Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Terrie Price, outside her home in Las Vegas in April, dealt cards for 26 years at Caesars Palace, whose management, she says, “didn’t care” about dealers’ health. “We’ve been waiting a long time for this” study, says Price, who vigorously supports an industry-wide smoking ban.
Thursday, May 7, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
- Closer look at smoking ban (5-1-2009)
- Casino restaurant patrons can't elude secondhand smoke (1-16-2009)
- Study finds high pollution levels in casino restaurants (1-15-2009)
- Smoking ban not doing all the banning sponsors hoped (7-21-2009)
Las Vegas casino dealers are exposed to a host of harmful chemicals through secondhand smoke while on the job, according to a new National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study.
The study, the first to examine the effects of secondhand smoke in Las Vegas casinos, reported that the dealers had traces of a tobacco-specific carcinogen in their urine.
The results were drawn from 124 casino dealers at Bally’s, Caesars Palace and Paris Las Vegas who wore portable pumps that measured the level of tobacco smoke in the air during their shifts. In addition, 114 dealers submitted urine samples to the agency before and after their shifts.
The institute conducted research and interviewed workers during three on-site visits from July 2005 through January 2006.
Anti-smoking advocates hailed the results of the long-awaited study, which mirror previous government and privately funded research on secondhand smoke and are expected to provide ammunition to those pressuring the gaming industry to implement smoking bans.
“Casino workers deserve the same rights as other workers, including the right to a healthy and safe workplace, free from toxic secondhand smoke,” said Cynthia Hallett, executive director of Americans For Nonsmokers’ Rights. “After the release of this report, we hope to see casino workers protected by strong smoke-free workplace laws throughout the country.”
But insiders said that won’t be easy, even if many casino executives privately support the idea. The industry has long fought smoking bans, fearing they would cut into profits as smokers go elsewhere to light up or interrupt their games to smoke outdoors.
With the recession pushing some casino companies to the verge of bankruptcy, some insiders say the industry would put up an even bigger fight during such a critical time.
“If we (ban smoking) and competitors don’t follow suit, what then?” said one executive, who asked not to be named.
The institute’s report found that a majority of the 147 dealers who completed a separate health survey reported symptoms such as red or irritated eyes, a cough, stuffy nose, runny nose and headache. In total, 11 percent of the dealers studied, who did not work in poker rooms at the time, had been diagnosed with asthma, while 35 percent had symptoms suggestive of work-related asthma. Many poker rooms have voluntarily banned smoking.
“That strikes me as enormous,” considering that only about 7 percent of the national population suffers from asthmatic symptoms, said James Repace, a biophysicist and former EPA scientist who has testified in smoking lawsuits against businesses, including casinos. “This is an important result that broadens the information we have on secondhand smoke.”
While the sample size was relatively small, it’s significant for a study of this kind, said Repace, who has conducted similar studies that have been published in academic journals.
The study adds a significant chapter to a small body of research on secondhand smoke in casinos.
Although some scientists and other researchers who support smoking bans have conducted such research, the institute — which conducts research and offers recommendations, but doesn’t enforce workplace safety — has completed a handful of studies on secondhand smoke, but only one other casino study, of Bally’s workers in Atlantic City, focusing on secondhand smoke.
Institute officials said the study’s results were in line with previous research conducted by various groups on secondhand smoke. Officials blamed the more than three-year lag time in completing the study on staffing, turnover and a backlog of other research reports.
“This took longer than we would have liked,” said Christine West, a nurse epidemiologist for the institute and study co-author, adding that casino management fully cooperated with researchers during the information-gathering process.
Few government studies exist in part because institute evaluations are driven by employee complaints and workers fear they will be fired for requesting a study of their workplaces, said Stephanie Steinberg, chairwoman of Smoke-Free Gaming, a Colorado-based group that lobbies for smoking bans in several states, including Nevada.
“This rigorous evaluation shows this isn’t just the perception of the employee. It’s a reality that they were exposed to carcinogens at work,” she said.
Terrie Price, who dealt cards at Caesars Palace for 25 years, requested the agency study the air at Caesars and the other casinos, where colleagues worked. She called the study a vindication of two decades’ worth of complaints.
“We’ve been waiting a long time for this,” she said.
A spokesman for Harrah’s Entertainment, which owns the casinos at issue in the study, declined to comment on specific findings, saying the company is still reviewing the report.
In response to the smoking ban recommendation, spokesman Gary Thompson said the company would consider a nationwide smoking ban provided that it includes all gambling venues, such as racetracks and tribal casinos.
The study comes as many properties, including those owned by Harrah’s, have voluntarily banned smoking in poker rooms as well as at certain slot machines and tables. A few years ago, Harrah’s began offering smoking cessation courses for employees and financial incentives for workers who quit smoking.
