Smoking Bans - WAS Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas BLOG - 13 JAN 2008

[Barry_Glazer]

2a. Re: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas BLOG - 13 JAN 2008
Posted by: "mickeycrimm" mickeycrimm@yahoo.com mickeycrimm
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:04 am ((PST))

...

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.

There is some truth in the above, but it is by no means as absolute as suggested.

First of all, there appears to be an implied assumption that "small business owner" means "small bar owner", and there ARE other small businesses that have no problem with no smoking and it doesn't hurt their business.

I don't know very much about bars, but the poker rooms in Indiana riverboat casinos are all smoke-free, and I frequent them often. I see the smokers leave the tables to have a cigarette, going to the nearest non-smoking area (on many boats, it's a door to the outside, and they'll go no matter what the weather; at Caesar's Indiana, it's OK to smoke immediately outside the poker room and I see railbirds immediately outside the poker room, two feet from the no smoking sign, having a cigarette). At least at the places I frequent, they aren't gone that long, probably less than 5% of the time -- at places where the whole facility is smoke-free, especially if they're large, it may take longer to get to a smoking area and back, but I doubt that the non-gambling time would equal the gambling time.

I see many players who are not smokers, but who spend long days at the tables, take longer and more frequent breaks than smokers. And I see many players, both smokers and non-smokers, who try to miss as few hands as possible.

Most smokers, if they ever fly an airplane, have learned to go a few hours without a cig if they have to (I know they don't like it, but most of them manage, and while there are plenty of reasons today to drive, if possible, rather than fly, I haven't heard "no smoking on the plane" listed as a common reason for making that choice). Depending on how driven they are to smoke, and how driven they are to gamble, individuals WILL decide which one has priority at any given moment in time, and while they might prefer to do both at once, when that's not an option, not very many will choose to give up one or the other completely. They'll strike some balance.

Certainly drinkers can find somewhere other than a bar to drink AND have a cigarette (and I've never understood the fascination with paying so much extra for booze in order to drink in a bar, instead of just going to a liquor store and taking it home -- so the bar must have SOME other feature that makes it worth going there to drink).

Can a smoking ban hurt casino business? Sure. Can it help casino business? Less likely, but it certainly causes SOME counterbalance - I have spoken to many poker players who used to only play in "private" games at individual homes, strictly because of the smoking in casinos, who now play regularly in casinos, and when there is a choice between smoking and non-smoking poker rooms, most smokers and many non-smokers use that as their criteria for where to play.

Personally, I try to avoid sitting next to smokers when playing VP, if possible, and if not, ask them if they would mind putting their cig and ashtray on the opposite side from me - not asking them to stop, but just to be courteous - and most are. I still choose games based on all aspects of the game, adequate paytable being number one, and comfort, which includes whether it's a bar top, slant top, upright, or other choice and how the chair fits, etc., is also a factor, into which I include exposure to smoke.

For both smokers and non-smokers, it's usually a matter of striking a balance between the environment they would prefer and the activities they'd like to participate in. At the extremes, smoking will cause some people to altogether avoid a facility that doesn't match their preference, but only at the extremes.

--BG

···

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

[Mickey]

> 2a. Re: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas BLOG - 13 JAN 2008
> Posted by: "mickeycrimm" mickeycrimm@... mickeycrimm
> Date: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:04 am ((PST))
>
...

> 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.
>

There is some truth in the above, but it is by no means as absolute

as suggested.

First of all, there appears to be an implied assumption that "small

business owner" means "small bar owner", and there ARE other small
businesses that have no problem with no smoking and it doesn't hurt
their business.

I don't believe smoking bans hurt restaurants much but have a big
effect on bars. It's the bar/restaurant where decisions have to be
made. When the latest smoking ban went through in Nevada stand-alone
bars were left smoking while bar/restaurants had to make decisions
like giving up the food end or walling the restaurtant off completely
from the bar.

