Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterDAILY MEMO: GAMING:
Smoking poses tough choices
Gingerly, casinos are making relatively small areas smoke free
Monday, Sept. 22, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Lorelle Ellis and her husband have settled into a comfortable routine: A few times a week, often before dinner, they stop by Green Valley Ranch Station Casino and drop a few bucks in the slot machines.
Ellis quit smoking in 1966. What makes her different from many gamblers isn’t that she doesn’t smoke, it’s that she isn’t shy about complaining, to management and smokers alike, about the smoking of fellow customers.
She will happily ask nearby gamblers not to light up unless she’s at a comfortable distance. If she’s in a less charitable mood, she will let a smoker know that he is “doing her a favor” by giving her an excuse to cut short a losing streak and leave.
Many locals — even those who supported the 2006 voter-approved ban on smoking in restaurants and public areas beyond casino floors — have accepted smoking in casinos as a part of Nevada’s “live and let live” culture.
But increasingly, casinos are accommodating gamblers like Ellis, who retired to Henderson from San Francisco 11 years ago.
Station Casinos, the largest operator of locals casinos, recently opened nonsmoking gambling areas at Green Valley Ranch and Red Rock Resort. The nonsmoking area at Green Valley includes 140 slot machines and is at the entrance closest to nearby homes. The nonsmoking area at Red Rock includes 110 slot machines near popular locals venues such as the movie theaters, bingo room and sports book.
Station is also planning a nonsmoking section at its Aliante Station casino in North Las Vegas, and a nonsmoking section is planned near the bowling center at Sunset Station in Henderson. (Green Valley Ranch and Aliante Station are owned in partnership with the Greenspun family, which owns the Las Vegas Sun.)
For casinos, the smoking debate hasn’t been a public health issue, but a matter of simple economics.
Gamblers who smoke are more profitable, if not more numerous, than those who don’t, managers say. Nonsmokers will generally still gamble because they have grown accustomed to the smoke.
Ellis, 70, and her husband, for example, continued to patronize Green Valley Ranch despite her complaints, and have not increased their visits since the creation of the nonsmoking area.
Those are powerful deterrents to a casino smoking ban, even for casino bosses who philosophically support it. But the long-accepted formulas appear to be changing as public demand has driven the recent moves to create nonsmoking areas.
Station Casinos spokeswoman Lori Nelson said the company is responding to customers’ requests.
Ellis had complained to Green Valley Ranch management nearly a dozen times over a few years.
“I’m glad they’re doing something about it,” she said. “I see people who are drunk and I think, that’s so foolish. But that is not affecting my health like someone smoking.”
Casinos began to prohibit smoking in poker rooms a few years ago, after realizing that many players preferred not to smoke or drink to better focus on their games. A couple of years ago, MGM Grand designated four nonsmoking blackjack pits with 10 tables each. Both MGM Grand and Mandalay Bay, a sister property, will make tables nonsmoking upon request.
These smoke-free areas are minor experiments compared with the smoking ban that goes into effect Oct. 15 in Atlantic City casinos. (Casinos will be allowed to construct enclosed smoking lounges like those at airports.) That ban, the largest of its kind in the U.S. casino industry, will put the theories about gambling and smoking to the test once and for all and help determine whether people like Ellis are a small minority or a growing force.
“It’s not about pleasing me. It’s about making money,” Ellis said with a laugh.
For casinos, which are among the last bastions for smokers, it’s about trying to do both as smoking bans spread.
Discussion: 41 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Police: 3 arrested in officer’s death have gang ties
- Corrections officer with Metro killed in U.S. 95 crash
- System fails to catch contractor’s family tie with county
- Where to watch UFC 106
- Fontainebleau contractors say sales process is flawed
- UNLV and Southern Illinois will be guarded tonight
- SEC sues former gaming exec for alleged insider trading
- Station Casinos, lenders agree to rent decrease at 4 properties
- Findlay guard Joseph scores 33, talks about UNLV
- Bishop Gorman takes Sunset Region title in win over Cimarron
Blogs
The Kats Report
For props, Lewis Black needs only his manic delivery and torrid material (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Sands China raises $2.5 billion in Hong Kong IPO (1 Comment)
Marquardt v. Sonnen scheduled for UFC 109
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Will a fourth consecutive title by Jimmie Johnson be good or bad for NASCAR? (3 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
The Jet Stream: And then there were four
Top Chef Episode 12: On keeping it simple
Miech Again
Chilly start for Chace, but Stanback says he'll warm up (2 Comments)
- Live chat
- Tuesday, noon PST
- Chat with Krista Creelman
- Problem Gambling Center executive director Krista Creelman will answer questions about gambling addiction from Las Vegas Sun readers from noon to 1 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. ... Submit question
Calendar »
- 22 Sun
- 23 Mon
- 24 Tue
- 25 Wed
- 26 Thu
-
UFC 106 at Mandalay Bay Events Center
Mandalay Bay Events Center | 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.