And yet, while most states have smoke-free workplace laws, most states that allow gambling also have built-in exemptions for gambling venues such as casinos or racetracks.
Nevada’s Clean Indoor Air Act, approved by a majority of voters in 2006, includes an exemption for the gambling floors of casinos and bars that don’t serve food. Las Vegas video poker bars are pushing legislation that would partially roll back the initiative by allowing smoking in bars that prevent access to minors.
Although the casino industry has publicly opposed smoking bans, many decision-makers, at least privately, appear to be split on the issue.
Some casino executives, who declined to be named, say some companies are vehemently opposed to the idea of smoking bans, even ones that could be universally applied. Others are leaning toward nonsmoking environments.
With the rapid spread of smoking bans in recent years, the American Gaming Association, which lobbies on federal issues, in 2007 dropped efforts to fight smoking bans to avoid taking sides among competing members at the local and state levels.
“Indoor air quality is an issue that will be addressed on a company-by-company, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis,” American Gaming Association Executive Director Judy Patterson said Wednesday.
While national advocates turn up the heat on casino companies, local agencies are taking a wait-and-see approach to casino smoking bans.
Maria Azzarelli, a tobacco control coordinator with the Southern Nevada Health District, said the agency doesn’t intend to use the report to press for a smoking ban. The Health District focuses on education and prevention rather than lobbying, which is the realm of advocacy groups, she said.
The report should be no surprise to anyone on either side of the smoking debate, she added.
“The gaming industry is aware of all this, as many gaming establishments have voluntarily limited smoking because their patrons are asking for it. It’s a good business decision for these entities.”
This story as been corrected. An earlier version had the wrong number of years Terrie Price had been dealing cards.
One key element to this article is that casinos are worried that the Tribal Casinos will be exempt from any no-smoking regulations. Since they are sovereign nations, they can do whatever they want. The descendants of Tonto and Geronimo pretty much live in a tax-free world. No taxes, no regulation, no nothing. And they make a bundle....
Finally scientific evidence that applies to casino workers. Studies like this have been around for a while but no one wanted to pay attention. Disallowing clean air was bad for the local and state economy. Well, is it appropriate to "support" our main economic engine on the backs (ah lungs) of it's workers? Class Action Suite Baby just like the one the airline cabin attendents won with, remember that?
The casinos should convert all "dealer" tables to "computerized" tables. Not only would they save a crap load of money, but they also would not have to worry about all these class action lawsuits in the future. Also, the dealers these days just aren't friendly anymore so it's not like we're losing any kind of customer service.
Easy solution gaming industry...just make all your tables computerized..the technology is already here so convert over.
If I wanted computerized gaming, I could just stay home and play on line. In playing table games, it is nice to associate with the different dealers and have a conversation and the dealers at the Luxor are still friendly - at least to me and my wife. The true gambler wants the live action, not a computerized game that knows the outcome before the hand is even dealt. Keep the real games going.
Interesting that they got a shill who doesn't work for casinos anymore.
I'm thinking it's a sour grapes scenario with a former employer.
Most antis have some kind of unresolved bone to pick and choose the passive aggressive road.
I have never met an antismoker who didn't have "issues".
Not talking non-smokers, just the antis.
A very strange lot. Most do not attend places like casinos or bars anyway because these places do not fit their moral standards. Add in strip bars for good measure.
In 2009 this should be obvious. Time to clean up and get rid of the smokers.
Most customers hate the smoke.
I just don't get what the big deal is about making people smoke outside. If you want to smoke - fine, go for it. But just not indoors. Not only is it rude, disrespectful and selfish, it is physically harmful to everyone else around. I have yet to hear one reasonable argument from a smoker as to why they should be permitted to be allowed to light up indoors. It is not a god-given or constitutional right. Take your lazy a$$ outside! And have some freaking respect for others, the world does not revolve around you!
The world does not revolve around the smoker, the non-smoker or the antismoker.
The businessman should make the decision based on the majority of his clientele.... not because some group of loudmouthed lobbyists littered the media with their opinions on places that they.... do not frequent.. and... will not frequent even if their bulldozed platforms are implemented, even if for a short season.
(case in point NJ)
Either this is a matter for businesses to decide, or tobacco should be criminalized. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not a smoker, and never have been. But this is a question of who is responsible for determining one's future. There are plenty of businesses that do not permit smoking, and employees have the choice and opportunity to obtain jobs in one of those industries and/or establishments. They also have the choice to move to a region that more closely reflects their philosophy. They should exercise that right, and see how empowering it can be, rather than try to make everyone around them conform to their standards. That kind of passive-aggressive behavior tends to suck the life out of people until the only pleasure they derive is from getting their way.