I don't know very much about bars, but the poker rooms in Indiana

riverboat casinos are all smoke-free, and I frequent them often. I
see the smokers leave the tables to have a cigarette, going to the
nearest non-smoking area (on many boats, it's a door to the outside,
and they'll go no matter what the weather; at Caesar's Indiana, it's
OK to smoke immediately outside the poker room and I see railbirds
immediately outside the poker room, two feet from the no smoking
sign, having a cigarette). At least at the places I frequent, they
aren't gone that long, probably less than 5% of the time -- at places
where the whole facility is smoke-free, especially if they're large,
it may take longer to get to a smoking area and back, but I doubt
that the non-gambling time would equal the gambling time.

I see many players who are not smokers, but who spend long days at

the tables, take longer and more frequent breaks than smokers. And I
see many players, both smokers and non-smokers, who try to miss as
few hands as possible.

Live poker and smoking is a different scenario. In Wendover I have
my choice between two smoking rooms and one non-smokiing room. About
80% of my play is in the non-smoking room simply because that's where
the money is. But when I walk outside the rail to burn one the game
continues. The rake continues. And the game is moving a little
faster due to one player being missing. They are not losing any
revenue because of my smoking habit. With slot players the button on
that machine is not being pushed while the smoker is outside.

Most smokers, if they ever fly an airplane, have learned to go a

few hours without a cig if they have to (I know they don't like it,
but most of them manage, and while there are plenty of reasons today
to drive, if possible, rather than fly, I haven't heard "no smoking
on the plane" listed as a common reason for making that choice).
Depending on how driven they are to smoke, and how driven they are to
gamble, individuals WILL decide which one has priority at any given
moment in time, and while they might prefer to do both at once, when
that's not an option, not very many will choose to give up one or the
other completely. They'll strike some balance.

For the life of me I can't explain why I can go for hours in a non-
smoking situation with no discomfort at all but just as soon as I get
to where I can smoke I go into nicotine withdrawals from hell.

Certainly drinkers can find somewhere other than a bar to drink AND

have a cigarette (and I've never understood the fascination with
paying so much extra for booze in order to drink in a bar, instead of
just going to a liquor store and taking it home -- so the bar must
have SOME other feature that makes it worth going there to drink).

It's called social drinking. My IQ goes up 10 points with every
drink. Why would I want to drink alone where nobody can tell how
smart I've become?

How weird is this? You would think a booze hound like me who just
happens to spend about 300 days per year gambling in casinos would
get thousands of dollars per year in comped alcoholic beverages.
WRONG!!! I'm a stone cold teetotaler when playing machines or live
poker. I don't want to see the stuff when I'm working. And it's not
out of any conviction about gambling and drinking. I simply can't
stand to drink when I'm working, and I can't stand to work when I'm
drinking.

When booze touches my lips I'm off for the day and that's it. I'm
headed to the nearest alky bar where I can buy rounds and debate the
world's problems with the other ten fools on the stools.

Personally, I try to avoid sitting next to smokers when playing VP,

if possible, and if not, ask them if they would mind putting their
cig and ashtray on the opposite side from me - not asking them to
stop, but just to be courteous - and most are. I still choose games
based on all aspects of the game, adequate paytable being number one,
and comfort, which includes whether it's a bar top, slant top,
upright, or other choice and how the chair fits, etc., is also a
factor, into which I include exposure to smoke.

For both smokers and non-smokers, it's usually a matter of striking

a balance between the environment they would prefer and the
activities they'd like to participate in. At the extremes, smoking
will cause some people to altogether avoid a facility that doesn't
match their preference, but only at the extremes.

--BG

I jumped into a cab yesterday and this female driver started coughing
just a few minutes after I got in.

"Sorry," she said. "It's the cigarettes."
"Yeah, I sometimes get a smoker's hack too" I replied.
"But I don't smoke," she shot back.
"You don't? Then I'm making you cough. You smell the smoke on me."
"Yeah, it gets me every time a smoker gets in the cab."
"Did you ever smoke?" I ask.
"No, but I worked in bars and restaurants for twenty years. My
doctor says breathing all that heavy smoke for that long was just
like I had been smoking myself."

I don't know why idiot slobs like me have all the luck in the world.
I've been smoking for 42+ years. I've been a booze hound for just
about as many years. I was drinking in bars by the time I was 15. I
down shots and chase it with beer like it is nothing. I eat all the
stuff that is not good for you. I'm pushing 55 years old but I can
still get out and walk 5 to 10 miles a day with ease. I do it at
least a few times a week. And to this day I've never been to a
Doctor. How do you go to see a Doctor? I have no clue.

