vpFREE2 Forums

The long term economic effect of smoking bans

It's certainly to be expected that casinos are perhaps the single
most-affected businesses when smoking bans take effect. That's
because smokers are ideal casino customers--personally weak,
especially in resisting addictive behavior; self-indulgent, and
indifferent to societal norms. In other words, the perfect target.
Smokers will gamble longer, less skillfully (because of the constant
attention they are paying to their cigarettes), and at worse casino
games than nonsmokers. They will lose more, play a losing game
longer, and continue to play it badly, without making any effort to
improve--the hallmark of an addictive, narcissistic, self-deluding
personality, when exposed to gambling.

So it isn't surprising that casinos lose revenue when they lose
those people. But the question is, is this a temporary loss? Is this
compensated for (eventually) by increased business from people who
now find the casino environment more pleasant, and will patronize
those establishments when then might not have before?

Also, should the overall benefit to people's health be considered
from a monetary point of view? Certainly, "x" number of people are
now NOT going to die/get sick when they would have without a smoking
ban--both customers and employees. Is this worth the loss of
revenue, especially if that loss is temporary?

And what is the economic value of people being able to patronize a
casino without simply being annoyed and irritated by cigarette
smoke? It's real, but how can you quantify it?

The experiment might best be tried by a single Vegas casino going
nonsmoking and comparing its revenue stream over some longish period-
-say, a year. This would only be valid if said casino were already
successful; a few Nevada casinos have gone nonsmoking, but these
were desperate attempts to revive dying establishments. I'd like to
see what would happen if, say Sunset Station or AZ Chuckie's West
(one of the stinkiest casinos in all Christendom) had the guts to go
nonsmoking. I would predict that patronage and revenue would, after
an initial downturn, skyrocket.

If they are personnaly weak, what does that make you? A legend in your own
mind!!

···

On Feb 16, 2008 2:49 AM, tralfamidorgooglycrackers < tralfamidorgooglycrackers@yahoo.com> wrote:

  It's certainly to be expected that casinos are perhaps the single
most-affected businesses when smoking bans take effect. That's
because smokers are ideal casino customers--personally weak,
especially in resisting addictive behavior; self-indulgent, and
indifferent to societal norms. In other words, the perfect target.
Smokers will gamble longer, less skillfully (because of the constant
attention they are paying to their cigarettes), and at worse casino
games than nonsmokers. They will lose more, play a losing game
longer, and continue to play it badly, without making any effort to
improve--the hallmark of an addictive, narcissistic, self-deluding
personality, when exposed to gambling.

So it isn't surprising that casinos lose revenue when they lose
those people. But the question is, is this a temporary loss? Is this
compensated for (eventually) by increased business from people who
now find the casino environment more pleasant, and will patronize
those establishments when then might not have before?

Also, should the overall benefit to people's health be considered
from a monetary point of view? Certainly, "x" number of people are
now NOT going to die/get sick when they would have without a smoking
ban--both customers and employees. Is this worth the loss of
revenue, especially if that loss is temporary?

And what is the economic value of people being able to patronize a
casino without simply being annoyed and irritated by cigarette
smoke? It's real, but how can you quantify it?

The experiment might best be tried by a single Vegas casino going
nonsmoking and comparing its revenue stream over some longish period-
-say, a year. This would only be valid if said casino were already
successful; a few Nevada casinos have gone nonsmoking, but these
were desperate attempts to revive dying establishments. I'd like to
see what would happen if, say Sunset Station or AZ Chuckie's West
(one of the stinkiest casinos in all Christendom) had the guts to go
nonsmoking. I would predict that patronage and revenue would, after
an initial downturn, skyrocket.

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

There are MANY large casinos in LV that could make an area non smoking. Why don't they?
   
     Casino operators generally get an exception when non-smoking statutes are enacted after they argue that tribal casinos will not be affected.
   
    Laughlin has two non smoking casino wings, the one at the Riverside does much less business than the smoking side.
   
    I have been playing in the Harrah's non smoking section for years and business HAS picked up although it is much less than on the smoking side. And the 9/6 JOB 100 plays are in the non smoking side!!

···

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

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

If they are personnaly weak, what does that make you? A legend in

your own

mind!!

Whatever I am or might be is irrelevant to the correctness or accuracy
of my statement about smokers, since I am not myself a smoker. Anyone
who persists in a habit that is dangerous to the point of being
ultimately fatal, expensive, disgusting, extremely annoying as well as
dangerous to those around them, and increasingly, socially
unacceptable, is certainly a person of weak will by anyone's
definition. If you (as a smoker, I presume) react in anger to this
characterization, it just might be because it hits too close to home.

Of course, you could prove me wrong by quitting :slight_smile:

···

--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Zelisko" <szelisk@...> wrote:

Really? Where are they located?

···

-----Original Message-----
From: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com [mailto:vpF…@…com] On Behalf Of
Joe Pucek
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:50 AM
To: vpFREE@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [vpFREE] The long term economic effect of smoking bans

I have been playing in the Harrah's non smoking section for years and
business HAS picked up although it is much less than on the smoking side.
And the 9/6 JOB 100 plays are in the non smoking side!!

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.6/1282 - Release Date: 2/15/2008
7:08 PM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.6/1282 - Release Date: 2/15/2008
7:08 PM

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

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

Whatever I am or might be is irrelevant to the correctness or

accuracy

of my statement about smokers, since I am not myself a smoker. Anyone
who persists in a habit that is dangerous to the point of being
ultimately fatal, expensive, disgusting, extremely annoying as well

as

dangerous to those around them, and increasingly, socially
unacceptable, is certainly a person of weak will by anyone's
definition. If you (as a smoker, I presume) react in anger to this
characterization, it just might be because it hits too close to home.

It looks to me like T's own words best describe his opinions ...

"unjustified air of total certainty"

Dick