As long as we're speaking hypothetically, let's say you are a
European or East Asian whale that has been smoking all your life
(which is not uncommon). Are you going to stop coming to Vegas and
start frequenting casinos in other countries that allow smoking? I
would guess that if you have the money to be a whale, you are used to
getting what you want, so will go to places that let you smoke. You
will probably prefer not to go to a casino that makes your decisions
for you. Even if you know that smoking is bad for you, you might
feel you don't need a baby sitter to prohibit you from doing
dangerous things, especially if you are here to indulge in gambling,
drinking, and philandering, all of which can be unhealthy. I
believe the perception of Vegas especially in other countries is that
it is an adult playground where you can indulge in whatever you
want. Change this to "you can indulge in whatever you want, but oh
wait, you can't smoke," and I think you lose certain tourists, some
of whom have a huge impact on the casino's bottom line.
My guess is that the loss of just one of these multi-million-dollar
whales far outweighs an influx of tens of thousands of small-time non-
smokers rejoicing in their smoke-free environment. Now one could say
that a casino might offer private environments that allow whales to
smoke, but your original post does say "no ifs, ands, or butts." One
could also say that a non-smoking policy might attract new non-
smoking whales, but a smoking casino could easily offer private non-
smoking environments for them, whereas a non-smoking casino could not
do the same for a smoking whale. Basically a smoking casino has the
freedom and ability to accomodate both types, whereas a non-smoking
casino is limited. I would think this type of scenario would weigh
heavily in a casino's decision.
So while your impromptu poll might indicate the impact a non-smoking
policy would have on the average joe. It does not give voice to that
very small group who in the real world have a much larger "voice"
than the throngs of average joes put together. So while I am not
invalidating your poll, I don't think to be representative of "what
would really happen."
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, bjaygold@... wrote:
>
> I'm trying to wrap my head around what would really happen,
business-wise,
> if casinos were to completely ban smoking.
>
> Let's say as of tomorrow, smoking in all forms will be banned in
all casinos
> everywhere. Period. No ifs, ands, or butts.
>
> Let's also say that this is the ONLY change made. The casinos keep
the same
> paytables, rules, promos, games, etc.
>
> For you SMOKERS, based solely on the smoking ban, would you:
>
> S1: Play the same as you did before.
> S2: Play slightly less than you did before.
> S3: Play substantially less than you did before.
> S4: Quit playing in casinos.
>
> For you NONSMOKERS, based solely on the smoking ban, would you:
>
> N1: Play the same as you did before.
> N2: Play slightly more than you did before.
> N3: Play substantially more than you did before.
>
> All you have to do is respond with "S3," or any of the seven two-
character
> responses. Or comment as you please.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian (my response is N2)
>
>
>
> **************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the
Grammy
> Awards. Go to AOL Music.
> (http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
