Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Terrie Price, a dealer at Caesars Palace for 25 years, was fired in 2005. She has filed a lawsuit against the company.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009 | 2 a.m.
Reader poll
One on ONE with Terrie Price
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
Former casino dealer Terrie Price says she lost her job for warning her employer about the dangers of secondhand smoke in her workplace. Now, a new study backs up her claim about the effects of secondhand smoke. NewsONE at 9 anchor Jeff Gillan talks with Terrie Price.
Smoke Study
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
Casino employees take a stand against second-hand smoke. Plus, will the phoenix of West Las Vegas, the Moulin Rouge, rise from the ashes once again?
Sun Archives
- Study arms smoking foes (5-7-2009)
- 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)
During the 25 years she worked as a Caesars Palace dealer, Terrie Price was one of a few vocal anti-smoking dissenters among thousands of largely silent casino workers. Price believes her efforts to force her employer to address secondhand smoke, even as a growing body of scientific research chronicled its dangers, cost her that job.
The release last week of the first federal study detailing the effects of secondhand smoke on Las Vegas casino employees — a study Price requested — vindicated those efforts, Price said.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health tracked more than 100 dealers at Bally’s, Paris Las Vegas and Caesars Palace during on-site visits in 2005 and 2006. Researchers found the dealers were exposed to airborne chemicals associated with secondhand smoke during their shifts, had increased levels of tobacco-specific carcinogens in their urine after their shifts, and reported a host of respiratory problems potentially triggered by workplace smoke.
“We’ve been waiting a long time for this,” said Price, 53.
When she first went to work as a blackjack and roulette dealer at Caesars in 1979, the resort was among many Las Vegas casinos that encouraged smoking by handing out free cigarettes to gamblers and providing ashtrays.
“Everyone knew smoking was harmful but there wasn’t as much talk about the harmful effects of secondhand smoke,” Price said. “And there wasn’t as much choice to work in a nonsmoking environment. At Caesars, people would even say, ‘I don’t normally smoke but it’s here, I might as well.’ It’s like you’re supposed to do it.”
Before long, the cumulative effects of breathing that smoke caught up with Price, who often left work with irritated sinuses or a headache.
At the time, she didn’t advocate a smoking ban in casinos, but rather nonsmoking sections and smoke-free gaming tables. Customers regularly requested them, Price said.
A skin cancer survivor, Price obtained a doctor’s note warning of her cancer risk to assist in her fight, which sometimes included daily calls to the casino manager.
Her efforts paid off in 1990, when Caesars Palace installed some nonsmoking tables.
The tables were removed in 2002.
Even though some Caesars-owned properties equipped gaming tables with small fans to blow smoke away from dealers, Price said, Caesars management refused to allow her to use a fan out of fear that it would offend smokers.
Price had filed a complaint on the dangers of secondhand smoke with Caesars’ safety department. She filed another complaint, with the Nevada Occupational Safety and Health Administration, alleging that management was harassing her for complaining about secondhand smoke.
A casino manager had threatened to suspend her for soliciting customers to request nonsmoking gaming tables, Price said in the complaint. She acknowledged recommending that customers who preferred nonsmoking tables talk to management, thinking her bosses would be more responsive to customers’ wishes than her own.
Price said she didn’t complain to customers about smoking. Most customers tried to keep smoke away from her and other dealers, she said.
But her clashes with management continued.
Price said she was suspended for three days in 2004 after a supervisor spotted a player at her table sitting sideways with an ashtray in her lap, blowing smoke away from Price.
“It was like, ‘Why are you being so polite? Please blow smoke at our dealers,’ ” Price said. “They didn’t care about our health.”
In January 2005, Price sent the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health a research request asking the federal agency to test the air at Caesars Palace. A second dealer filed an anonymous request on behalf of dealers at Bally’s and Paris.
Price said she revealed her identity in the complaint to rally dealers to participate in the study.
“They were afraid the information would be used against them,” Price said. “I had to convince them the study was legitimate.”
By law, the institute, a division of the Health and Human Services Department and affiliated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, conducts on-site testing of workplace hazards at the request of employees or employers.
By the time representatives of the federal agency arrived in late July 2005 to begin their study, Price had been suspended from her job and was unable to participate.
Price was fired the following September after a gambler complained that she had blown smoke back at a player. Price denies doing so, arguing that the player had blown smoke in her face while she dealt cards, then jumped up and began yelling at Price.
“I felt like I was set up,” she said.
Harrah’s Entertainment in June 2005 acquired Caesars and the other properties studied by the institute.
