I heard a rumor that all rooms at The Orleans are now non-smoking. If true (being a non-smoker) I find it a great idea. I wonder if we will see the same in the casino. Being a local gathering spot, probably not for some time.
Will the Park MGM realize a positive response, or will the bottom line suffer.
This has been an ongoing question for decades. To many in the casino industry, it was "answered" by the failure of properties that tried to institute propertywide smoking bans, such as the Ponderosa in Reno and (I think) the Castaways in Vegas. But those properties had a lot of other problems.
I think a nonsmoking casino would gain wide acceptance now. Enough of the stink-stick lovers have died off (hooray! hooray!) that losing their business would no longer be as impactful as before--and significantly, that would be more than counterbalanced by an increase in business from those who want to gamble without having to inhale toxic, disgusting fumes. The fact that pigarette smoke distributes the coronavirus much more effectively than exhaled droplets should be an additional factor now in any such decisions (but it seems not to be).
However, I very much doubt that we'll see more than one or two casinos go the nonsmoking route. Why? Well, casinos are all about encouraging harmful and addictive behavior. They cater to and exploit human weaknesses. Banning smoking is contrary to that philosophy, so I don't think it will gain much traction, even if (as I suspect) it would improve their bottom line.
It would be interesting know the cost of catering to smokers. Room cleaning must be more intensive, not to mention the need for frquent painting, and repairs from accidentalal burns..
I would guess that smoke in the casino pays a toll on maintenance despite the ventillation. Not to mention all the ashtrays the waitresses need to keep clean. Which begs to know.....Is it healthier for the staff in a smoke free environment? With fewer and fewer smokers today does going smokeless dimish the bottom line?
Originally posted by: Gregory
It would be interesting know the cost of catering to smokers. Room cleaning must be more intensive, not to mention the need for frquent painting, and repairs from accidentalal burns..
I would guess that smoke in the casino pays a toll on maintenance despite the ventillation. Not to mention all the ashtrays the waitresses need to keep clean. Which begs to know.....Is it healthier for the staff in a smoke free environment? With fewer and fewer smokers today does going smokeless dimish the bottom line?
All I can tell you is that one of the justifications for instituting nonsmoking policies in the casinos I mentioned was that insurance premiums would be lower due to decreased fire hazard. I'm sure that the maintenance issues you mentioned are real and involve substantial costs.
The effect of cigarette smoke on dealers has been an issue of contention for decades. It is one of the major reasons why the casinos have been so adamantly against the formation of dealer unions and have tried to hard to stop them. They fear that an organized dealer force could successfully claim that being constantly exposed to cigarette smoke is a workplace hazard, which it certainly is. (In fact, it was the primary reason I quit dealing back in the 80s--the money was good, but I hated inhaling stinkarette smoke all the damn time.)
It's interesting that poker tables went the other way. First, the two seats next to the dealer were designated nonsmoking; then, soon afterward, almost all poker rooms went completely nonsmoking. I theorize that this happened for either or both of two reasons: 1) poker dealers are somewhat higher in the casino pecking order than blackjack and craps dealers; and 2) before full-blown casinos were really a thing in SoCal, there were the massive poker barns like the Bicycle Club and Commerce, and those went nonsmoking when CA banned all indoor smoking. So people liked those conditions so much, they didn't want to play in smoky Vegas poker rooms.
Like you, I strongly suspect that a nonsmoking casino would be more profitable than a smoking-allowed one. But as I said, Vegas culture may prevent that from happening. I'm sure that if the Park MGM doesn't do well, all the suits and the "wise" gaming columnists will blame it on their nonsmoking policy.
IMHO smoking should be forbidden on planet Earth, but that's an even longer way away.
People vulnerable to vice tend to have more than one....historically there's a pretty big correlation between smokers, alcoholics, sex addicts, and gamblers. Its not been good business to exclude one of those demographics from your establishment.
