 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Clearing the air on casino smoking
Some inquiring readers wonder whether a potential Cedar Rapids casino will or won’t allow smoking while gambling.
“If Linn County gets a casino, it won’t be for everyone; really it will only be for the smokers, if my past experiences with the current Iowa casinos is still true,” a reader wrote to me recently. “We have not been to a casino in several years. Just don’t want to face the smoke.”
Others said smoking would affect their vote in the March 5 casino referendum.
So I asked lead casino investor Steve Gray to clear the air.
“The headline answer to this is it’s yet to be determined,” Gray said.
“We have some pretty strong feelings from the public and our investor group that it should either be non-smoking or substantially non-smoking. But we don’t quite understand the physical or economic implications of either of those, so we’ve got some more work to do on that,” Gray said.
Iowa still allows smoking on casino gaming floors, amid the slots and blackjack. That’s because, a few years back, when the Legislature was banning smoking in nearly all public places, bravely crusading to save us from the scourge of secondhand smoke, lawmakers voted to exempt casinos. If you want to understand the clout casinos have at the Statehouse, look no further.
There’s a new bill aimed at repealing that exemption, Senate Study Bill 1107. If you want to know what it would do, read the bill. If you want to know whether it has any chance of passage, read the lobbyist declaration list. The Iowa Gaming Association and several casino companies are lined up against it, and they rarely lose.
I’m no anti-tobacco crusader. I thought all business owners should have been allowed to set the rules for their own joints, with customers allowed to vote with their dollars.
But if we’re going to have a smoking ban, and it is the law of the land, it should at least be fair. Why should casinos get a break that the corner tavern doesn’t get?
Well, the corner tavern’s lobbying budget is likely modest, for one thing. And second, the corner tavern doesn’t pour nearly as much revenue into state government. The gaming association claims that banning smoking in casinos would result in the loss of as much as $80 million in state tax revenues and 1,500 jobs. Those are the kind of numbers that get lawmakers’ attention, even if they’re overinflated.
We heard lots of very dire predictions before the smoking ban passed. I repeated some of them when I opposed it. But, from my personal perch, it doesn’t seem like they came true. Regardless, people and businesses have adapted. Despite my misgivings about governmental nanny-ism, I have to admit that smoke-free is better.
There are three casinos in the Quad Cities, including the newest, Jumer’s Casino and Hotel, on the Illinois side in Rock Island. Illinois banned casino smoking, so Jumer’s is non-smoking. It makes more money than either of the two Iowa casinos that allow smoking, at $87.8 million last year, a 2.3 percent increase over 2011. How smoking plays into the that equation, I don’t know, but it’s interesting.
Gray says if his group picks the “substantially non-smoking” option, he envisions allowing smoking in an extension of the gaming floor with its own entrance, connected, but also separated, from the rest of the facility, which would be non-smoking.
“One of the biggest turnoffs is when you walk in the door and one of the first things you see is people smoking or smell the smoke. That’s just a turnoff for a lot of people,” said Gray, who is a non-smoker.
I can’t blame Gray and his backers for adapting to the gambling landscape as it stands.
But I do have a problem with the unfairness to small businesses. Will local bars lose customers who can go to the casino, gamble, drink and puff inside? I’m not certain, but the Legislature should grow a backbone and correct its mistake. Don’t hold your breath, however.
But what if Gray’s group did decide to make a Cedar Rapids casino fully smoke free? Maybe they’d lose referendum votes, but maybe they’d gain some. It might also help them make a case to the Racing and Gaming Commission that this project is different from nearby casinos. We’re not cannibals. We’re Blue Zone gamblers. Do they make treadmill slot machines?
It’s something to chew on. Like nicotine gum.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
I’ve only been to a casino twice in Iowa. On both occasions I was not just exposed to ordinary cigarette smoke, I was also exposed to heavy doses of cigar smoke. It was disgusting. I’ll never be a regular gambler at a casino, but I might visit one on occasion if I can get some clean air to breath.
Illinois House Votes to Lift Smoking Ban at Casinos – March 29, 2011 – Sun Times
Tom Swoik, executive director of Illinois Casino Gaming Association, said gambling revenue has dropped 32 percent since the smoking ban was approved. He said the ban probably accounts for one-third to one-half of that and has cost state government about $800 million in taxes.
