Non-smoking Sections in Casinos

[bjaygold]

Smoking (cigarettes, cigars, pipes) has been a long accepted legal activity.
As such, when it comes under attack, there are traditionalists who object,
simply because smoking has been legal and accepted for a long time. There is
an inertia against change. People even talk of their "right" to smoke. As
those lawyers on TV say, your "right" to swing your fist ends at the other
person's nose! The concept seems pretty obvious to me.

Let's say, just for argument sake, that second hand smoke is not harmful to
your health, but is simply a major annoyance to those in the immediate
vicinity of the smoker. How can we put this into perspective, without running into
the long standing "Smoking has been okay for hundreds of years, so why
change?" argument?

The best that I can come up with is this. Airlines have a rule that if
someone smells bad, he can be asked not to board a plane. It doesn't happen very
often, but it does happen. As far as I know, body odor is not a health hazard
to those near the smelly person. But the airlines recognize that a bad
smelling person in forced close proximity is a very unpleasant experience, so they
are able to take action to protect the majority against this intrusion, not to
mention the flight attendants themselves. It's okay to smell bad in your own
home (your dog probably doesn't mind), but would most people willingly go
out in public without having bathed for a week? I sure hope not!

Having spent about 25,000 hours in casinos, I've seen (and smelled) just
about everything. You do occasionally find yourself downwind from a person with
terrible BO, which I, personally, find more offensive than cigarette smoke.
What do I do? I leave the vicinity. Anyone out there think it's okay to go to
a casino smelling like you died three days ago? No? Many people find
cigarette smoke as offensive as that. Now add the (scientifically accepted) fact that
it is also harmful to your health, and what is the obvious solution? Ask the
airlines!

Brian

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

[vex1]

bjaygold@aol.com wrote:

Many people find cigarette smoke as offensive as that.
Now add the (scientifically accepted) fact that it is also harmful to

your health,

and what is the obvious solution? Ask the airlines!

Tobacco smoke has been scientifically accepted to be harmful to your
health if you are the one smoking. ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke), also
commonly referred to as "Secondhand Smoke", falls more under the category
of B.O. Therefore, ETS is more offensive and less of a health risk to
others than has been "proven" by cherry picking the data. This fact alone,
(the one where tobacco smoke stinks) warrants non-smoking areas in
casinos, but I don't think it warrants an outright ban on smoking, by any
means.

Here's an interesting Letter to the Editor:

June 30, 2006

Editor
c/o Pittsburgh Post Gazette
34 Boulevard of the Allies
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Sirs,

Your article "Public Smoke Ban Sought. Surgeon General's Report Sparks
Push for Statewide Curbs" points out accurately that a new federal
report says "second-hand smoke kills and estimated 50,000 people
annually" calling the evidence "indisputable."

The surgeon general's efforts against tobacco can be applauded but are
based upon no scientific foundation. The largest study to date
Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco
Smoke and Lung Caner in Europe (Journal of the National Cancer
Institute, Vol 90, No 14, 1998) failed to find any significant lung
cancer to those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke either as
children or adults living with a smoker.

Another example of anti-tobacco misinformation is the landmark 1993
report in which the Environmental Protection Agency declared that
environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is a dangerous carcinogen that kills
three thousand Americans yearly. Five years later, in July 1998,
federal judge William L. Osteen lambasted the EPA for "cherry picking"
the data, excluding studies that "demonstrated no association between
ETS and cancer," and withholding "significant portions of its findings
and reasoning in striving to confirm its a priori hypothesis." Both
"the record and EPA's explanation," concluded the court, "make it
clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce
statistically significant results."

As a physician I am firm believer that tobacco use can lead to many
diseases. Using any tobacco product is an adult decision. Those who
use tobacco need correct risk information. As a citizen I expect our
government to base legislation on firm foundations. The best major
studies to fail to prove a causal relationship of second hand tobacco
smoke to cancer. That evidence is clear to me or any student of the
second hand tobacco smoke field. I would've hoped that our surgeon
general was more informed.

Sincerely,

Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D.
MJS/ms

--Brett

···

---------------------------------------------------
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid
broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and proclaiming,
'Wow-What a Ride!' "