No smoking in casinos....

[dexman1349]

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=71182

Personally, I like this. Not so much for the fact that I don't like smoking or the smell, but more for the employees of the casinos. Although most of the employees do smoke, there are several who don't. Honestly, how many employees who smoke started because they worked in an environment that promoted it (not only casinos, but bartenders, waitresses, etc.)?

I know I'm probably going to get bashed by those who do smoke for posting this. Just remember smokers have a choice to light up, the bystanders may not have the choice to leave.

It's like the first amendment: You can say what you want, but in no way am I required to listen.

[Wetdog]

I like that the government can tell businesses that they can't allow a legal activity in their establishments. Why should businesses have a choice? Imagine what would happen if a business would open up next to another business and not allow, say, somking. Why, there would be a bunch of people who don't like smoking going there! Would they be happy with that?

How about if the government would prevent people from sending money someplace where they indulge in a hobby? Should the people who don't engage in that hobby rejoice?

[dexman1349]

I agree that it sucks that the government is controlling what businesses are allowed to do in their buildings.

On the other hand, am I not allowed to like gambling because I don't smoke? I think there are compromises here that don't include smoking bans. Unfortunately, I don't think any of which would be implemented in this day of the "all or nothing" mentality.

Could you imagine how the U.S. would react if cigarettes were released today?

[Wetdog]

...but more for the employees of the casinos. Although most of the employees do smoke, there are several who don't. Honestly, how many employees who smoke started because they worked in an environment that promoted it (not only casinos, but bartenders, waitresses, etc.)?

So you think that the people who don't smoke should want to work for the business that allows smoking rather than the one that doesn't? Or are you in favor of the nanny state and nanny politicians who make up your mind for you?

Your duplicity in your posts is interesting, if not laughable.

[Brent_in_Aurora]

January 1, 2008 is the date that the smoking ban goes into effect. I would love to see Blackhawk go away and be replaced by a Denver casino, but I doubt that will happen. I predict that the smoking ban will have no effect on Blackhawk, though.

[nrkofover]

While I agree with the concept that the government should stay out of individual business decisions, like whether or not your establishment allows smoking, I was extremely displeased that the casinos were given an exemption while every other business was forced to end smoking.

I'm a smoker and it doesn't bother me going outside to smoke, in fact I actually prefer it. I work in bars five nights a week and a smoke free bar is nice. I have never smoked at poker tables, even when casinos have allowed it, because of the close proximity to others who may not like smoke in their faces.

In Colorado Springs we have some bars openly defying the smoking ordinance and allowing smoking. I deal cards at one of those bars and still ban smoking from the poker table, which I would do without the smoking ban, which is simply an individual decision I think best meets the needs of all players.

As far as the ban goes, it would've been much better if more establishments put in smoking rooms like I saw in Aspen some years ago. Well ventilated, comfortable smoking rooms inside a bar or restaurant is a great equalizer for all involved and probably would have negated the need for an all out ban. Many of the bars I work in have great smoking patios, often covered and nearly all have outdoor heaters, so I personlly don't mind the separation. One bar I frequent opened many years ago as a non-smoking bar but had a patio where you could take drinks and have a smoke. It was never a detriment to bringing in patrons and really wasn't a signficant inconvenience to those of us who do smoke.

As far as the casinos go, I do think that many will suffer some shifts in their clientele. For instance, in Cripple Creek, two casinos have poker rooms with direct access to the street just feet from the tables. One poker room is up a long flight of stairs accessible at the back of the casino. That may affect the number of smokers who decide to play in that room.

[coloradomrg]

As far as the casinos go, I do think that many will suffer some shifts in their clientele. For instance, in Cripple Creek, two casinos have poker rooms with direct access to the street just feet from the tables. One poker room is up a long flight of stairs accessible at the back of the casino. That may affect the number of smokers who decide to play in that room.

There is an elevator next to those stairs :) And since that room has pretty much taken over as the best room up there right now... I don't think they'll suffer too much :mrgreen: As for the bars here in town.... they'll either concede and convert or be out of business... May not be fair, but eventually someone's going to decide to yank liqour licsenses and those bars won't have anyone around to donate legal fees anymore.