People like that poor cab driver need to be protected from beasts
like me.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, b.glazer@... wrote:

[G_Lee]

Smoking is plain and simple, an ADDICTION.
I have no problem with the addicts but only when
they involuntarily make me share their smoke.

Being an addiction, smokers have a thousand
rationalizations for their action.

If you ever quit, you will suddenly notice how
much your life will improve, your health, your
wallet, social life, etc etc.

You are smart and you are decreasing your
potential by smoking when the carbon
monoxide attaches to your hemogobin and
not alow as much oxygen to be carried.
Your brain cells as well as all other cells
are affected.

Everyone knows this and this will have
minimal impact on smokers.

I absolutely hate rental cars because of
the stench. I once rented a brand new
Lincoln that had only 50 miles on it
but the first driver was a smoker. I
could not stand it.

Rant over.

···

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

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, b.glazer@... wrote:
>
> > 2a. Re: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas BLOG - 13 JAN
2008
> > Posted by: "mickeycrimm" mickeycrimm@...
mickeycrimm
> > Date: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:04 am ((PST))
> >
> ...
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> There is some truth in the above, but it is by no
means as absolute
as suggested.
>
> First of all, there appears to be an implied
assumption that "small
business owner" means "small bar owner", and there
ARE other small
businesses that have no problem with no smoking and
it doesn't hurt
their business.
>
>
>

I don't believe smoking bans hurt restaurants much
but have a big
effect on bars. It's the bar/restaurant where
decisions have to be
made. When the latest smoking ban went through in
Nevada stand-alone
bars were left smoking while bar/restaurants had to
make decisions
like giving up the food end or walling the
restaurtant off completely
from the bar.

>
> I don't know very much about bars, but the poker
rooms in Indiana
riverboat casinos are all smoke-free, and I frequent
them often. I
see the smokers leave the tables to have a
cigarette, going to the
nearest non-smoking area (on many boats, it's a door
to the outside,
and they'll go no matter what the weather; at
Caesar's Indiana, it's
OK to smoke immediately outside the poker room and I
see railbirds
immediately outside the poker room, two feet from
the no smoking
sign, having a cigarette). At least at the places I
frequent, they
aren't gone that long, probably less than 5% of the
time -- at places
where the whole facility is smoke-free, especially
if they're large,
it may take longer to get to a smoking area and
back, but I doubt
that the non-gambling time would equal the gambling
time.
>
>
> I see many players who are not smokers, but who
spend long days at
the tables, take longer and more frequent breaks
than smokers. And I
see many players, both smokers and non-smokers, who
try to miss as
few hands as possible.
>
>
>
>

Live poker and smoking is a different scenario. In
Wendover I have
my choice between two smoking rooms and one
non-smokiing room. About
80% of my play is in the non-smoking room simply
because that's where
the money is. But when I walk outside the rail to
burn one the game
continues. The rake continues. And the game is
moving a little
faster due to one player being missing. They are
not losing any
revenue because of my smoking habit. With slot
players the button on
that machine is not being pushed while the smoker is
outside.

>
>
> Most smokers, if they ever fly an airplane, have
learned to go a
few hours without a cig if they have to (I know they
don't like it,
but most of them manage, and while there are plenty
of reasons today
to drive, if possible, rather than fly, I haven't
heard "no smoking
on the plane" listed as a common reason for making
that choice).
Depending on how driven they are to smoke, and how
driven they are to
gamble, individuals WILL decide which one has
priority at any given
moment in time, and while they might prefer to do
both at once, when
that's not an option, not very many will choose to
give up one or the
other completely. They'll strike some balance.
>
>
>

For the life of me I can't explain why I can go for
hours in a non-
smoking situation with no discomfort at all but just
as soon as I get
to where I can smoke I go into nicotine withdrawals
from hell.

>
>
> Certainly drinkers can find somewhere other than a
bar to drink AND
have a cigarette (and I've never understood the
fascination with
paying so much extra for booze in order to drink in
a bar, instead of
just going to a liquor store and taking it home --
so the bar must
have SOME other feature that makes it worth going
there to drink).
>
>
>

It's called social drinking. My IQ goes up 10
points with every
drink. Why would I want to drink alone where nobody
can tell how
smart I've become?

