> Helena, Montana instituted a smoking ban that included
bars/casinos.
> These are small casinos. Up to 20 machines. You have to have a
> liquor license to obtain a gaming license so the machines are either
> in the bar or a room adjacent to the bar. There are about 20 of
> these casinos in Helena.
>
> The smoking ban lasted six months. During that time these
> bar/casinos experienced a $5,000,000 shortfall in revenue. The
> smoking ban was found unconstitutional for, of all reasons, the law
> didn't provide for a jury trial for anyone accused of breaking it.
>
> When the ban lifted revenue returned to pre-ban levels. That's hard
> evidence.
Short term effects such as this are not surprising. I agree that
anyone who thinks this won't happen is self-serving.
What is less clear is the long-term effects of such bans. CA poker
rooms do not seem to be suffereing. But as is so often the case, it
is difficult to isolate one variable. If a competing casion opens
around the same time as a smoking ban, it is almost impossible to
sift out which factor led to a decrease in revenues.
I suspect a smoking ban would do great harm to LV casinos. Many of
their best customers (whales) come from overseas where smoking is
more prevalent. These gamblers have choices such as Macau or Europe,
I suspect many of them will simply go elsewhere. I think US
customers would adapt, especially if the bans are ubiquitous within
the US.
In no way does this unfortunate side effect mean that smoking bans
should be put to a halt. Such an argument would be akin to saying
that hard hats should not be required in constrction zones.
It does mean the NV casinow will fight it to the death or until
they lose millions in law suits. This is one reason we have federal
health standards. NV casinos (and therefore the entire state)
cannot be trusted. The speical interest group (casinos) is too
strong here.
Even changes as clearly beneficial as the refrigerator
will have a negative impact upon some businesses.
Businesses must adapt to changing conditions. If they cannot, they
perish. Would you get rid of iPods so that Tower Records can keep
its market share? Or would you have outlawed refrigerators
to protect the iceman. Or maybe local taxes go up. Or whatever.
OSHA rules in places like construction sites probably cost
businesses millions in costs associated with compliance.
This is no different. If a few businesses go broke, then they
go broke. The casinos have no entitilement to protection from
such changes.
As for the lawsuits....
a casino worker won such a case. Back in 2002-2003 I predicted
this exact thing would kill public smoking, including specifically
the case of dealers and their extreme exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
I believe that eventually the cost of lawsuits will become too high.
Now it seems to have begun.
QuadZilla
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