Little by little, Nevada's frontier soul is being compromised by those who are accustomed to a nanny state mentality. If this continues, the gap between the psyche of Las Vegas and the rest of the country will be so narrow as to make it insignificant. That, more than anything, will spell the death of Las Vegas.
"It is not a god-given or constitutional right. Take your lazy a$$ outside! And have some freaking respect for others, the world does not revolve around you!"
Just as it is not YOUR constitutional right to visit a place that does NOT permit smoking. Take your lazy a$$ to another business. The world does not revolve around you, either.
I am not a smoker and actually don't like smoking at all- it's disugusting. But.....I am in the industry and if you talk to most dealers who are true dealers they know that the tokes come from the players that smoke and welcome it. Gambling, smoking, drinking is all intertwined. What should be address is the ventilation system. They need verify that the HVAC units provide the level of fresh air specified by ASHRAE for promoting indoor air quality. I've been in casinos where I could not tell that the person next to me was smoking. Also make the positions on each side of the dealer non-smoking
-this is sour grapes
Actually the smoke is bad for everybody. Putting an end to smoking while gambling and drinking would do a lot for everyone. I smoked for a couple of decades, but quit when information about its carcinogenic characteristics came out.
When they smoke at casinos, folks dump their garbage into my body when I'm in there counting cards, playing the odds and winning big bucks. It's clearly offensive; it's destructive and it causes cancer. Maybe we could adjust the air system as has been suggested; but then we still have gobs of smokers getting sick. We probably won't be able to change the law to put an end to the industry. I say if you want to smoke, do it outside where it doesn't goof everybody up. Rude? Not so much as just dumb.
A "long-awaited study" eh?
A study that was completed over THREE YEARS AGO and just happened to sit on the shelves in obscurity until a serious challenge was mounted to overturn the ban.
Duh. Can anyone out there spell "media manipulation" and "propaganda"? Or perhaps "Snake Oil Traveling Show And Emporium" ?
People, the smoke-banners LIE to you to get their bans and they will continue to lie to you in order to keep them. The "traces" in workers' urine is no surprise to anyone because human urine ALWAYS has "traces" of just about anything we're exposed to and excrete. "Traces" of anything can be found just about anywhere if one has enough expensive and sensitive enough equipment, but "traces" does not mean "harm" or "threat" in any real senses of the words.
The article also talks about perceived short-term symptoms of casino employees. Studies similar to this with bar workers as subjects have been carried out for years. They are also eliberately misleading and very vulnerable to manipulation and bias. See the "The 53 Bartenders Analysis" in the Stiletto at:
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257....
The Stiletto is short and one-sided but its facts are accurate and their presentation is honest.
Nevada's partial smoking ban has very likely cost the State and its taxpayers literally hundreds of millions of dollars over the past two years. See both the Stiletto and:
http://arclightzero.web.officelive.com/D...
to see a very simple but powerful graph showing what happened to the much smaller "Charitable Gambling" revenue in Minnesota after their ban: losses on the order of 400 million dollars a year in 2008 (extended data not graphed, but available at the government web site at www.gcb.state.mn.us ).
400 million a year paid NOT by the antismoking groups, NOT by the politicians who voted for the bans, but ultimately by the TAXPAYERS who are left holding the bag for the job losses and business closures.
The Antismokers deny those losses exist. But straight, public, government figures show they lie about this just as they lie about the "deadly threat" of wisps of secondary smoke in decently ventilated bars and casinos.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
I would like to repost my response to a previous article on this issue:
Second-hand smoke does hurt and kill innocent people. Any intelligent person will understand this. Do not listen to self-serving people who deny it. Smoking never should have been allowed in any enclosed public space to begin with. Unfortunately we did not know this until recent years. Banning smoking in public places is not taking away smoker's rights, it is correcting a serious wrong. There is no "right" to put into the air a substance that can injure or kill other people.
To people who make the argument that next we will ban cheeseburgers, etc., please think before you speak. Cheeseburgers certainly can kill you but they are not going to kill the person sitting next to you. Smoking can kill the person sitting next to you. Do you understand the difference?
People make the argument that the government should not interfere or further control us. The fact is that we have laws for a reason. We need laws in a world where people will harm others if not stopped from doing so. Our lives are made better because of many laws. One big example is drunk driving laws. It is clear that people are capable of doing things that can harm or kill others. Laws that protect innocent people are a good thing.
People argue that the owners of bars and restaurants should be able to decide if smoking is allowed. It is true that these are privately owned businesses. However, these owners make their money by opening their doors to the public. Many laws exist in each of those places to protect the public. Any person who wants to enter that business should be able to do so safely. If you smoke in your own home that is your business, but you should not be allowed to put a substance into the air inside a public place that can kill others. If you do not believe that second-hand smoke in a public place can harm people you need to learn more about the subject.