How weird is this? You would think a booze hound
like me who just
happens to spend about 300 days per year gambling in
casinos would
get thousands of dollars per year in comped
alcoholic beverages.
WRONG!!! I'm a stone cold teetotaler when playing
machines or live
poker. I don't want to see the stuff when I'm
working. And it's not
out of any conviction about gambling and drinking.
I simply can't
stand to drink when I'm working, and I can't stand
to work when I'm
drinking.

When booze touches my lips I'm off for the day and
that's it. I'm
headed to the nearest alky bar where I can buy
rounds and debate the
world's problems with the other ten fools on the
stools.

>
>
> Personally, I try to avoid sitting next to smokers
when playing VP,
if possible, and if not, ask them if they would mind
putting their
cig and ashtray on the opposite side from me - not
asking them to
stop, but just to be courteous - and most are. I
still choose games

=== message truncated ===

      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[tralfamidorgooglycra]

I often wonder, when considering the effect of a (the) smoking ban
on the bar businesses, only the NEGATIVE impact is considered. The
story is always about the (hypothetical) ghastly huge terrible
impact on those businesses from smokers who will no longer patronize
those establishments. What about the NONsmokers who will now be more
inclined to patronize those establishments now that they won't have
to cope with cigarette smoke?

I remember that I really liked the food at PT's Pubs, but I was
dissuaded from going there to eat because I knew that I would have
to inhale shit-clouds to get to and from the eating area, and that
the smoke inevitably would drift into the eating areas. I also might
have gone there and enjoyed a beer while watching the football game--
if not for the inevitability of someone next to me lighting up a
stink-stick.

TIME AND TIME again, actual practice has shown that banning smoking
in a given establishment, whether it's a casino, bar, restaurant, or
brothel, INCREASES that establishment's business--even if that
business is one traditionally associated with smoking, such as---a
casino, bar, or restaurant.

[Mac_McClellan]

thought I had posted on this thread (or the original one) but can't
find it. Anyway, brief summary here:

I think if a single strip casino decided to go "smoke free" it would
enjoy an increase in business and profits if all else stayed the same.
Yes they'd lose some smoker business but gain all the non-smoking
couples they could handle because they'd be the only one. I believe
we'll see a drastic move like this from a property at some time in the
future -- likely one where profits are slipping in a last ditch attempt
at publicity and recovery.

I don't think a smoking ban is a good thing (being somewhat
Libertarian). A total smoking ban I believe would reduce profits at LV
casinos because smokers have options (California, MS, Atlantic City,
etc.)

Mac
www.CasinoCamper.com

[Mickey]

Yeah, I know. I'm really gonna have to rethink this smoking thing.
They say it takes seven years off your life. That's seven more years
I could be sticking it to the casinos.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, george lee <glee4ever@...> wrote:

Smoking is plain and simple, an ADDICTION.
I have no problem with the addicts but only when
they involuntarily make me share their smoke.

Being an addiction, smokers have a thousand
rationalizations for their action.

If you ever quit, you will suddenly notice how
much your life will improve, your health, your
wallet, social life, etc etc.

You are smart and you are decreasing your
potential by smoking when the carbon
monoxide attaches to your hemogobin and
not alow as much oxygen to be carried.
Your brain cells as well as all other cells
are affected.

[Bob_Sommer_Top_of_th]

I think if a single strip casino decided to go "smoke free" it would enjoy an increase in business and profits if all else stayed the same. Yes they'd lose some smoker business but gain all the non-smoking couples they could handle because they'd be the only one. I believe we'll see a drastic move like this from a property at some time in the future -- likely one where profits are slipping in a last ditch attempt at publicity and recovery.

The last casino in Las Vegas that tried going smoke free did not last long before going broke, which was not that long ago.

Why doesn't everyone really say what outlawing smoking really is? It's social engineering and politicians that want power over people to take away their rights. Seat belt laws, helmet laws and many more similar laws are all the same.