-
Julio Iglesias at the Las Vegas Hilton
Las Vegas Hilton
-
Natasha Wicks hosts at Hawaiian Tropic Zone
Hawaiian Tropic Zone | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Tito Ortiz hosts at Tao
Tao | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
Hiroshima at Santa Fe Station
Santa Fe Station
-
Frank Mir hosts at LAX
LAX Nightclub | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
-
The Four Tops at The Orleans Showroom
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
Amir Sadollah hosts at Prive
Prive | 10 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
We never should have banned smoking in any private establishment. That is authoritarian. Private establishements could and did provide non-smoking areas.
If they didn't deal with it or don't go...and no I'm not a smoker.
The only thing the anti smoking ban did was give more power and profit to the casinos.
As a non-smoker I have a few problems with this. First is the attitude that this lady gives everybody for doing what they are legally allowed to do. If you don't like it, LEAVE, or are you expecting the People's Commissariat of Indoor Air Pollution to take the offender away to a reeducation camp?
Second, I have a problem with people talking about this smoke affecting their health. So you're fine losing money, drinking, being out late, and being around scantily clad ladies, but a cigarette just puts it over the edge? Come on people. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Lobby a casino to be that way, but don't take everyone else's pleasure away.
I guess there are many people that have poor decision making skills that result in smoking and gambling.
This is where the liberal striving to utopia world breaks down. Sometimes the real world is a very harsh world to live in.
One hand we have ten of thousand of jobs at stake.
On the other hand we have the well-being and lives of casino workers.
It is obvious that some casino workers will die an earlier death because of all the second hand smoke that they breath five times a week.
But if we ban smoking in casinos then ten of thousands of Las Vegas jobs will be immediately destroyed.
Also, there will be millions of less dollars going into government offers. The liberals do not want kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Also, most of those workers are union workers. The unions need those union fees so that they can rob it and make themselves rich.
It is a very tough choice for liberals.
If you are a casino worker that works on the floor each day then you have to realized that you are taking a grave risk from second hand smoke.
btw, I'm (I guess you would say) a liberal (*gasp* bum, bum, buuuuuuuuuuuum), and I still feel that Americans or at least Las Vegans should be able to smoke where no minors have any business. I agree nance that these peoples' lives are somewhat risked, but I find it hard to believe that they didn't know the dangers when they signed up. When I became a painter as a teen, I didn't walk into the job thinking, "Mmmm, working around lots of oil based chemicals and fine particulants, I'm sure my overall health and well being won't be compromised having this stuff on my skin and lungs."
Come on people, the role of government is not supernanny.
I don't smoke either but I have a real problem when government butts in to tell business how they can and can't run themselves. Why this was ever put to a vote is beyond me - since when do the voters have the right to decide how someone runs their business. As an individual we all have 2 choices - to patronize the business or to NOT patronize the business. If the smoking bothers someone they should choose the 2nd option. As for the workers - well they know full well what they are exposing themselves to - apparently the lure of the big tips is enough for them to decide to deal with it. The girls are willing to walk around in outfits 3 sizes too small so everything they own is falling out just to make the big tips so why should a little cigarette smoke hurt. All in all I think government has enough 'real' issues to contend with - they need to keep their noses out of peoples private businesses.
I have many times complained to Harrahs about the lack of smoke free areas in their casinos. I will be visiting again at thanksgiving staying at harrahs and if their are no smoke free zones then I will be gambling at green valley ranch.
Your approach is fine. If you have a problem, you confront the establishment. However, do you get in patrons' faces when they exercise an option they legally have? That's the attitude that I hate, that we have to accommodate you when there is no legality behind that claim.
Personally smoke all the coffin nails you want, I only get in a tizzy when you're stupid enought to be smoking by a gas pump (true story). The reason for that is not the long term consequences, but the short term. On my list dying in a fire ranks somewhere in the top 3 ways to not die.
"do you get in patrons' faces when they exercise an option they legally have? That's the attitude that I hate"
Do I not have the legal right to breath air not contaminated with carcinogens.
In a word NO. Also concidering the valley's smog, you have a great choice between indoor or outdoor carcinogens.
You have a right to leave, but you have no RIGHT to walk up and boss people around who are doing what is legal.