I'm not so sure I like Mr. Government taking this much control of business.... but I sure as hell enjoy having dinner, playing poker or hanging out in a SMOKE FREE environment! I've had to leave restraunts before because my baby son was suffering because the a-hole at the next table couldn't be bothered to keep their cig away from him or to blow their smoke the other way. If it wasn't for my wife, I'd have just had a few words with the jerk and the problem would have either been solved or made worse. Common sense is gone in too much of society today. I'm probably not the nicest, most well mannered person you'll ever meet, but I sure as hell do my best not to inconvience others when I can help it.

[ctswpt76]

When I was in Switzerland last week, I was at a table between 2 cigars and a cigarette, and I could barely sit there............I probably would've stayed a little longer than 1.5 hrs, but I just couldn't take it...

I also went up to the Gilpin last week, which the last time I was there was so smoke filled, it was unbearable and I left. But now, they have a much better smoke removal system which removes 99% of it on the spot, so it wasn't as annoying......

As a non-smoker I am happy to have the smoke free environments, but I also understand the people who are P.O.'d about it....it's a tough call, but I think the work around of smoking outside is a good compromise.

cts

[PoWdA]

I like that the government can tell businesses that they can't allow a legal activity in their establishments. Why should businesses have a choice? Imagine what would happen if a business would open up next to another business and not allow, say, somking. Why, there would be a bunch of people who don't like smoking going there! Would they be happy with that?

How about if the government would prevent people from sending money someplace where they indulge in a hobby? Should the people who don't engage in that hobby rejoice? The truth has been spoken. I honestly believe it should be up to the bar, resturaunt, casino, etc if you can or cannot smoke in thier establishment. I think the new smoking laws are ridiculous. If you do not like a smoking poker room go to a non-smoking room. They already out number the ones you can smoke in by a very large margin. Laws like this piss me off. My general thought is that if you don't like the smoke go somewhere else.

[pseudoswede]

My general thought is that if you don't like the smoke go somewhere else.
So if there were no smoking laws, those with allergic or sensitivity to smoke should stay at home the rest of their lives? Remember the days when you could smoke in corporate-type offices? My building still has ashtrays next to the elevator buttons. Think about being exposed to second-hand smoke 40+ hours a week, THEN heading out to a bar/club after work for another 3-4 hours of second-hand smoke.

Name one bar that has shut down and specifically blamed it on the smoking ban.

For those that complain about having to go outside to smoke, you could always take up chaw (like I did ;)).

[PoWdA]

So if there were no smoking laws, those with allergic or sensitivity to smoke should stay at home the rest of their lives? Remember the days when you could smoke in corporate-type offices? My building still has ashtrays next to the elevator buttons. Think about being exposed to second-hand smoke 40+ hours a week, THEN heading out to a bar/club after work for another 3-4 hours of second-hand smoke.

Name one bar that has shut down and specifically blamed it on the smoking ban.

For those that complain about having to go outside to smoke, you could always take up chaw (like I did ;)). In an office builing makes sense since you really have no choice but resturaunts, bars, and casinos should have a choice. I don't think it is up to the goverment to tell people how to run thier buisiness as far as an issue like smoking. The way it was set up was fine. Smoking in bars and casinos should be up to the establishment not our government. If the buisiness wishes to chase away customers by allowing smoking then so be it.

[loomisdl]

In an office builing makes sense since you really have no choice but resturaunts, bars, and casinos should have a choice. I don't think it is up to the goverment to tell people how to run thier buisiness as far as an issue like smoking. The way it was set up was fine. Smoking in bars and casinos should be up to the establishment not our government. If the buisiness wishes to chase away customers by allowing smoking then so be it.

+1

I agree with Powda although I typically don't smoke indoors even when it's allowed. I don't think the government should have this level of control of businesses.

[Crazy Iraqi]

First off I will admit that Im a smoker. When I go to the casino's I usually smoke. It seems like no card room allows smoking at the tables which I have no problem with. However, it is nice to stand up and walk a few feet away to have my smoke. Don't like the idea of the casino's being forced to go smoke free, however maybe it will encourage me to quit smoking just like the current smoking ban has.

[dexman1349]

My wife just gave me another idea to consider concerning why the government may feel it needs to implement smoking bans:

How much of our tax dollars fund Medicare / Medicaid (I realize Medicaid is also partiall funded by the covered individual)? Coming from someone with deep roots in the medical industry, I can honestly tell you that alot of the lower income people who are treated for smoking related health issues are covered by Medicare / Medicaid. I'm not saying everyone who smokes is on Medicare, but I hope you can get my picture.