Bob

[caseydog73]

Um, this may be stating the obvious, but how does a person's not
wearing a helmet or seatbelt affect ME? It doesn't. A person's
smoking indoors in my immediate vicinity does affect me because of
the stink and the secondhand smoke's effect on my health.

There's no comparison.

Let's see ... It's legal to drive, and it's legal to get drunk. So
does that mean it should be legal to drive drunk? Hell with the
consequences, it's my right, dammit!

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Sommer - Top of the World Coins
<NL7HT@...> wrote:

>I think if a single strip casino decided to go "smoke free" it

would

>enjoy an increase in business and profits if all else stayed the

same.

>Yes they'd lose some smoker business but gain all the non-smoking
>couples they could handle because they'd be the only one. I

believe

>we'll see a drastic move like this from a property at some time in

the

>future -- likely one where profits are slipping in a last ditch

attempt

>at publicity and recovery.
>

The last casino in Las Vegas that tried going smoke free did not

last

long before going broke, which was not that long ago.

Why doesn't everyone really say what outlawing smoking really is?

It's

social engineering and politicians that want power over people to

take

away their rights. Seat belt laws, helmet laws and many more

similar

···

laws are all the same.

Bob

[samford]

Let's see ... It's legal to drive, and it's legal to get drunk. So
does that mean it should be legal to drive drunk? Hell with the
consequences, it's my right, dammit!

Excellent Post Caseydog. Some smokers (not all) are so blinded by
their addiction, that they will hide behind liberterian arguments to
rationalize their right to light up anywhere.

Casinos know that smokers are more likely to drink and lose heavily.
As such, smokers' rights will be defended by the casinos to "our"
death.

p.s. 90 percent of the video poker players that I know are non smokers,
i.e. good player = not self destructive = non smoker.

[Bob_Sommer_Top_of_th]

sjs5572z wrote:

Let's see ... It's legal to drive, and it's legal to get drunk. So
does that mean it should be legal to drive drunk? Hell with the
consequences, it's my right, dammit!

Excellent Post Caseydog. Some smokers (not all) are so blinded by
their addiction, that they will hide behind liberterian arguments to
rationalize their right to light up anywhere.

I have never been called a libertarian before. Not sure if I should be
insulted or proud. I always thought this country was founded on
freedoms and a lot of those freedoms for the past 30 years, and
especially the past 7, have been under assault. I am a non smoker by
the way.

p.s. 90 percent of the video poker players that I know are non smokers,
i.e. good player = not self destructive = non smoker.

This is strange. The majority of VP players that I know are smokers.
We must not know the same people. Maybe you can explain how a good
player equals a non smoker.

Bob

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

[Mickey]

If you think it is legal to get drunk, try Wyoming.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "caseydog73" <caseydog73@...> wrote:

Um, this may be stating the obvious, but how does a person's not
wearing a helmet or seatbelt affect ME? It doesn't. A person's
smoking indoors in my immediate vicinity does affect me because of
the stink and the secondhand smoke's effect on my health.

There's no comparison.

Let's see ... It's legal to drive, and it's legal to get drunk. So
does that mean it should be legal to drive drunk? Hell with the
consequences, it's my right, dammit!

[hockeystl]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Sommer - Top of the World Coins >

The last casino in Las Vegas that tried going smoke free did not last
long before going broke, which was not that long ago.

Silver City was on a respirator when they made the last ditch move to
go non smoking in an effort to keep the doors open. The property was
in poor repair, attracted a rough clientele and did not have a slot
club. Saying the non smoking policy was the reason they went belly up
is far from the whole story...

[hockeystl]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Sommer - Top of the World Coins >

The last casino in Las Vegas that tried going smoke free did not last
long before going broke, which was not that long ago.

Silver City was on a respirator when they made the last ditch move to
go non smoking in an effort to keep the doors open. The property was
in poor repair, attracted a rough clientele and did not have a slot
club. Saying the non smoking policy was the reason they went belly up
is far from the whole story...

[marvele66]

Really? I smoke but I never drink. I consider myself a pretty well
educated player and I don't lose heavily, in fact I do quite well.
Many of my very successful friends are smokers and are far from self
destructive. If you're going to argue, use valid statements. I think
many more people(gamblers) need to worry about their bad eating habits
and obesity before they worry about second hand smoking.