If you don't like it LEAVE our town and don't come back. Probably didn't want you anyways. You know there's Atlantic City with its total smoking ban in October. Hang out there. Otherwise it's a free country. Let people do what they can do while they still can.
Also you may have the upper hand in this instance, but I would hate to see what private vice you have that will become the next target after smoking. What about drinking? What about swearing? Red meat? Salt? Caffeine? Keep the nanny state coming, because God knows we adults don't know what's best for our own selves.
Or hey, you want smoke free. Get your butt over to a supermarket, and you can gamble all you want in a smoke free room. Or a bar that serves food, or a gas station, or any number of other venues that have to be smoke free.
In any case point exactly where in the bill of rights it mentions carcinogens, because in the libertarian/individualist sense I guarantee you that smoking could fall under "pursuit of happiness."
ps
If it's really about being in a casino, part of that feel is being able to smoke. QUIT RUINING OUR STATE'S ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY!!!!!
Like it or not smoking will be banned eventually in all public places including casino floors.
Well then move over Democracy - hello Communism - so much for all of our so-called FREEDOMS now huh! I don't smoke but personally I could care less one way or the other whether a casino is smoke-free or not. What DOES concern me is government sticking their noses into private enterprises - and it should concern you too.
Doubt it very much that smoking will be completely banned. In any case I agree azsk8, what'll be next...see previous posts for where I think that wind will blow.
To end here's a good quote that I'll probably butcher, "those who would trade their freedom for security deserve neither."
A smoke-free environment is in the best interest of all patrons and employees. I wonder if all the extra revenue that casinos claim to generate from smokers is worth the extra labor and replacement materials necessary to clean up after them. (i.e. machines used as ash trays, burned seating and carpet) Or for that matter, the revenue lost from non-smokers cashing out when a smoker sits down next to them and lights up without any regard for the people sitting around them. There is a behavioral element to the smoking issue that nobody seems to address and that is common courtesy. The struggle with smokers wouldn't be half as bad if they simply cared to ask the people sitting around them "would you mind if I smoked a cigarette?". Truthfully, my answer would be, "no, as long as you hold the cigarette below your seat and exhale upward - and thank you for asking, its refreshing".
Until things change for the better, hopefully one smoker who reads this post will think twice the next time they go to light up.
Casino marketing teams, I challenge you to ditch just one of your tin canister giveaways and offer a quality breathing mask that will allow non-smokers to play beyond the limited 100 games or less in a non-smoking section.
IGT . Design your slot encasements to include a cigarette port in your machines that will suck the smoke into a filtration system.
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke. Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and is the only real hazard involved -- the cancer of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision? Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, -- whose customers are free to go elsewhere.
All decisions involve risks; some have harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
Thomas Laprade
Try going to Utah and smoke. Not even in the state or city parks. About the only place is in your house. For the liberal basher last time I remember Utah is the reddest STATES THAT TELL YOU what to do and how high to jump and they also say if you don't like it leave. That is some less govt. Be thankful you live in Nevada LOL For you non smokers if you want change without govt dictating then stop going to the casino's believe me it then will change. But that will not change you think you are going to win win win. Just remembe all those billion dollar casino's were built from your winning LOL
You have to love all the people who left California because it became too expensive; and it became too expensive because of all their "propositions" etc.
So they all moved here ..... and are now trying to make this just like the place they left.
The American Cancer Society is already doing secret tests on the nicotine levels of casino workers. It will only take a worker to get lung cancer who has never smoked. That person will sue and get millions that will force casinos to sit up and listen and ban smoking.
Last I checked most smokers are considerate to others and make sure that the smoke doesn't waft over to others. It's just the militant non smokers who lip off to people when they are smoking. IT'S A LEGAL BEHAVIOR. I might get annoyed when a pedestrian in a crosswalk takes their sweet time, but I don't honk at them and give them an attitude. Seriously non smokers grow up. If you don't like it MOVE, if you don't like how smoky the casino is LEAVE. Jesus, where's the gun forcing you to stay. Also as stated earlier, what other "vice" will the government regulate next. Get big government out of our lives. Or how about move to Utah or California where that behavior isn't allowed. You morons KNEW how Nevada was, and now it's such a pain and shock that you want to change this state into California.
oh and non smokers, quit crying about how small the non smoking areas are. You guys are like 5 year olds. Oh we want a small area to gamble smoke free. OK.... Oh we also want some tables and the poker room. OK... Oh we want the entire damn casino with no spot for smokers... NO. Give these people an inch and they'll take a yard.