Nevada OSHA completed its investigation of Price’s complaint in January 2006. The agency, which regulates workplace safety and applies state law preventing discrimination against workers who make complaints, ruled it had found “insufficient” evidence of a violation.
In 2007 Price filed a lawsuit in Clark County District Court against Caesars, claiming she was fired in retaliation for her anti-smoking efforts at work.
Caesars has denied the allegations.
A judge has paved the way for an upcoming trial by denying the company’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit and a request that it be settled out of court.
Price said her termination was a shock, especially after a long career dealing to high-rollers wagering hundreds, even thousands, of dollars per hand.
At home, Price shows off an Employee of the Month plaque from June 1994. She also has kept multiple letters from Caesars management thanking her for a job well done. Attached are copies of letters written by customers who commended Price.
“You work someplace for that long and you don’t think you will get fired because you know you’re a good employee, that you’re not a cheater or a liar,” she said.
Price hopes the federal study’s results will aid her lawsuit by strengthening her claims about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
The institute study results aren’t binding; with no enforcement power, the agency, which has called for casinos to ban smoking, may only make recommendations.
These days Price spends much of her time as an unpaid volunteer who assists anti-smoking advocates.
Price said the fight isn’t over, as casinos have resisted efforts to ban smoking entirely. She hopes the study will prompt more casino workers to speak out and force the industry to change its position.
“Even if I’m no longer a dealer, someone else will take the job and end up breathing smoke. There’s something in me that says this is wrong and I won’t let go,” she said. “At some point in time, things that are wrong change for the better.
“Smoking should not be part of the job, or something people have to put up with when they go to work.”
still think you guys have more to worry about in the air your breathing in that valley than 2nd hand smoke. skin cancer comes usually from to much exposure from the sun, are we all supposed to stay inside. i smoke and try to be respectfull of others that don't, but some of these people have a crusade against smoking. how about alcohol, how many innocent lives does it take on our highways. she looks like she was a pretty enough lady she could have gotten a nice job anywhere. or how about those tokes you were getting 25 years ago when they probably we're not taxed, was that fair to us that did pay taxes on our income.
did i miss the part in the article where management held a gun to her head and forced her to deal cards for 25 years ?
when does PERSONAL responsibility come into the picture ?
geez, she should have gotten a job in another field if she did not like her work environment.
smoking is still legal last i checked.
smokers rights do not override nonsmokers rights,
if people would inject nicotine instead of smoke it there would not be a problem!
I am always amused by statements like the one milfy2001 (nice low life allusion there) made about getting a job in another field. Even ignoring how difficult that is in the current economic climate would any readers like to share their experience of walking off the job and going elsewhere to find employment in a non-smoking environment without losing pay and benefits? Caesars Palace dealers tended to make top dollar so a move for them probably meant a large pay cut and with families and mortgages this is not a decision to make lightly.
I visit Las Vegas two to three times per year. I just returned from a week's stay at the end of April and had a great time. I am a smoker and was dissappointed that all restaurants there now ban smoking and that the airport no longer has smoking lounges. If and when there is a casino ban on smoking then my trips to Las Vegas will be over. I enjoy smoking while playing the slots and certainly would not object to having non smoking sections in a casino or certain casinos banning smoking but if there is a total ban I will do my gambling in my home state.
http://www.writeonnevada.com/2009/05/ant...
The study actually found this: "[Non-poker] 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."
Strangely, this was absent from both articles.
mschaffer, backs my point.
she elected to stay at a job with a work environment she disliked BECAUSE she got higher pay and benefits. it was her CHOICE and she made it. she should not blame the company for her decision. again, they did not force her to deal for 25 years.
this issue is NOT about smokers rights versus nonsmokers rights.
it is about a private business on private property deciding if a legal product can be use on their premises.
besides, show me something in the united states constitution or nevada constitution explaining this strange "smoking/non-smoking" right that some are referring to.
Milfy is completely correct. A PRIVATE business should be able to offer a legal product on their property without the STATE interfering.
And poor poor Terry KNEW that smoking players were part of the job when she took it. If she didn't want to be around smokers she should not have taken the job. If you still don't want to be around smokers, QUIT and stop wasting everyone's time (except for the lawyers who are making a pantload of money on this)....
A common misconception among nanny-state do gooders who wish to impose heavy regulations on private business is that one a person has a job they cannot leave it.
A company needs workers, just like they need customers. If they can't keep workers then they have to figure out ways to keep them. Raise wages, increase benefits or on the job perks, provide more safety gear. But the workers of the casino work at these casinos under their own volition.