I forgot to mention I'm also not Rob singer clone as Drain mentioned a
week back.

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "sjs5572z" <sjs5572z@...> wrote:

>
> Let's see ... It's legal to drive, and it's legal to get drunk. So
> does that mean it should be legal to drive drunk? Hell with the
> consequences, it's my right, dammit!
>
Excellent Post Caseydog. Some smokers (not all) are so blinded by
their addiction, that they will hide behind liberterian arguments to
rationalize their right to light up anywhere.

Casinos know that smokers are more likely to drink and lose heavily.
As such, smokers' rights will be defended by the casinos to "our"
death.

p.s. 90 percent of the video poker players that I know are non smokers,
i.e. good player = not self destructive = non smoker.

[Gimmeaquad]

truncat_______________________________________________________________

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, george lee <glee4ever@...> wrote:

Smoking is plain and simple, an ADDICTION.
I have no problem with the addicts but only when
they involuntarily make me share their smoke.

Being an addiction, smokers have a thousand
rationalizations for their action.

If you ever quit, you will suddenly notice how
much your life will improve, your health, your
wallet, social life, etc etc.

You are smart and you are decreasing your
potential by smoking when the carbon
monoxide attaches to your hemogobin and
not alow as much oxygen to be carried.
Your brain cells as well as all other cells
are affected.

Everyone knows this and this will have
minimal impact on smokers.

I absolutely hate rental cars because of
the stench. I once rented a brand new
Lincoln that had only 50 miles on it
but the first driver was a smoker. I
could not stand it.

Rant over.
--- mickeycrimm <mickeycrimm@...> wrote:

> --- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, b.glazer@ wrote:
> >
> > > 2a. Re: Jean Scott's Frugal Vegas BLOG - 13 JAN
> 2008
> > > Posted by: "mickeycrimm" mickeycrimm@
> mickeycrimm
> > > Date: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:04 am ((PST))
> > >
> > ...
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > There is some truth in the above, but it is by no
> means as absolute
> as suggested.
> >
> > First of all, there appears to be an implied
> assumption that "small
> business owner" means "small bar owner", and there
> ARE other small
> businesses that have no problem with no smoking and
> it doesn't hurt
> their business.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I don't believe smoking bans hurt restaurants much
> but have a big
> effect on bars. It's the bar/restaurant where
> decisions have to be
> made. When the latest smoking ban went through in
> Nevada stand-alone
> bars were left smoking while bar/restaurants had to
> make decisions
> like giving up the food end or walling the
> restaurtant off completely
> from the bar.
>
> >
> > I don't know very much about bars, but the poker
> rooms in Indiana
> riverboat casinos are all smoke-free, and I frequent
> them often. I
> see the smokers leave the tables to have a
> cigarette, going to the
> nearest non-smoking area (on many boats, it's a door
> to the outside,
> and they'll go no matter what the weather; at
> Caesar's Indiana, it's
> OK to smoke immediately outside the poker room and I
> see railbirds
> immediately outside the poker room, two feet from
> the no smoking
> sign, having a cigarette). At least at the places I
> frequent, they
> aren't gone that long, probably less than 5% of the
> time -- at places
> where the whole facility is smoke-free, especially
> if they're large,
> it may take longer to get to a smoking area and
> back, but I doubt
> that the non-gambling time would equal the gambling
> time.
> >
> >
> > I see many players who are not smokers, but who
> spend long days at
> the tables, take longer and more frequent breaks
> than smokers. And I
> see many players, both smokers and non-smokers, who
> try to miss as
> few hands as possible.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Live poker and smoking is a different scenario. In
> Wendover I have
> my choice between two smoking rooms and one
> non-smokiing room. About
> 80% of my play is in the non-smoking room simply
> because that's where
> the money is. But when I walk outside the rail to
> burn one the game
> continues. The rake continues. And the game is
> moving a little
> faster due to one player being missing. They are
> not losing any
> revenue because of my smoking habit. With slot
> players the button on
> that machine is not being pushed while the smoker is
> outside.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Most smokers, if they ever fly an airplane, have
> learned to go a
> few hours without a cig if they have to (I know they
> don't like it,
> but most of them manage, and while there are plenty
> of reasons today
> to drive, if possible, rather than fly, I haven't
> heard "no smoking
> on the plane" listed as a common reason for making
> that choice).
> Depending on how driven they are to smoke, and how
> driven they are to
> gamble, individuals WILL decide which one has
> priority at any given
> moment in time, and while they might prefer to do
> both at once, when
> that's not an option, not very many will choose to
> give up one or the
> other completely. They'll strike some balance.
> >
> >
> >
>
> For the life of me I can't explain why I can go for
> hours in a non-
> smoking situation with no discomfort at all but just
> as soon as I get
> to where I can smoke I go into nicotine withdrawals
> from hell.
>
> >
> >
> > Certainly drinkers can find somewhere other than a
> bar to drink AND
> have a cigarette (and I've never understood the
> fascination with
> paying so much extra for booze in order to drink in
> a bar, instead of
> just going to a liquor store and taking it home --
> so the bar must
> have SOME other feature that makes it worth going
> there to drink).
> >
> >
> >
>
> It's called social drinking. My IQ goes up 10
> points with every
> drink. Why would I want to drink alone where nobody
> can tell how
> smart I've become?
>
> How weird is this? You would think a booze hound
> like me who just
> happens to spend about 300 days per year gambling in
> casinos would
> get thousands of dollars per year in comped
> alcoholic beverages.
> WRONG!!! I'm a stone cold teetotaler when playing
> machines or live
> poker. I don't want to see the stuff when I'm
> working. And it's not
> out of any conviction about gambling and drinking.
> I simply can't
> stand to drink when I'm working, and I can't stand
> to work when I'm
> drinking.
>
> When booze touches my lips I'm off for the day and
> that's it. I'm
> headed to the nearest alky bar where I can buy
> rounds and debate the
> world's problems with the other ten fools on the
> stools.
>
> >
> >
> > Personally, I try to avoid sitting next to smokers
> when playing VP,
> if possible, and if not, ask them if they would mind
> putting their
> cig and ashtray on the opposite side from me - not
> asking them to
> stop, but just to be courteous - and most are. I
> still choose games
>
=== message