If someone were to spray a cancer-causing agent from a spray can into the air in a bar or restaurant they would surely be stopped. They would probably be arrested. Smoking in an enclosed public space is no different. For many years it has been done and has become commonplace. We know today how harmful it is. That is why we must correct such a big mistake. I say again, smoking never should have allowed in a public place from the start.
It is good when humanity grows and learns from knowledge and from past mistakes. It is sad when people fight it.
It is unfortunate if a bar or restaurant owner were to lose money because of a smoking ban. Just remember that there is a lot more to the story. And remember that this terrible economy is likely having the greatest impact. The worst of all evils in this matter is allowing people to continue do something that can seriously harm or kill employees working in a public place or patrons who want to go there.
The study can be found here:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdf...
The study does not appear take a random sample of Casino employees while the control group is very small (its just administrators and engineers). This potentially biases the results.
Never the less, the finding of the report is key: "NP casino dealers reported higher prevalence of respiratory symptoms compared to administrative and engineering employees, but the differences in the prevalence between the groups were not statistically significant."
Translation: There was no statistically significant difference in respiratory symptoms between those who worked in the smoking areas and those who worked in the non-smoking areas.
I find it interesting that a study is mentioned but no link to where it can be reviewed or no mention of who funded it. According to a study done by UCSF, the source of funding impacts the outcome of the study. http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=17...
Are you familiar with who funded smoking bans? The "non" profit foundation of Johnson & Johnson (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) paid through 2005, in grants, $446,398,054 (and more after that date) http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/b...
This week, the WSJ published the connection between RWJF, J&J and that J&J sells the ONLY over-the-counter NRT products. So, basically, RWJF funds the bans, owns tens of millions of shares of J&J stock and they pay to push their drugs. In fact, RWJF grantee the ACS, has lobbied to get Medicare to pay for NRT (sweet deal, huh?)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139960819782109.html
Interesting, too, that James Repace is quoted. He's also a recipient of a RWJF money. We won an Innovators award which helped fund his study "Ventilation In Bars, Casinos Doesn't Control Health Risk For Hospitality Workers".
Does anyone see a problem with any of this? You should.
Sure hate how the antis deny that smoking bans don't hurt adult entertainment businesses.
It's a tired LIE.
No one is listening concerning that. Every place that has had a smoking ban has seen LONG STANDING NIGHTCLUBS close one by one. Sometimes it doesn't take very long at all.
Look to Atlantic City for one example that applies directly to Vegas. The ban in the casinos was suspended BECAUSE OF THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE PROFITS.
I can't help if your first grade teacher did not teach you how to READ AND COMPREHEND.
Look at it again. SOUND IT OUT, if you need to.
Antis can keep lying and burying their heads in the sands all they want but it does not change REALITY.
Your rose-colored glasses are smashed, antis. They were not the right prescription to begin with.
Ichoosefreedom, Repace is big buddy with the mechanical engineer who claims to be a health expert. Would not trust either
In addition to the chapter on trends in public attitudes, the
compendium contained other articles on active smoking and on economic issues
surrounding workplace smoking. The only unifying theme of the compendium is
that, in the Agency's view, smoking and ETS are "bad." Like most of the
Agency's outside contractors on ETS, many chapter authors for the compendium,
including Stanton Glantz, Jonathan Samet, and, of course, James Repace -- had
long been active in the antismoking movement.
Although styled (and later defended by the Agency) as a
scientific reference document, the compendium was in fact designed as an
advocacy document for smoking restrictions. The preface to the compendium
indicated that it was intended to be distributed to scientists, public
officials, legislators and those in the private sector who are or may be
concerned about ETS. The overall purpose was to "provide information
necessary to allow the public, government agencies, and the building industry
to make well-informed choices regarding exposure to ETS" (p. 2). The letter
accompanying the draft compendium indicated that the compendium was an
"integral component of [EPA's] ETS strategy," which was to include a separate
"policy-maker's guide" that in turn would be a simplified version of the
compendium.
It is hard to see how policymakers could make "well informed"
choices on the basis of the information contained in the compendium or the
simplified version known as the "policy guide." Both the compendium and the
policy guide were initiated and drafted long before the Agency had prepared a
formal risk assessment on ETS. By these actions, EPA violated the public
trust in three ways. First, EPA conducted an end run around the statute
creating the SAB review mechanism. In doing so, it not only threatened the
integrity of the SAB review process but ran the risk of alarming the public
for no good reason. In addition, EPA deliberately permitted policy to drive
science rather than the other way around. As the "Fact Sheet" demonstrated,
EPA started with the restrictive policy it wanted to promote and then worked
backward to "develop" the scientific conclusions necessary to justify that
policy. Finally, even though it has no statutory authority to regulate
smoking,
http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.htm...
