To smoke or not to smoke that is the question

 

The national trend to eliminate cigarette smoking from public places has slowed down dramatically since the recession began.  Part of the reason is the economy; lawmakers have been unwilling to pass any laws that might have a negative impact on  business, and at least initially prohibiting smoking does impact some kinds of businesses.  The progress has also slowed down because it has been so effectively that there are very few easy targets left, states with exceptions for casinos is one of the targets that remains.  Smoking legislation has been a major issue for casinos in every state it has surfaced; two states, Missouri and Indiana have current legislation that would expand the prohibited areas and might include casino floors.  Historically however, casinos have been successful in many jurisdictions in maintaining casinos, or parts of the casino floor, as exempt areas.

Recently there have been two non-smoking stories that do not fit the previous trend, but may represent future trends.  First, in Atlantic City, it is rumored that Revel, the $2 billion mega-casino scheduled to open in May,  may open as a non-smoking casino.  That would be huge, the casinos in Atlantic City fought the original legislation that outlawed smoking in casinos; they complained their revenues went down 20 percent immediately.  The argument carried the day and the casinos managed to get a reprieve and are now allowed to have smoking in part of the casino.  So, if the newest and most expensive casino opened without smoking, it might make it hip and modern to eliminate smoking.  Given the amount of competition the city is facing – currently all of the major competition allows smoking in the casinos – it would be shocking to see AC try the non-smoking niche.  But it could happen if Revel is successful without smoking.

The second story comes from Ohio, the casinos going into Toledo and Columbus are going to screen employees for smoking.  Smokers will not be hired – the rationale is also financial; smokers cost more than non-smokers.  They miss more work and have more health issues and their issues are likely to be more expensive than non-smokers.  Again, if the casinos in Ohio are successful with policy it is one that could easily be copied by casinos in other jurisdictions.

The issue is very personal to me my ex-wife, father, step-father, aunt and two uncles died from smoking related diseases.  Death from smoking is slow and painful, painful for the person dying and very painful for the people watching.  Additionally, I have an interest in a small casino in Colorado – a state that no longer permits smoking in its casinos.  When the law first past, it was not clear if it would destroy our business or not, but over time we overcame the decline caused by the non-smoking regulations.   At the time, my partner (both he and I are ex-smokers) said, “If we survive this, then in the future we will be glad that our casino is non-smoking.”  Niether of us think smoking is wise for anyone, but when your livelihood is threatened it is difficult to take the moral high ground.  However, we did survive and we are glad.  So now it is easier for me to take the high ground (you know I am not taking any person risk with my position).  But I think it is probably time to close the door on smoking in public; in the long run it is better for the customers, it is better for the employees and if you extend the ban to employees it will be better for the bottom line of the business too.

Advertisement