__________________

Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Here,Here.. Excellent post.

GimmeaQuad

[Gimmeaquad]

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

I often wonder, when considering the effect of a (the) smoking ban
on the bar businesses, only the NEGATIVE impact is considered. The
story is always about the (hypothetical) ghastly huge terrible
impact on those businesses from smokers who will no longer

patronize

those establishments. What about the NONsmokers who will now be

more

inclined to patronize those establishments now that they won't have
to cope with cigarette smoke?

I remember that I really liked the food at PT's Pubs, but I was
dissuaded from going there to eat because I knew that I would have
to inhale shit-clouds to get to and from the eating area, and that
the smoke inevitably would drift into the eating areas. I also

might

···

have gone there and enjoyed a beer while watching the football game-

-

if not for the inevitability of someone next to me lighting up a
stink-stick.

TIME AND TIME again, actual practice has shown that banning smoking
in a given establishment, whether it's a casino, bar, restaurant,

or

brothel, INCREASES that establishment's business--even if that
business is one traditionally associated with smoking, such as---a
casino, bar, or restaurant.

All people are creatures of habit. Smokers will learn to adapt to it
or just do their drinking at home. I personally have never smoked
but breathed in a lot of second hand smoke.

I think the people in charge (lawmakers) are finally listening to the
majority of us who don't smoke and are making laws that reflect the
majority.

GimmeaQuad

[Gimmeaquad]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Sommer - Top of the World Coins
<NL7HT@...> wrote:

>I think if a single strip casino decided to go "smoke free" it

would

>enjoy an increase in business and profits if all else stayed the

same.

>Yes they'd lose some smoker business but gain all the non-smoking
>couples they could handle because they'd be the only one. I

believe

>we'll see a drastic move like this from a property at some time in

the

>future -- likely one where profits are slipping in a last ditch

attempt

>at publicity and recovery.
>

The last casino in Las Vegas that tried going smoke free did not

last

long before going broke, which was not that long ago.

Why doesn't everyone really say what outlawing smoking really is?