2LV wrote, "I would like to repost my response to a previous article on this issue:
"Second-hand smoke does hurt and kill innocent people. Any intelligent person will understand this."
Actually 2LV, any intelligent person will read and analyze the studies themselves rather than the press released-based news articles put out by the antismoking organizations. Or they'll at least read some of the critiques posted in blogs like this and think a bit about just how shaky those sorts of claims are.
In actual fact, to this date, there has never yet been a study showing that at the well-ventilated and air-filtrated conditions in a modern casino that there is *ANY* long term harm to employees from their exposure to seocondary smoke. The studies that have been done either use concentrated "smoke-chamber" conditions, use data based on exposures back in the 1950s through 1970s when no one cared and ventilation/filtration was almost non-existent compared to today, use "trace element" detections that are nonsensical (duh. We *all* have "trace elements" of anything under the sun inside of us if you spend enough money looking for them!), use biased self-reported perceptions of "feelings" about itchy eyes etc, or depend upon microscopic changes in body measurements similar to what folks experience when they eat a decent lunch.
2LV your posting is detailed enough that I think you know this to be a fact. So what motivates you to post differently? Do you have an identity that might explain it? I'm not afraid to reveal who I am and lay out my potential "competing interest" in all this. How about you?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Those who would support smoking in public places must surely have some pecuniary reason to stand up for the destruction of the health of the masses who don't want that crap in them but who choose to go out once in awhile. Why else would anyone agree that it's ok to wreck someone's body with their garbage?
It's not nice to make people breathe your stinkin' smoke. It kills people. You know that, but you do it anyway. Where are your morals? Your values? Your respect for humanity?
Anyone who truly thinks it's ok to goof up other people for their own fleeting momentary pleasure is nothing but a turd on a toilet bowl. I say flush you.
It is your god given right to be able to sit and smoke in a casino while gambling. If you dont like the smoke then go somewhere else. Both are vices that can hurt you and ruin your life. So pick your poison and leave the other guy alone. Maybe casinos should put some tables and slots outside for the nonsmoker. All the fresh air you can handle!
It had to be done: http://www.writeonnevada.com/2009/05/ant...
"It is your god given right to be able to sit and smoke in a casino while gambling. "
It's also your god-given right to stone adulterers to death, but you're not recommending that, are you?
Ksand
What a horrible and illogical analogy. 1) The study doesn't say that second hand smoke caused those peoples problems. In fact it basically says they can't prove it. 2) the guys right, non-smokers can go other places. Casinos and restaurants can put in ventilation units or non-smoking sections. Banning it wasn't necessary.
"Both are vices that can hurt you and ruin your life." One person gambling isn't impacting the person next to him. One person smoking is impacting the person next to him.
I'm happy with the non smoking section at GVR but do understand the argument that if smoking is harmful to others perhaps it should be banned the same way other pollutants are banned.
I think the casinos will eventually change to all non smoking if they are faced with a judgment against them based on the death of an employee from second hand smoke.
Patrick, how such a simple ideological dig at the bible and those who abuse "god given" flies completely over your head.
Obtuse is the word that comes to mind.
The chances that you die from second hand smoke are very, very, very, very, very, very slim. Just getting lung cancer from second hand smoke has a less than 1 percent chance over your lifetime. And that is after working daily with second hand smoke for 20 years.
I just came up with a great point.
I bet, more people die from gambling related suicides than second hand smoke.
Anyone want to take me up on it?
As a ex-smoker I no longer enjoy being around smokers blowing smoke in my face....so I leave or move.More non-smoking sections would help. Stopping all smoking would have a great impact on the $$ taken in, no question.Let dealers who smoke be assigned to smoking tables.No need to start WW3 over the issue.As a former smoker for many years I'm the last to tell the guy next to me to@#@$@#$%%#....if you get my drift. Many changes across the country have already taken place and still are. But casino's ?...umm thats a tough one.There's a middle of the road in this story...ya just gotta got to it !!
I tracked this down http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51...
As the final source for deaths by second hand smoke (I went through a California EPA report which listed another report as a source which then finally list this)
There are 0 deaths by second hand smoke. It doesn't even have the category. That means someone is taking the number of people who die by asthma, heart disease and lung cancer by a multiplier to come up with some number for deaths by second hand smoke. Whether or not there is a correlation can't be said -- the California EPA report claims it but doesn't prove it. Their source does not prove it either, nor does the sources source.
I tracked this down http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr51...
As the final source for deaths by second hand smoke (I went through a California EPA report which listed another report as a source which then finally list this)
There are 0 deaths by second hand smoke. It doesn't even have the category. That means someone is taking the number of people who die by asthma, heart disease and lung cancer by a multiplier to come up with some number for deaths by second hand smoke. Whether or not there is a correlation can't be said -- the California EPA report claims it but doesn't prove it. Their source does not prove it either, nor does the sources source.