Back in the early eighties I banned smoking in my home. My father would come around and complain that we were being anti-social. Well guess what he died last year from an aneurysm at 70 caused by smoking. Atlantic city will be a very good indicator of what will happen if smoking is banned. Vegas smokers had better hope that takings plummet else there argument will be worthless. I would not be suprised to see takings climb. I myself always seem to not be able to stay as long on the gaming floor as i would like my eyes sting and i get very tired due to smoke. I am sure that a lot of non smokers have the same problem. Will smokers gamble less I doubt it. They already show they have addictive personalities so will gamble whatever limitations are placed on them. After a few hours on the floor my clothing smells so bad that peversley my non smoking room eventually smells of nicotine and my non dirty clothes have to be tossed for washing.
I love how we have someone commenting who immediately ties this to a "liberal" problem. Sounds like a person who wants to pin any negativity he/she can to the left. I bet to them, no matter what side of the argument they are on, this is the fault of democrats and the Obama campaign...
I don't see how this is a left/right issue. If anything I would see this as people being too "conservative" and not letting people practice their LIBERTY (see "being liberal") and be able to do what they are legally allowed to do, smoke.
Casinos are private establishments, and we don't need the gov't telling private businesses what they can and can't allow. I am a non-smoker, but if I don't want to deal with smokers, then I don't go to those establishments.
The government has bigger fish to fry than imposing smoking bans at the will of grumpy people who wish to impose their lifestyle choices on others.
AMEN!!!
The only reason they are legally allowed to smoke is because of powerful casino lobying groups. They don't care if their patrons and workers health is harmed as long as their bottom line remains healthy. This is a total scandal and I hope that the lawsuits come fast and hard from people sickened by their greedy policies. The argument if you dont like it stay away is facetious why should smokers rights be any more than non smokers rights, as normal in law it is the innocent who get the least protection. It is legal to fart and stink of body odour but i bet if you subjected a smoker to these smells they would soon complain.
I have been a bartender in town for the last 15 yrs. and with the rest of the country banning smoking, Las vegas bars are overwhelmed with secondhand smoke. It has become a place where tourists sit down with a pack and go nuts!
Do we as casino workers have the right to clean air? Well you knew the risk when you took the job, That will be the arguement. With the dangers of secondhand smoke being published year after year now, do we have any chance to improve our working conditions? or do we continue to breathe in all the fumes of that cancer
I am not advocating that casinos should be totally smoke free. 50% of the casino floor should be a smoke free zone why this should upset smokers is beyond me. As for Todd Soligo labeling me Grumpy because I am not happy breathing noxious gases which make me tired and hurt my eyes is very unbalanced journalism. A more balanced approach is to try to accomodate both sides rather than try to quash one sides need.
Lorelle Ellis sounds like a major beoytch...go to the non-smoking section of the casino - if they don't have one then bitch to the casino about it and leave the smokers alone - smoking is LEGAL so if you don't like it then take your complaints to management. I don't smoke but people with attitudes like Lorelle would be enough to make me light up just for spite. As long as the smoker isn't going into a non-smoking section then I say it's up to Lorelle to move and not up to the smoker to extinguish their cigarette.
oh, and why does it not surprise me the Lorelle is from................California.............
Totally agree that smokers are not at fault here it is the greedy casinos who don't want to go to the expense of splitting their gambling floors into 2 areas. This would enable both groups of gamblers to be happy and if they rotated their staff between areas then their exposure to nicotine would be cut in half instantly. This is all about compromise and allowing people to live their lives as they choose.
Wynner, if I were a smoker and there were NO non-smoking areas of the casino I wouldn't have a problem at all being polite enough to ask before lighting up - this just all seems to be so unnecessary if the smoker is in the smoking section of the casino and a non-smoker CHOOSES to gamble in that section........I can't imagine why they'd choose that area if a non-smoking area is being provided.....in computer lingo that kind of person would be called a 'troll' - and it's obvious they just LIKE to create drama
Hey redferret - maybe there's a reason why the non-smoking area's are so small huh LOL........just proves that either there aren't enough non-smokers to support a smoke-free casino or that the non-smokers are trolls, in either case it really is a very simple solution now isn't it. Too bad only a handful of us on here seem to 'get it' when it comes to excessive government intrusion.
In any case azsk8fan, from what I heard from grandma and mom was that it had been tried and failed. There simply are not enough non smoking gamblers out there to make it work. And I still stand by if you don't like stop going, or is someone forcing you to go, maybe the gambling monkey, you know the one on your back?
I like to gamble. The casino wants me to gamble. All I ask is for free drinks and a smoke free atmosphere. Why should smokers come into the equation to spoil my fun. Live and let live you smoke in your half and I will gamble smoke free in mine what is the problem with that.