Perhaps this could be considered a way to try to cut some of the government's budgetary shortfalls. I would image that it's cheaper to create a smoking ban legislation than it is to give lung cancer treatments to people who can't afford it. Big tobacco companies don't provide the same amount of under-the-table government funding that they used to. And offset that decreasing income with the increasing cost of medical care, I can see how politicians could easily think along these lines. (Plus with the growing public health and healthcare demands, it only adds to the polital pressure.)

Once again, just throwing this concept out into the wind for discussion. If you don't like what I say that's your business, but I hope we can continue to keep this discussion civil.

-Keith

[tjholdem]

I agree that it sucks that the government is controlling what businesses are allowed to do in their buildings.

On the other hand, am I not allowed to like gambling because I don't smoke? I think there are compromises here that don't include smoking bans. Unfortunately, I don't think any of which would be implemented in this day of the "all or nothing" mentality.

Could you imagine how the U.S. would react if cigarettes were released today?


Is it government(?!?!?) OR (maybe) the people of Colorado who voted on these issues last election...HMMMMMM Can not blame it all on the big G (government.)

[loomisdl]

Is it government(?!?!?) OR (maybe) the people of Colorado who voted on these issues last election...HMMMMMM Can not blame it all on the big G (government.)

Sure we can. Then we don't have to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions. It's the American Way! :)

[dexman1349]

Sure we can. Then we don't have to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions. It's the American Way! :)

Welcome to the ever blaming US of A. Finding individuals who hold themselves accountable for each and EVERY thing within their own lives is becoming few and far between. The general public has created a limited liability society in which individuals will take accountability for only the actions they cannot pass onto others, or the actions with limited consequences.

Therefore, because we cannot blame any one individual in the creation of this smoking ban (nor would any individual take credit for it) and because it is the government enforcing it, the government is the sole bearer of the blame.

Also, I know we voted on the original smoking ban a couple of years ago, but I don't recall voting on this new amendment to the ban (I could be wrong, though). If we didn't vote on this part of the amendment, then in fact it is the government making these changes. Thus, creating the ability for the public to blame the government.

[Mondogarage]

Also, I know we voted on the original smoking ban a couple of years ago, but I don't recall voting on this new amendment to the ban (I could be wrong, though). If we didn't vote on this part of the amendment, then in fact it is the government making these changes. Thus, creating the ability for the public to blame the government.

Actually, no, the citizens did not vote on the ban, IIRC, the Legislature did.

To answer the poster about bars closing because of the ban, I can state with anecdotal certainty that, while I know of no bars closing specifically because of it, I am personally aware of several who saw *significant* drop offs in business. As a member of the Denver music community, I've frequented a lot of the dive-ier live music bars/venues, and I state first hand I've seen smaller crowds, far less happy hour crowds, etc.

That said, smoking and ventilation are public health issues, and it *is* the government's job to make laws related to public health. I do occasionally smoke when I'm at a casino, and I understand perfectly the logic behind the change in law. Frankly, I was pissed off that the casino lobby $$$ were worth more to the legislators than the health of casino employees and attendees. Especially since, aside from casinos, the legislature soapboxed so heavily about how they were looking out for public welfare....

[Crazy Iraqi]

I have already admitted to being a smoker. I would have felt better about the ban if we had a chance to vote on it. Not passed by the legislature without our vote. I think the main reason that it was passed by the legislature is because they didnt think the people of Colorado would pass it.

[Wetdog]

Cities like Arvada and Broomfield (Boulder Heights) enact non smoking ordinances for bars and restaurants.
Bars/restaurants in Arvada and Broomfield see drop off in business due to competition from Wheat Ridge (WR) and Westminster (W).
Restaurant Association (RA) attempts to get WR & W to enact their own non smoking ordinances. WR & W city governments show RA guys the door. Why should they undermine the increased business in their cities?
RA then goes to state legislature to with an appeal to "level the playing field." This means to make everyone as stupid as the few.
Legislature takes the *ahem* campaign contribution money and passes the bill, meanwhile they take the gaming industry *ahem* campaign contribution money and exempt the casinos.
Bars scream bloody murder about the exemption.
Legislature, *ahem* campaign contribution money spent, betrays casinos and kills the exemption.

That's politics, folks.