No one has forced them. http://www.writeonnevada.com/2009/05/ant...
I am a non smoker and spend a great deal of time at casinos across the country; Tunica, Biloxi, Vegas.
I have a right to breathe CLEAN AIR!
It's like me having Swine Flu sitting at a black jack table an spitting or coughing on someone knowing they will get sick, and ultimately knowing there is a chance they will die because of my action.
I am with Price and non smokers. I don't smoke, it doesn't mean I am against smoking. I just don't care to be surrounded by it if I am in a grocery store, casino or wherever. It smells awful, clings to you long after the smoke has left.
When I go out to eat, I don't want the smoke in my face or my food and I have that right. If smokers want to smoke while eating or gambling or whatever it may be, give them their own space.
Block off sections for smokers and non smokers.
It's that simple.
I had a doctor that I went to as a patient that was floored to hear that he had lung cancer. He wasn't a smoker. He cared about his health.
He knew it was from 2nd hand smoke.
You can say what you want, but we non smokers do have rights as well you smokers do. I don't want it my face, clothes or food and nor do I want to breathe it. You have a right to smoke, but in a designated smoking area only. I think that's fair and it's not kicking you out.
They need to make casino's and restaruants and whatnot with area's that have smoking and non smoking areas. I know some places do, but not all do.
i don't smoke and again ask all the people saying it is their 'RIGHT' to point out where it says this. please don't throw out terms you are obviously ignorant of its meaning.
Question 1:
Where is the culinary union on this issue? Their members are also in the casino and suffering from the same poisons.
Answer 1: Culinary union leaders don't care about the health of their members, just their dues. They are careful never to bring up the subject of tobacco poisons in their negotiations. Taking a stand on the issue would mean STRIKE, because the casinos would otherwise never concede or compromise the issue. Luring poisoners to their tables and machines is more important to the casinos than the health of their members is to the culinary union leaders.
Question 2:
Why are casinos so adamant about permitting people to poison their air?
Answer 2:
Casinos prey on addictive-compulsive self-destructive personalities. Although a dwindling percentage of Americans burn tobacco today, they constitute a much greater percentage of those dumb enough to burn their money in casinos.
Question 3:
Why don't the rest of us just boycott Las Vegas casinos? I, for one, do not patronize them. MGM/Mirage's pact with Dubai should be the final straw. Dubai is a medieval dictatorship and slave society. It's been said that MGM is sleeping with the devil. Frankly, I can't figure out who is on top.
Answer 3:
There is no good answer as to why we don't all boycott them. Until they (1) prohibit people from burning tobacco, bicycle tires, or anything else poisonous to their customers and employees on their premises, and (2) MGM/Mirage dumps Dubai.
I don't think she has much of a case. And, if she wins? Does she want her job back?
I don't smoke, never have. On trips to Las Vegas for work and for pleasure over the years, I have of course run across smoke and smokers. Several times in restaurants We had smokers nearby asking us if it was O.K. if they lit up. I generally said go ahead, I wasn't going to be there long enough to be bothered by it and appreciated their respect by asking. We do stay in non-smoking rooms. I think the dealer in the article and management could have come to a reasonable agreement years ago. Someone who worked at the tables that long obviously was doing a good job at dealing. I remember years ago, there was a non smoking casino on the strip, just south of the Riviera.
According to NV Labor Commissioner:
Nevada is an "employment-at-will" state, meaning that an employer may terminate the relationship at any time and without any reason. The employer cannot discriminate based on sex, race, color, national origin, age, religion, or disability.
IMO, if you are a non-smoker as am I, don't go looking for work where people normally smoke.
As far as dining, this town has no shortage of fine restaurants where one can escape 2nd hand smoke.
Employers are responsible for providing a safe work environment during the hours worked; not for guaranteeing personal health.
red tock casino has a non-smoking area in their casino. judging from the number of people playing in that area, the non-smokers are not utilizing the area. so what does this say about non-smokers?
I used to be a social smoker and I've not been smoking since 1999.
I'm not against smokers either. I don't think it's a good business to make the entire casino area non-smoking. However, a secluded non-smoking area with limited tables to start would be a great idea. I remember Reno Harrah's had such arrangement when I visited them back in 1995.
Making a non-smoking gaming area within the premise is a WIN-WIN-WIN situation for smokers, non-smokers and the casinos.