It's

social engineering and politicians that want power over people to

take

away their rights. Seat belt laws, helmet laws and many more

similar

laws are all the same.

Bob

But that was well before AC enacted legislation as well as well
before the bars/taverns had to adapt to it. Let's hope we see some
property have the balls to convert to smoke free.

GimmeaQuad

[Mickey]

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bob Sommer wrote:

> >I think if a single strip casino decided to go "smoke free" it
would
> >enjoy an increase in business and profits if all else stayed the
same.
> >Yes they'd lose some smoker business but gain all the non-

smoking

> >couples they could handle because they'd be the only one. I
believe
> >we'll see a drastic move like this from a property at some time

in

the
> >future -- likely one where profits are slipping in a last ditch
attempt
> >at publicity and recovery.
> >
>
>
>
> The last casino in Las Vegas that tried going smoke free did not
last
> long before going broke, which was not that long ago.
>
> Why doesn't everyone really say what outlawing smoking really

is?

It's
> social engineering and politicians that want power over people to
take
> away their rights. Seat belt laws, helmet laws and many more
similar
> laws are all the same.
>
> Bob

I vpFree@yahoogroups.com "gimmeaquad"

But that was well before AC enacted legislation as well as well
before the bars/taverns had to adapt to it. Let's hope we see some
property have the balls to convert to smoke free.

GimmeaQuad

In Nevada practically all of the politicians are owned by the casino
industry. So you are probably going to have to wait until the
National Smoking Ban goes into effect before smoking is knocked off
the casinos floors in Nevada. But the NSB is probably not that far
down the road.

[Dave_Feuer]

In Nevada practically all of the politicians are owned by the casino
industry. So you are probably going to have to wait until the
National Smoking Ban goes into effect before smoking is knocked off
the casinos floors in Nevada. But the NSB is probably not that far
down the road.

National Smoking Ban.

If the Dems win it will exist because they want full health care for
everyone and it would be a way to reduce costs.

If the Repubs win it will exist because they cater to big business and
insurance companies are tired of paying for health care for smokers.

If I win, it won't exist because I feel everybody should be able to
kill themselves as they see fit. However, if you blow smoke in
somebody's face they can hit you with a bat, since you did just
assault them with a deadly weapon.

-Dave

[samford]

Marvele,

Well, if I'm not allowed to make a generalized observation because
you don't smoke and drink at the same time, then you should not do
the same. I am not obese, in fact I'm 6ft, 170 lBS. I eat mostly
salads in the casino and I rarely eat desserts. As such, I guess I
have a right to worry about second hand smoker....yeah?

Just because you're a smoker who plays well and doesn't drink is not
the point. Although I may have been wrong that 90% of all good VP
players are non-smokers, we are definitely smoking less than the
casino population at large.

BTW, approximatelt 22% of the US population smokes (as per the
American Heart Assoc, since you'd like me to back uo my statements.
Most gamblers in general smoke. As such, you have to assume that
they are either self destructive or have addictive personalities, or
that the tooth fairy makes them smoke.

Really? I smoke but I never drink. I consider myself a pretty well
educated player and I don't lose heavily, in fact I do quite well.
Many of my very successful friends are smokers and are far from

self

destructive. If you're going to argue, use valid statements. I

think

many more people(gamblers) need to worry about their bad eating

habits

and obesity before they worry about second hand smoking.

I forgot to mention I'm also not Rob singer clone as Drain

mentioned a

week back.

>
>
> >
> > Let's see ... It's legal to drive, and it's legal to get

drunk. So

> > does that mean it should be legal to drive drunk? Hell with

the

> > consequences, it's my right, dammit!
> >
> Excellent Post Caseydog. Some smokers (not all) are so blinded

by

> their addiction, that they will hide behind liberterian

arguments to

> rationalize their right to light up anywhere.
>
> Casinos know that smokers are more likely to drink and lose

heavily.

> As such, smokers' rights will be defended by the casinos

to "our"

> death.
>
> p.s. 90 percent of the video poker players that I know are non

smokers,

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "marvele66" <marvele66@...> wrote:

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "sjs5572z" <sjs5572z@> wrote:
> i.e. good player = not self destructive = non smoker.
>