vpFREE2 Forums

Non-smoking Sections in Casinos

I made no assumptions. Your attitude, as expressed in your post, is
what I was responding to. And please have the courtesy not to shout
in your postings.

···

At 01:03 PM 7/8/2006, you wrote:

<<Your attitude, on the other hand, reflects the discourtesy that too
many smokers today show. When politely asked to hold their cigarette
in another spot or blow smoke in a different direction the response
is often "This is Las Vegas!" or "I'm in a casino" as if we all lived
by the law of the trailer park>>>>

Please don't assume you know anything about me by my post. I do not smoke.
I know MANY considerate smokers. I also no MANY inconsiderate Non smokers.
Until smoking is ILLEGAL, private businesses should have the RIGHT to allow
or limit whatever behavoir they care to in their establishments and that
includes smoking. Don't like smoke, do what Skip suggested and just don't
go.

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

Hi Steve and Paula,
   
  I'm not a smoker either but I absolutely agree with your comment concerning private business rights. If there is such a massive (non-captured) market out there for non-smoking establishments, private business owners should be jumping at the chance to cater to and capture this totally open market. In this country that would seem to be a better solution than forced smoking bans.
   
  Plus.......
   
  The surgeon general report and the studies he bases his report on do not carry a great amount of weight in my opinion. I put little trust in most studies because most appear bias with a predetermined outcome before the study even begins. I believe and experience has taught me that there are usually THREE sides to every story.........your side, their side, and the THIRD side. And......somewhere out there ( the third side) lies the real truth in most cases. However, a lie that is told long enough has a way of becoming the truth. I'm afraid this may be the case with the second hand smoke issues while laws are being forced upon private businesses based on lies and junk science.
   
  Also..... here is some food for thought..................
   
  Of all the damage that is being caused by smoking bans, the worst is the damage being done to the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution protects property rights above all other rights, yet we have state legislatures consistently passing smoking bans that violate this very right. In so doing, they also are trampling on our personal freedoms of choice and expression. As Ayn Rand put it, "The idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." Our legislators would tell you that this is a health issue that they are doing it for the benefit of our children, and that non-smokers have rights too. This sophomoric sophistry would be laughable were it not for the fact that these same arguments were used, with tragic consequences, almost 70 years ago in another country.

That country was Germany and the chief architects of their smoking ban was Chancellor Adolph Hitler and Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels. In Hitler’s Mein Kampf he wrote, "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." In writing about the holocaust, Rabbi Daniel Lapin noted that Hitler believed “that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation…. In the name of the children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that (the) Nazis would have gazed at with open mouthed admiration.” Does “we have to do it for the children”, sound familiar? In promoting the smoking ban of the Third Reich, Dr. Goebbels made good use of his own idea that, “If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the new truth.” It was these two concepts that allowed the German government to forward their
smoking ban and later, their far more infamous deeds of social engineering.

This quote from C.S. Lewis sums it up pretty well, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep; his cupidity may at some point be satiated: but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Nita

          Not for nothing, but quite frankly, the non-smokers could prevent being
affected by NOT patronizing a PRIVATE business that allows smoking

<<<<With the recent report from the surgeon general, the casinos should
realize that lawsuits are on the horizon from non smokers afflicted by
smoking in casinos that the owners could have prevented. The employees and
patrons will want to take action when they are affected by tobacco users.

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with any intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways -- Chardonnay in one hand -- chocolate in the other -- body thoroughly used up , totally worn out and screaming " WOO HOO, WHAT A RIDE"

···

Steve & Paula <Shamilton5@comcast.net> wrote:

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free.

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

Thank You Anita!

anita walker wrote:

I'm not a smoker either but I absolutely agree with your comment
concerning private business rights.

Nita,

You express your arguments extremely cogently. I strongly disagree
and it might be interesting to carry this out at length on FREEvpFREE.
I'll touch on what I see as being the key issue:

Of all the damage that is being caused by smoking bans, the worst is
the damage being done to the Constitution of the United States of
America. The Constitution protects property rights above all other
rights, yet we have state legislatures consistently passing smoking
bans that violate this very right.

Keeping to a simple response (no small feat for myself ;), I'll note
that there are no absolute rights.

FWIW, there's a federal (and state) interest in the matter merely as a
consequence of the public health expense posed by smoking related
illnesses.

As far as treading on individual rights, I'll remark that it might
also be the case that speed limits would be inappropriate if the only
consequence was to the individual speeder.

Of course, there's much to argue in those two statements :wink:

- H.

Not for nothing, but quite frankly, the non-smokers could prevent

being

affected by NOT patronizing a PRIVATE business that allows smoking

Guess what would happen to all the casinos if non-smokers quit
patronizing them? Most of them would quickly be out of business.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Steve & Paula" <Shamilton5@...> wrote:

concerning private business rights. If there is such a massive (non-
captured) market out there for non-smoking establishments, private
business owners should be jumping at the chance to cater to and
capture this totally open market. In this country that would seem to
be a better solution than forced smoking bans.

Steve, Paula, Anita, et al,

I'll ask my question again. Do you support nudity in private
businesses? Sex? Exposure? All perfectly legal activities that are
currently banned in the very places you are claiming should be
without government regulation.

If not, explain how it is different from smoking bans.

Dick

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, anita walker <ab4nita@...> wrote:

Hi Steve and Paula,
   
  I'm not a smoker either but I absolutely agree with your comment

<<<Do you support nudity in private businesses? Sex? Exposure?>>>

Private Business? Absolutely. Did you expect me to say no?