But I think America is finally starting to fade smoking out of its popularity. Non-smokers now outnumber smokers and the two groups tend to not coexist happily under the same roof.
many casino's now offer non-smoking areas in the casino - I'm sure they'll soon have rooms to follow. In the meantime there's lots of hotels within walking distance of the strip that are non-smoking including some pretty swanky high-rise joints.
Kevin brings up a point: Has any hotel/casino management compared insurance premium reduction should they choose to go non-smoking? It seems intuitive that premiums could be lowered, but has this ever been factually inquired about by management of any property?
Candy
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
Kevin brings up a point: Has any hotel/casino management compared insurance premium reduction should they choose to go non-smoking? It seems intuitive that premiums could be lowered, but has this ever been factually inquired about by management of any property?
Candy
I would imagine that they know that any property open to the public that bans smoking pays lower fire insurance premiums. I would also imagine that such savings, however substantial, are deemed not enough incentive to institute a nonsmoking policy. As I mentioned before, that was a major element of the Reno Ponderosa's publicly stated rationale--that there would be substantial insurance savings. But their terrible location doomed them.
I wonder if MGM has issued any statements justifying the smoking ban at the Park. I doubt they'd mention insurance savings, though, except maybe in MGM's annual report. It's likely more warm fuzzy shit like "the comfort of our guests."
This brings up a larger point, though. Has anyone polled Vegas visitors to see if they would visit more often if there were widespread nonsmoking properties, or even a statewide indoor smoking ban a la California? I know I would definitely be more inclined to visit and to stay longer, and I doubt I'm alone.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
I would imagine that they know that any property open to the public that bans smoking pays lower fire insurance premiums. I would also imagine that such savings, however substantial, are deemed not enough incentive to institute a nonsmoking policy. As I mentioned before, that was a major element of the Reno Ponderosa's publicly stated rationale--that there would be substantial insurance savings. But their terrible location doomed them.
I wonder if MGM has issued any statements justifying the smoking ban at the Park. I doubt they'd mention insurance savings, though, except maybe in MGM's annual report. It's likely more warm fuzzy shit like "the comfort of our guests."
This brings up a larger point, though. Has anyone polled Vegas visitors to see if they would visit more often if there were widespread nonsmoking properties, or even a statewide indoor smoking ban a la California? I know I would definitely be more inclined to visit and to stay longer, and I doubt I'm alone.
My words: "Seems intuitive." Kevin's words: " I would imagine." Pretty much the same meaning, we both wonder, but do not know, if this ever comes up in board room meetings. "What is the premium if we go with Insurance Co. A vs Insurance Co. B, smoking premium vs non-smoking premium." I doubt we will ever be privi to that kind of decision making, but one does wonder if it even comes up.
Candy
As a smoker (for too many years) I 100% do not mind or disagree with casinos going non-smoking. I presume that the casino's would allow smoking in outside areas attached to their buildings to ensure the gambler came back in to continue feeding the machines.
This being the case then I'm not sure how the rates for insurance premiums would go down drastically.(I'm sure they would go down though) You have to accept that there is still the possibility of a fire (however small) being caused by a smoker from an outside area. It probably would not get into the casino floor but with the right wind conditions and certain "human" errors it could cause some major damage.
Just my two penny's worth
Keep safe
Terry
Originally posted by: rett98
As a smoker (for too many years) I 100% do not mind or disagree with casinos going non-smoking. I presume that the casino's would allow smoking in outside areas attached to their buildings to ensure the gambler came back in to continue feeding the machines.
This being the case then I'm not sure how the rates for insurance premiums would go down drastically.(I'm sure they would go down though) You have to accept that there is still the possibility of a fire (however small) being caused by a smoker from an outside area. It probably would not get into the casino floor but with the right wind conditions and certain "human" errors it could cause some major damage.
Just my two penny's worth
Keep safe
Terry
Rett, I am also a smoker and have no problem with any establishment deciding to go non-smoking. While 21 and over bars in my town can legally allow smoking, most do not. Perfect..........let the market decide.