"Actually the smoke is bad for everybody."
"Second-hand smoke does hurt and kill innocent people. Any intelligent person will understand this."
aireweare, 2LV -- you should pay attention to cantiloper and especially that Patrick_Gibbons guy.
You and the other Smoke Nazis believe the headlines too much, and the anti-smoke campaigns are mostly empty propaganda. Cato.org has a lot on this, and I've posted their articles here a few months ago.
I get so aggravated with people who have no financial, vested interest in a business who think they have the right to decide what business owners should or should not do. Only the people who invested THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY should have that right. YOU, however, have the right to enter or walk by that business. That's free market. If so darned many people wanted bars and casinos to be smoke-free, they would have been already. But the ANTI smokers (not non-smokers, big difference) are also ANTI alcohol, ANTI gambling and ANTI everything.
I suggest every one of you who feel you have the right to inflict your opinion on businesses in which you have absolutely NO MONEY INVESTED, you go BUY YOUR OWN. And when you do, let me know so I can inflict MY OPINION on what you can and cannot do on YOUR PRIVATE BUSINESS PROPERTY. Private property is the backbone of our Constitution. Read Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner which says our properties are NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY mearly because we extend the invitation. PUBLIC properties are those owned by the public and in which public business is conducted.
It's hard enough in this country to stay in business. Payroll taxes, workers comp, insurance, liquor licenses, food licenses, are enough to put a small business into bankruptcy. Now you do-gooder health nazis want to put us out of business by deciding our customers for us?
Go buy your own business.
What did the Surgeon General tell us 45 years ago? 45 YEARS AGO ! We do not actually need the results of this study, esp. 2-3 years later, to know the risks are real. We are a nation of losers. Only a nation of losers would continue to have 1 out of 5 citizens be a smoker at this point. Face facts, smokers are Dirt Sucking Losers. Buy a pack of cigarettes, light one up, suck the dirt into your lungs.
We are worried about an entire industry going down (the auto industry), or at least one of the Big Three automakers. With the subsequent devasatation from the loss of jobs. Well that is possible because they are not making cars that sell well. Well what is the purpose of planting tobacco so that people can smoke and chew, and ruin their lives and health, and you want to worry about ecomonics, WHAT ABOUT THE COST TO THE NATION IN HEALTHCARE?
What on earth is the reason to smoke other than the fact that one cannot stop because of addiction???????????? Please tell me?????
Patrick loves to cherrypick the information he presents. Here is yet another example. Since he is so fond of the findings of the government, he's probably a big fan of the Surgeon General's report from 2006, which concluded that, "There is No Risk-Free Level of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke"
That's a stark statement. Even more stark are its findings that second-hand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, respiratory problems, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and, "Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure."
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/se...
Once upon a time a guy went fishing. Times were great; fish were biting, etc. Then a guy comes along, turns on his blasting radio, fish stop biting, fun stops.
Nobody is saying the radio guy doesn't have a right to listen to his jams. But what about the fisherman?
Smokers do the same destructive thing to non-smokers. They ruin the environment.
Do they really think it's ok to goof everything up for those others who really do not want their world trashed?
Just on the face of the issue, there is considerable reason to side with decency.
You don't have to believe that smoking kills people. You only have to not want to screw up others.
I bet those who think it's ok to trash the environment with toxins like carcinogenic tobacco smoke are generally in favor of nuclear power too. Anything I want is ok. Screw the universe. It's all about me.
Ksand,
There is no risk free anything in life. Give me a break.
Bravo ksand...
What is the benefit of smoking? Of course there's risk. surgeon general's findings. Ksand's report. It's obvious that the stuff kills people.
Where's the benefit for society to make up for the terrible toll on our world full of people? How does anyone gain from inhaling garbage?
If it were pot we're addressing, why of course, it's going to get you high. But stupid cigarettes do nothing but addict. There's no joy, no dividend, no interest paid, nothing but disease and more disease.
"What did the Surgeon General tell us 45 years ago? 45 YEARS AGO !"
100IQ -- Apparently government endorsement dazzles you.
Recommended for your enlightenment: "The Second-Hand Smoke Charade" http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...
Debunking the Nation's Nanny/Surgeon General: "LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND 400,000 SMOKING-RELATED DEATHS" http://74.125.113.132/custom?q=cache:BxZ...
And last but not least "The Case Against Smoking Bans" (also debunks the Surgeon General) http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv...
As a footnote using the term "Smoke Nazis" is accurate. Check it out .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitobacco...
Now shut up already!!