The problem will probably lie in how the non smokers want to divy up the casino. Will your half be by the exits, by the attractions, by the elevators, by the restaraunts, etc? Secondly, you non smokers wont be happy with simply using the old invisible line to demarcate the spheres of influence. I'm thinking they will want glass partitions, floor to ceiling. So now we might have to wander around an already confusing maze of lights, metal, and tacky carpets with the added fun of glass partitions.
It is a tough call.
A smoking ban at the casinos would but thousands of Las Vegans out of work.
On the other, there are and will continue to be casino workers that will die earlier deaths because all the second hand smoke that they breath 5 days of the week.
Comparing a smoker's behavior to a person crossing the street (as mentioned above) is a poor analogy, however, it does reinforce the oblivious nature of the problem.
Look, there doesn't have to be a smoking ban in Las Vegas. People just need to be smarter about their actions and gaming resorts need to develop responsible plans to win both smoking and non-smoking customers over without having to separate them. Circulating air is fine for the overall air on the floor. Smoke drifting across your face while you are playing is UNPLEASANT and it takes the fun out of gaming. Smokers can't control where their smoke is going to drift so close in proximity to others, and as long as they need to hold the cigarette while they play the machine, it will drift in the faces of those sitting next to them. This is why gaming corporations need to put an emphasis on acquiring better equipment designed to redirect idle burning cigarette smoke into a simple filtration system as the gamer plays. This is not sophisticated technology and would be a lot cheaper than a smoking ban. It is an approach that would permit EVERYONE a pleasant environment to play.
For the record, I am not a journalist(or a smoker) nor do I have any influence on this story(or any other story). I simply work for the company. I am not labeling anyone anything, only making a general statement about the way I feel about the issue, which is, if you don't like the smoke, you have the option not to patronize the establishment.
If the casino's business is hurting enough because of this, then perhaps it would be in their best interest to ban smoking in their casino. This is not the job of the gov't.
Todd, I am a Republican. I think the Sun is a left-wing paper, but the Sun does generate good news stories every now and then.
I also believe the Las Vegas Sun's website is light years ahead of the LVRJ.
Keep up the good work.
Also, I really like the plane flying on the banner in the header panel on the top of each page.
I guess that is some Flash that you did.
Also, I really like the plane flying on the banner in the header panel on the top of each page.
I guess that is some Flash that you did.
Lets not back cigarettes by putting a blame on the government for a casino ban in Las Vegas that doesnt even exist yet.
First, I think it is clear that smoking causes cancer and apparently the surgeon general backs me on this. If smoking is so safe why would a non-hazardous product have so much warning verbage written right on the package not to mention photos of black lungs and brain cancer pictures located on the outside of the package?
What if tobacco wasnt the only airborne product used publicly that had ill affects on health? Should we all just stand by why harmful chemicals are put in the air for the rest of us to breathe? Why not smoke asbestos, office building smoke or other biotoxin laced cigarettes while we are at it so I can breathe that "second hand" smoke as well. (Really its first hand smoke a majority of time. Especially those slot machine smokers who hold the cigarettes out in the isles away from their face when they are not puffing as if the smoke actually bothers them!)
As usual in these smoke-related articles there is zero mention of the other illnesses that are affected by smoke that apparently most people are unaware of. Ill just name one.
Many people in the world have immediate allergic reactions to tobacco. This is not a phantom reaction and it is almost impossible to cure. Just to fill you in, the reaction is a constant mucus flow attacking both the nasal and throat areas. It can get to the point of coughing and mild choking and constant nose blowing. You think about having to go work through an entire shift like that. Despite allergy shots and allergy medication the problem still exists for many people.
Is it really too much to ask that we are able to breath actual clear air, semi-fresh as it may be? Is it too much to ask smokers to take a step outside so that they arent smoking around individuals indoors who cant escape the smoke?
If you want to really put a blame on the system and the government, step back and look at what arena you are actually defending. I am neither a republican, nor a democrat, so my views are not politically motivated. This is a government approved stimulant that is highly addictive and taxed by our government in which the hazards were largely ignored by the government for decades! How much more government intervention involving one product to stay on the shelves could there be? Lets not forget to mention how big the tobacco business is that you have also bought into. You literally had to of let the system take you over if you have given in to a product with such an addictive chemical as nicotine.
You might want to be thankful that you even have these products at all and the liberty to ingest their pollutant smoke, in your home, car, or outside at any time. Its a pollutant, just like any other pollutant that should be banned, and that I shouldn't have to breathe indoors.