To me, it's all about the ventilation. I don't smoke, but have no problem with casinos that remove smoke quickly and efficiently. Sams Town is an interesting example. It has a giant atrium that is really a huge exhaust fan. You can feel the air moving past. But when you get to the far corners of the casino, especially the sports book, it gets smelly. Bad. But if you want to experience hell on earth, go down Boulder Hwy to those little quaint casinos around Sunset. I have literally had to strip off my clothes immediately upon reaching home because they stunk so bad. With 8' ceilings and poor ventilation, I really do think they are death pits. Shame on you, Jim Marsh.....
Thumpy, you've got it all wrong.
Smokers do not have a right to smoke on someone's property if that person does not want them to smoke.
Likewise Non smokers do not have a right to tell smokers to stop smoking if the owner of that property has allowed them to do so.
The problem is that government thinks it can regulate itself in all manners on the grounds of public safety - whether or not they actually help anyone -- by telling people how to run their own private property. That is beyond the proper scope of government.
Already in California they have begun to ban smoking in private residences if you share a wall, celing or floor with a neighbor. Government's intrusion into your life has no end.
Patrick, the reason for California's ban is the stinking, carcinogenic smoke, not the "will of government."
You see, the carcinogens move from areas of high concentration to areas of lower concentration. It's called osmosis.
When they come into your house, they make you sick. All kinds of lung disease and heart disease can come from breathing this junk.
Short of a detailed explanation of how the carcinogens sicken neighbors, this explanation goes to the heart of the matter. What is difficult to understand about some people trying to maintain their health?
Guess what, aireware.
The private sector was already solving that problem. Condos units and apartment complexes were setting up smoking and non smoking units.
"What is difficult to understand about some people trying to maintain their health?"
Nothing, but what is so difficult about understanding that this latest report found no difference between the workers in the smoking and non smoking sections?
Should we ban fatty foods?
Salt
Sugar?
Caffine?
Beer?
Swimming pools?
Cars?
Fireplaces
Stoves
Oh heck, lets just outlaw cooking at home.
Oh I know, lets just ban heart disease too.
Aire,
Have you ever been to a restaurant or bar that allowed smoking pre ban? Did you sit in the smoking areas? How did you feel about it? Did you feel as if your life was threatened by the second hand smoke?
Patrick,
I was addressing the issue of multi-family units suffering from the problem of leaking carcinogens from one place to another. Your decision to include other issues of health seems beyond the pale.
Why do want to confuse the issue? The issue is the fact that toxins are moving from one poorly constructed unit to another. Resolving the health threat of carcinogenic smoke was the thrust of California's decision to implement a change in what some people can put into the lungs of others.
Your decision to equate carcinogenic smoke with salt or cars indicates a mind set that chooses not to deal with the fact that this particular toxin is really not good to breathe. It is actually not related at all to swimming pools or cooking.
I truly believe that you do know the difference between salt and carcinogenic smoke. Your approach to the issue is less than forthright. Why? What can you possibly gain by making such outlandish remarks?
Do you think it funny? Have you ever known anyone dying from lung cancer? How can you be so glib about so serious and egregious a violation of human rights that you would equate salt to the poisons that claim millions of lives?
Your credibility is diminishing quickly.
Patrick, I ate at places that were loaded with smoke. I didn't like it. The stuff stinks and gets in your clothes and hair; if you don't shower and wash your clothes when you get home, they'll stink up your house.
After reading reports of the deadly nature of the carcinogenic smoke, yes, I know the stuff kills people. And yes, I know my life is threatened by breathing the stuff in.
Why, pray tell, do you ask?
Patrick,
You used the incorrect verb tense. You chose to use a perfect tense when you really needed a past tense.
"Have you ever been to a restaurant or bar that allowed smoking pre ban?" should read "Did you ever go to a restaurant or bar that allowed smoking pre-ban?" because, in fact, it happened in the past. The perfect tense is for situations that were in the past but extend up to the present.
No charge for that.
I've noticed that you regularly write in run-ons, especially comma-splice type run-ons. Maybe it would help you to take a class in English at your local community college to get some help with this. It's not rocket science, but it is important for someone who makes a living with words.
the employer COULD let you smoke at your desk thumper if they wanted. THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST IT.
why do you care what i LEGALLY do on my property or in my private business ? if you don't like it, go somewhere else or are you one of those bozo busy-bodies who want to control the rest of us ?
Thunder Valley Casino near Sacramento has a non-smoking gambling salon for slot players. The non-smoking room, which is sealed off by glass doors from the main casino floor and seems to be ventilated by a separate air-conditioning system, is about one fifth the size of the entire casino, and seems to have the same mixture of types and denominations of machines as the smoking part, although in much small numbers.
Proportionately speaking, the no-smoking room seems always as busy as the main floor, making it difficult to find a free machine. But as a non-smoker, I can relax and play without having to worry about having someone light up next to me.