So how about this in regard to comparing how bad second hand smoke is. How much worse is the air we breath everyday with out complaint that is full of pollutants you don't want to know about, Compared to the smoke from a cigarette that someone next to you is smoking. So who out there has the data on the smog vs the smoking. Anyone ?
KillerB, I guess you didn't grow up with two smoking parents. Ever seen a thirteen year-old with asthmatic bronchitis?
I was that kid.
You can stick your head in the ground and refute scientific fact all you like. I won't stop you.
Good question bk,
We have two areas: inside and outside. The EPA, that monitors the outside, says that indoor air is like five times worse in most homes.
When homes change hands, newcomers get all the problems of the sellers. These can include asbestos in the air from building materials, radon from the ground, carbon monoxide from the furnace and water heater, formaldehyde from building materials and other junk.
Testing the house for this stuff requires a service that nobody does anymore outside of DOE weatherization programs, but some of us still know how to do. It's called a Building Performance Audit. Using pressure measurement devices, the inspector operates the house and checks the air for contaminants. An option is a device that measures and records indoor air pollutants, such as a carbon monoxide meter or radon tester.
A few years back, there was an effort to bring attention to these facts; we called it sick building syndrome. I, for one, met with my Senator, industry officials, medical personnel and contractors to bring legislation that would have evaluated the size of the problem, the fixes and the impact of doing nothing. Very strong lobbies from the real estate sector and gas company defeated the effort.
If we continue our 'head in sand' approach to indoor air quality, we will continue to suffer from the effects of breathing nasty stuff that we know sickens us. We just won't know what happened.
ksand99 -- actually I grew up as a non-smoker and am one now except for enjoying an occasional cigar.
As for "refuting scientific fact" I have provided it, you have not. The Surgeon General is NOT scientific fact and, as I have shown, has been discredited on this issue.
Now who's head is where?
I wonder what else the CDC is saying about second hand smoke? Hmmmm....
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand_sm...
"As for "refuting scientific fact" I have provided it, you have not. The Surgeon General is NOT scientific fact and, as I have shown, has been discredited on this issue."
The majority of what you presented as "fact" revolves around a Judge who ruled that a scientific study was wrong. All of which is answered here:
http://www.tobaccocontrol.neu.edu/TCU/tc...
You may want to know a little more about Judge Osteen...
"In 1974 Judge Osteen worked as an industry lobbyist for tobacco growers while a private attorney. He was hired by a tobacco grower organization in Guilford, Alamance and Rockingham counties, within the state of North Carolina, to lobby former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, not to go ahead with a plan to eliminate the federal tobacco production quota program (AP press report, August 20, 1995; Repace Associates). Many judicial ethicists criticized Judge Osteen for not recusing himself from the EPA case."
So um, discredited? You're relying on the legal AND SCIENTIFIC advice of someone who used to be a tobacco lobbyist.
Yo shecky,
You're saying that it's ok for smokers to gamble at casinos, but it's not ok for people who value their health?
I won over sixty grand last year counting cards and figuring odds. How is it fair that I have to forego my health just to play?
Yahoo.
Talk about forcing lifestyle changes on the public...blowing smoke at 'em doesn't count in your book?
Where is the personal responsibility for what you do?
Go smoke yourself up.
ksand99 -- read the rest of it. There's a lot more than just that judge's ruling (made after having BOTH sides present their evidence, something lacking here).
Ksand, you seem to do well at cherrypicking yourself. You attack Mr. Gibbons and note Judge Osteen's tobacco background but you fail to note that around the time he ruled against the EPA he *also* made a far more important ruling against the tobacco companies (FDA case).
As for the SG's "no safe level" statement you should be bright enough to realize that it was clearly a political statement designed to justify total smoking bans. The *same* statement could be made for the carcinogenic rays of the sun that patio workers are "forced" to endure, the carcinogenic fumes from the highly volatile ethyl alcohol in your cabernet, or the popcorn fumes from your microwaved popcorn (which are not carcinogenic but *have* been strongly connected bronciolitis obliterans... a rather nasty melting of the little air sacs in your lungs.)
As for your history as a 13 year old, think how much WORSE it might have been for you with widespread smoking bans in place as your parents stayed home and smoked more rather than go out and give you some relief. You should be *against* smoking bans in bars and casinos if you truly wanted to "protect the children" - but I somehow doubt that's your real goal.
btw... you might try reading the study this article is based on. It's pretty enlightening. Even with all the fancy ultra-state-of-the-art measuring equipment they had there weren't even able to *detect* 15 out of the 16 "deadly PAH" chemicals they were looking for. The ONLY one large enough to even detect was naphthalene. It was measured at a level of about one millionth of a gram per cubic meter of air... 1 part per billion.
For comparative purposes let's look at the news from a couple of weeks ago when Johnson & Johnson rushed to assure us that their baby shampoo was "perfectly safe" because it only had "trace amounts" of formaldehyde. Those "trace amounts" were 610 parts per million.