Swoik said Illinois casinos saw a 21 percent revenue drop the first year of the smoking ban. At the same time Indiana casino revenues dropped 6 percent and Missouri 4 percent, while Iowa increased by a fraction of a percent.
However, Kathy Drea, lobbyist for the American Lung Association in Illinois, said the state has saved $1.18 billion in heart-related healthcare costs since the smoking ban went into effect.
Drea said the ventilation systems only produce a cosmetic improvement. She said air quality levels at the Casino Queen in East St. Louis were still “unhealthy” or “very unhealthy” according to the Environmental Protection Agency even after the ventilation system was in place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G1VdUQIqJ5M
The smoking gun has shown up and verifies second hand smoke is a joke!
Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.
By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.
Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.
What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.
“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………
Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!
The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:
Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.
146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.
A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.
Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day!
Here are two sources for information on the health issues connected with smoking — The Center for Disease Control and the American Lung Association. Of course I know the credibility of these two sources does not compare (nor do they necessarily address the specific claims raised) with the above post (by someone who probably simply forgot to list his credentials) but at least they may be worth a quick look.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/health-effects/
Iowa casinos should be required to have no smoking areas, on the gaming floor as well as in it’s restaurants; but the answer shouldn’t be to ban a legal adult pastime. Casinos and other adult establishments, are places where adults gather to relax, enjoy some alcoholic beverages and yes have a few smokes.
I am a non smoker and prefer to visit establishments that have no smoking areas, but I don’t see the need to stop a legal pursuit for persons over 18 years of age. I agree employees should not be required to experience second hand smoke, but by restricting non smoking employees from working in these areas, we eliminate that concern.
And where do smokers entertain their friends, if they can’t go to their favorite casino, restaurant or bar? My guess is that most invite others to their homes, where there are no restrictions. But it seems this solution creates another bigger problem. What about the children at home, don’t they count when we debate second hand smoke? Obviously some adults protect their children and go outside when the need for a cigarette arises; but many do not.
Clearly governments can set the standards for their work places, but the private sector should be able to do the same, as long as the non smoking public and employees are protected. And I believe this can be accomplished in smoking rooms, with superior ventilation and the requirement that employees servicing that room be smokers themselves.
I can’t imagine a smoking waiter or dealer being successful suing his employer for second hand smoke, or finding a lawyer willing to take his case on a contingency basis.
I have prepared an analysis that cover the Greater Chicago population, and compare Indiana and Illinois casino establishments for the 6 months following the no smoking ban in Illinois casinos. The result a 20% revenue decline, a 10% patron decline and an over 40% reduction in casino taxes. Similar impacts were felt in the St. Louis area, where two Illinois casinos compete with 4 in Missouri, and in other parts of Illinois that have no nearby option for smokers.
Colorado also saw a 20% decline in casino revenues, but CO does not track admissions like the riverboat casino states, so we can only follow the decline in casino win. In the case of CO, however, there are no casino states near Denver or Colorado Springs, that allow gamers to smoke, so the loss of revenues and taxes must be a result of fewer casino visits coupled with smoking breaks that reduces the win per visit.
What is harder for me to understand is the loss in tax revenues and jobs in states and communities that have introduced these bans. Illinois’ win tax has declined from $785 million in 2007 (the year before the ban) to $426 million in 2010, when I prepared the study. A decline of $359 million or 46%, primarily a result of the smoking ban at its nine 9 riverboat casinos. And what about the thousands of restaurants and bars that have seen their revenues decline because of the smoking bans. Hasn’t that spurred layoffs, bankruptcies, closings and the accompanying decline in sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate and personal income taxes and more people collecting unemployment, and various forms of welfare and assistance.
We have complete casino smoking bans in casino properties in Illinois, Colorado, Maryland, Delaware and Florida, and Massachusetts is about to join that group. On the flip side; Pennsylvania, Atlantic City, plus many Tribal and Nevada casinos protect non smokers by having restricted sections on their gaming floors.
If America is really going to protect our citizens from the ills of smoking, it seems we should be following our experiment from prohibition in the 1920’s, and outlaw the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. Which action would add hundreds of thousands more to our unemployment lines? There is no question smokers add $ billions more to our national health care costs, but as an offset, we collect many $ billions in revenues from the disproportionate tax imposed individually on the purchase of cigarettes. Not unlike the disproportionate tax on alcohol and all forms of gaming.