban.) I'm hoping
that eventually a similar consciousness will find it's way into other
social situations, such as play in the casino. But I welcome a ban to
accelerate the comfort it would bring.
Now, I imagine I should be concerned about the effect of second hand
smoke on my health. But, having spent my childhood Michigan winter
weekends cooped up in a Mustang -- sitting on the "hump" between my
parents in the front, my two half-brothers in the back, with all
passengers other than myself chain-smoking during our weekly 4+ hour
drive to and from our cabin (opened side vents a modest concession to
ensure my father could see sufficiently to drive) -- I figure most of
any ultimate damage has been done (notwithstanding talk of the
consequences being reversible).
Here's what I react to. After just 4 or 6 hours sitting at the
machines during a day in the casino, I find that adjacent smoking
players might as well have relieved themselves on my pants leg rather
than inconveniencing themselves with bathroom breaks.
This isn't hyperbole. When I come home and open my suitcase, I find
it as objectionable as if one of the cats had snuck into it and
"sprayed" my clothing (lets not bother about the difference in
internal organs involved). For that matter, they sniff around the
suitcase after each trip and give me a look of, "where the f*** have
you been spending time"?
I just can't come up with any reason why the consequences of smoking
(at least in a casino) should be considered socially acceptable. I
try to think of smoke encountered at a machine as merely an
inconvenience that I elect to endure. The fact that I can't wear
contact lenses in the casino isn't a big issue. But when I big
picture things in my mind, I get p***ed.
So, Mickey, I don't deny any of the realities that you paint in your
post (which I have obviously quoted in excerpt only). But I hope
you'll understand that from my perspective, all of your objections are
of no consequence. Although I gravely regret the sentiment, I cheer
on every politically-correct, biased, propagandized act that hastens a
ban.
- Harry
I just pounded away on the keyboard in reaction to Mickey Crimm's
reply to caribou. However, aside from a distinction in number of "<"s
used to quote respective text, I omitted Mickey's name as a lead-in to
his comments (it appear that I attribute the whole ball-of-wax to
caribou).
Oops. Sorry for any confusion. (And what do you say I give the
keyboard a rest for a couple of days 
- H.