The "perfectly safe" baby shampoo had formaldehyde at a concentration 610,000 times greater than the naphthelene the Antismokers are screaming about in this nonsensical "study" designed to influence Nevada legislators and an easily misled public.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
btw... the mean formaldehyde level measured in the "personal breathing zones" of the dealers was about 10 parts per billion. So it wouldn't be unfair to say that the "smoky" air in the casinos was 61,000 times safer than baby shampoo.
Airweare, if you think you're "foregoing your health" by being in a casino, I pray to high heaven that you keep a long distance from the shampoo aisle at your local supermarket!
- MJM
when i visit vegas and look out in the vegas valley floor from green valley casino's garage, i have to chuckle to myself about subject your discussing. have you looked at the air your breathing outside. you have alot more to worry about than 2nd hand smoke.
ksand99,
Sure link to an anti-smoking site, they are unbiased right? You may want to know a little more about Judge Osteen...
"In 1974 Judge Osteen worked as an industry lobbyist for tobacco growers while a private attorney. And that makes him biased how? Most Attorneys will defend anyone who pays them which is as it should be. Everyone deserves a defense whether they are popular or not. The problem is the anti-smoking nuts think that if you ever too a dollar from Big Tobacco that that is enough to discredit someone. Most of the anti-smoking groups are funded by big pharma. But you don't mention that fact. You also fail to mention the fact that just a year before the judge ruled against the EPA he ruled against the tobacco companies.
http://www.stic.neu.edu/osteen.htm
So much for bias. You also fail to mention that the Congressional Research Group also looked at the EPA report and came to the same conclusions.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs...
You also failed to mention that such weak statistical evidence is not admissible in a court of law.
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/...
And before you make any cracks about Ban the ban I wrote that blog entry and links to the federal documents. It is not just the law that doesn't accept weak statistics as proof of anything check out this award winning article in science.
http://www.nasw.org/awards/1996/96Taubes...
You also fail to mention that many of the same activist that got caught faking the 1992 EPA report also worked on the Surgeon Generals report including the Chief Scientific Editor.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article...
Funny. I, and most people I know, grew up in large families where both parents smoked. Second hand smoke was never an issue until Johnson and Johnson got the rights to Nicoderm and Nicorette. KSAND99, my health, as well as my four siblings is fine. Funny. If you look up their partner, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, they are responsible for funding ALL the studies, (sic) that have come up with this hype. Now that J&J have the sweetener Splenda in their stable, the new war they are creating is the war on sugar in pop. That's just the beginning. When pharma came up with drugs for children, then they created the illusion of a bunch of kids that needed them. Ritalin. J&J, and their partner spent a half a billion dollars to influence local politicians, and to produce biased research on this second hand smoke hysteria. Look up Robert Wood Johnson FOundation, and bow to the new masters of the universe. Grants are spread around through many foundations, but all the ads in the paper and on radio are funded with money filtered through FOundations that ARE receiving money from J&J's partner. If these guys come up with a drug that can be said to stop the desire to gamble, WATCH OUT VEGAS, THEY'LL DEMONIZE THAT TOO! Hope you won't expect the smokers to help you when these ding bats come around after YOUR rights! If you don't want to be around smokers, fine, go somewhere else. If that's too complicated for you, perhaps you DO need a nanny!
Check out donations that Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has made to American Cancer Society, American Lung Assoc., and other private FOundations. FOLLOW THE MONEY. And these companies, who say they operate "not for profit", check out what the management of each one makes. When I found out the American Red Cross Director pulled in over $400,000 per year is when I stopped donating to ANY FOundation. And this money is going into your politicians pockets too. IF smoking is so bad WHY aren't politicians voting to BAN THE SELLING OF IT? AND, Mr Menendo, your insulting comments toward smokers, and potential guests to Vegas have been duly noted and reported. YOU LIED TO CY!!!!!Shame on you!!!
Try reading the study this article is based on. It's pretty enlightening. Even with all the fancy ultra-state-of-the-art measuring equipment they had there weren't even able to *detect* 15 out of the 16 "deadly PAH" chemicals they were looking for. The ONLY one large enough to even detect was naphthalene. It was measured at a level of about one millionth of a gram per cubic meter of air... 1 part per billion.
For comparative purposes at about the same time this article was written, Johnson & Johnson was rushing to assure parents that their baby shampoo was "perfectly safe" because it only had "trace amounts" of formaldehyde. Those "trace amounts" were 610 parts per million.
The "perfectly safe" baby shampoo had formaldehyde at a concentration 610,000 times greater than the naphthelene the Antismokers are screaming about in this nonsensical "study" designed to influence Nevada legislators and an easily misled public.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains