Question of the Day - 20 October 2018

Revel already tried this when they opened.  They lasted less than a year, IIRC, and then allowed smoking.

Smoke free and going strong. There is a patio area with slots that allows smoking.

There has never been a peer reviewed study - one not associated with deep ties to Big Tobacco or the gaming industry - that showed a fall off in revenue due to smoking restrictions. Not a single one. There is often an initial dip, then revenue returns. They said the same thing about restaurants, particularly in New York City. This will kill the restaurants and bars... it didn't. More robust business than ever before. People often cite casinos/cities where this has been tried and the casinos have faltered... but what they don't take into consideration is competition from neighboring states, in some cases brand new casinos with full featured amenities that compete with older poorly marketed casinos. Everybody likes to talk about Atlantic City's Revel, but they don't mention the saturated market and that three or four other *smoking* casinos closed shortly thereafter and that AC ignored competition from neighboring states for years.

According to a 2007 - 2008 study done in Nevada, the percentage of smokers in casinos mirrors the general population... in other words, gamblers are no more likely to be smokers than those visiting movie theaters or department stores. And the percentage has plummeted since then and now hovers below 18% ...and is falling. There is no evidence that even suggests that those who smoke gamble more or lose more... if there were, don't you think the casinos would share this as they continue to fight smoking regulations? Back to Atlantic City... due to a legal snafu, a total smoking ban actually went into effect a decade ago before it was rescinded 2 weeks later. Revenue was not up year over year in a poorly run market, but casinos lost less money during the brief smoking ban. And the highest grossing casino in Florida is one that prohibits smoking in a jurisdiction where other casinos permit it. Only thing preventing casinos from going smoke free is irrational fear - and millions in lobbying.

Part of Illinois problem is Iowa, Wisconsin and Indiana having smoke-filled casinos nearby. Also Rivers in Des Plaines has cut into other casinos in the Chicago area, but one of the biggest factors is the "slot joints". Everywhere in the state there are places that have the state maximum of 5 video slot machines. Doesn't sound like much but the September revenue was over 120 MILLION, which I can imagine also takes a bite out of the 10 casinos' income.

Jumers casino in Rock Island Illinois allows eCigs.

Smoking is nothing more than a drug addiction to nicotine.  Now I don't care one bit if anyone wants to be a drug addict but I draw the line at anyone who forces their addiction upon me.  Smoking or vaping toward a non addict is an ASSAULT and you can be arrested and prosecuted for it.  No difference with anyone who used a needle to get high, caught AIDS and then physically contacted anyone else.  The only reason nicotine is permitted instead of enforced by the DEA is because nicotine is classified as a POISON but considered safe in small doses ever though it is more addiction than heroine.  So smokers are nothing more than drug addicts slowly committing suicide with a legally permitted poison.  Now that's what our Federal Government calls "Population Control".

Deadwood S. D. casinos all ha to go non-smoking a few years ago, despite casinos' having petitions to stop the ban, but South Dakota passed it anyway.  Don't think it stopped smokers from going to casinos.  Love the smoke-free atmosphere. Wish Iowa would do it too.

I don't agree with the assessment that a smoke-free casino can't ever be successful in Las Vegas. To the contrary: The majority of Vegas visitors are from Southern California, and California has the 2nd-lowest smoking rate in the country (12% or less), after Utah. The clear majority of us hate cigarette smoke and would welcome a smoke-free casino. Smoke-free casinos have failed because they don't offer a good-enough gaming experience. We video poker players go where the best VP is, and smoke-free casinos have traditionally had inferior games. Give us full-pay machines, along with enough of the standard casino/hotel amenities and low-enough (or free) lodging costs, and that could be our new "go-to" casino. Someone should go ahead and try to build a smoke-free casino, with all that I've mentioned, and I think they will succeed.

Whether it’s babies or cigarettes, give people a choice. Non-smokers talk about big tobacco money, but CA taxes cigarettes to the hilt and all that money goes to non-smoking ads that use the same wacky unreal science as pro-tobacco does. If you’re that concerned you need to move or also ban all fossil fuel burning because that’s far worse than any second hand smoke. 

Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette.
Puff, puff, puff until you puff yourself to death.
Tell Saint Peter at the golden gate,
Lord you hate to make him wait,
but you've gotta have another cigarette!!!

LOL

The Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis did an economic analysis in 2009 and found that "Illinois casinos suffered losses of more than 20 percent – well over $400 million – in total during the first year of the Smoke Free Illinois Act." We don't know if revenues have stabilized or if the decline in rates is permanent, but we do know that changes do lead to losses. QOD makes a good point about starting out smokefree vs. a dramatic shift.  Here is the link to the research, if you'll let me post it: http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2009/2009-027.pdf