BL,
Ever since I posted that reply, I have been thinking about it a lot. First of all, this is just all hypothetical, so let's consider:
- If you had a year's notice of when a boycott would take place, wouldn't you be able to plan around it?
- Most locals, like most tourists, are non-smokers. It just seems like we all smoke.
- Whether such an action would have an impact would depend on many things, but mostly how well the word got out. If it was confined to the few thousand video poker players that frequent the Internet, it would probably fail miserably. But there are millions of of non-smokers who visit Las Vegas and other gambling destinations and if the work got out, I think a great many would like to make a statement. The statement being a request for real, quality non-smoking areas in the casino.
  Obviously, such an endeavor would require time and money. I don't this this is the correct forum for it (and I'm sure it will be pointed out). There is a better one but...
- I have noticed for many years that non-smokers complain and complain, but they never seem to be willing to do anything about it. (I'm pretty sure that casinos notice this also). That's why the new (started in April) non-smoking casinos group has only 45 members. Anyone who doesn't like breathing in smoke in casinos should at the very least join that group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No-Smoke. Since there's no much doubt that most of the folks here are non-smokers, that should mean several thousand members of that group.
Skip

bornloser1537 wrote:

···

As Babe said...A GREAT IDEA!

EXCEPT, if it is that 1 week, out of 13, that I happen to be
visiting LV. Those of us who visit LV occassionally do not have the
incentive to really join any such boycott, since our time in LV is
limited. I would hardly want to fly into to LV just to not play.

And, on a more serious note, would the casinos even notice? Are
there really enough non-smoking locals to really make a difference
that would be noticed by any of the casinos? (I don't know the
answer to these questions?)

.....bl

> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com <mailto:vpFREE%40yahoogroups.com>, Skip Hughes <skiphughes@> wrote:
>
> If all the Non-smokers would stay away for one week, the
> problem would be solved immediately.
>
> Hmmm.... a one week boycott? I think you might have hit on a great
> idea.
> Skip

--
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com

Right you are!

···

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

If not, explain how it is different from smoking bans.

Dick

I do and I have the right not to participate in any activity that is not my personal choice. If that activity is offensive to me, I don't have to enter or support that business.

Hi Steve and Paula,

I'm not a smoker either but I absolutely agree with your comment

concerning private business rights. If there is such a massive (non-
captured) market out there for non-smoking establishments, private
business owners should be jumping at the chance to cater to and
capture this totally open market. In this country that would seem to
be a better solution than forced smoking bans.

Steve, Paula, Anita, et al,

I'll ask my question again. Do you support nudity in private
businesses? Sex? Exposure? All perfectly legal activities that are
currently banned in the very places you are claiming should be
without government regulation.

If not, explain how it is different from smoking bans.

Dick

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with any intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways -- Chardonnay in one hand -- chocolate in the other -- body thoroughly used up , totally worn out and screaming " WOO HOO, WHAT A RIDE"

···

mroejacks <rgmustain@att.net> wrote: --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, anita walker <ab4nita@...> wrote:

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

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

Skip Hughes wrote:

Anyone who doesn't like breathing in smoke in casinos should at the
very least join that group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No-Smoke.
Since there's no much doubt that most of the folks here are
non-smokers, that should mean several thousand members of that group.

Yeah, but Skip, I apparently don't know the secret handshake necessary
to access that group from that link ...

I did find another link to a similar group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No-Smoke/

- Harry :wink:

Might I also ask why you support (if you do) regulations that prevent
privately-owned casinos from cheating their customers? Also, I assume
that you would have no problem with meat packers operating in dirty
environments leaving their meat filled with rat feces and harmful
bacteria; restaurants with dirty kitchens, pharmaceutical companies
that do not have to test their drugs for side effects, or sweatshops
using exploited, even slave labor. Or manufacturing companies dumping
carcinogens and other toxic materials in the reservoirs.

After all, the marketplace should take care of these things. In fact,
why don't we eliminate all regulations and all public services except
the military. Private schools, police and fire would certainly be
more efficient than this government interference with private businesses.

···

At 12:10 AM 7/10/2006, you wrote:

I do and I have the right not to participate in any activity that is
not my personal choice. If that activity is offensive to me, I
don't have to enter or support that business.

mroejacks <rgmustain@att.net> wrote: --- In
vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, anita walker <ab4nita@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve and Paula,
>
> I'm not a smoker either but I absolutely agree with your comment
concerning private business rights. If there is such a massive (non-
captured) market out there for non-smoking establishments, private
business owners should be jumping at the chance to cater to and
capture this totally open market. In this country that would seem to
be a better solution than forced smoking bans.

Steve, Paula, Anita, et al,

I'll ask my question again. Do you support nudity in private
businesses? Sex? Exposure? All perfectly legal activities that are
currently banned in the very places you are claiming should be
without government regulation.

If not, explain how it is different from smoking bans.

Dick

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

You would think I should have learned by now not to place a period after a URL, but obviously not. Thanks for the assist!
Skip

Harry Porter wrote:

···

Skip Hughes wrote:
> Anyone who doesn't like breathing in smoke in casinos should at the
> very least join that group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No-Smoke.
> Since there's no much doubt that most of the folks here are
> non-smokers, that should mean several thousand members of that group.

Yeah, but Skip, I apparently don't know the secret handshake necessary
to access that group from that link ...

I did find another link to a similar group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/No-Smoke/

- Harry :wink:

--
Thanks!
Skip
http://www.vpinsider.com