Our last trip to a smokey casino, my wife and I donned paper breathing masks. They were uncomfortable, but when when we left the place, our throats weren't sore and I had no blood in my throat from breathing smoke. If Vegas casinos would simply partition off a fair section of their floors for non-smokers, everyone could relax. The key is to put the same variety of machines in both areas. (Two other Indian casinos near us have partitioned non-smoking slot areas, but the machines in these clean-air rooms are less interesting models than those in the smokey side.)
In the meantime, has anyone found a comfortable mask that does a good job of filtering smoke?
What I gather from my travels is that smoking goes right along with gambling. Many other industries besides gaming do not seem to have such a high rate of smokers while pursuing their passion. I have no scientific data to back this up just my own BS. But still second hand smoke is dangerous no matter what your opinion is on this thread. I'm sure that concessions can be made to accomodate non-smoking gamers and dealers.
Vegas is funny becuase you can walk around and see the dryed up wrinkly skin of long time smokers everywhere. Besides I don't know any smokers who still smoke in their homes or indoors. It's movign towards an Outside adventure almost exclusively......
milfy2001 -- you brought up points the Smoke Nazis always seem to avoid. Like those inconvenient private property rights.
For the Patrick v. aire debate -- I'm on Patrick's side, of course. aire is just making it up as he goes along. The secondhand smoke debate is mostly junk science -- screaming headlines with very little fact behind it.
Government coercion is not the cure, nor is it really an area it should rightfully be involved in. It's mostly bureaucrats scrambling for relevance.
Yo KillerB,
Speaking of pesky private property rights, do you want other people dumping their junk into your air inside your home?
Second hand smoke is not good for you. Research a little.
The real gainers are the contractors who remedy the failed structures; the others are the occupants whose household air is coming clean. The governmental agencies are merely responding to requests from both groups.
KillerB:
"The secondhand smoke debate is mostly junk science -- screaming headlines with very little fact behind it."
Before you demonstrate your stupidity any further, maybe a little information would do you some good. But then again, it might not.
airweare -- I get my information from articles like these:
Recommended for your enlightenment: "The Second-Hand Smoke Charade" http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html
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...
From the look of your comments exactly that -- stupidity.
Killer,
Judge Osteen's claim to fame was as a lobbyist for the tobacco companies and growers. Great source you have there to counter the thousands of studies indicating the carcinogenic characteristics of tobacco smoke!
Do you cite wikipedia as a reliable source? HA ha ha
KillerB
Having graduated with Tom Lambert from the University of Missouri, I am familiar with some of his ways. In his piece about smoking bans, even Lambert recognizes that the owner of the property has the right to determine whether people smoke there.
In the case of the California multi-family dwellings where smoke comes into some units from other units, I must side with Lambert on this one. The guy whose house is being smoked up against his will clearly has the right to stop it. We agree! KillerB, Tommy Lambert and airweare- all in accord.
She'd rather Fight than Switch, like in the old Viceroy Advs.
In a country full of choices, if she is that concerned with second hand smoke, maybe she should have chosen a different career path. They've been smoking in casinos since casinos were first built. Why change it?
funny liberals LOVE talk about PERSONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS buuuuttttt when its something they dont like YOU DONT HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT PERSONAL RIGHTS AND ---FREEDOMS----
THE ACLU SHOULD BE ALL OVER THIS ONE
LIBERALS talk out of BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTH
BUT THEN AGAIN MOST LIBERALS ARE DUMB KIDS (IF YOU CAN BELIEVE IT WENT TO COLLEGE BUT APPARANTELY DIDNT LEARN ANYTHING) THEY DONT HAVE THE SLIGHTEST CLUE ABOUT MOST TOPICS THEY JUST PROTEST WHAT THEY SEE ON THE DAILY SHOW WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING DONE ANY RESEARCH THEMSELVES
This is such an EASY issue.
You CHOOSE where you want to work. If I were an employer where smoking was permitted on the premises, I would simply disclose this to my potential employees and have them sign an acknowledgment that yes, you will be exposed to secondhand smoke, and that you are CHOOSING to work here. We are NOT surprising you with smokers.
I'm so sick of whiners....when you went to work at Caesers, did you NOT realize that guests smoke in casinos?
What a crock. She's looking for a handout/lottery win. I hope this gets thrown out of court...and soon!
The issue here is not about smokers/nonsmokers rights, because there is no such thing. It's about common courtesy. The RIGHTS spoken about are the rights of BOTH parties to enjoy what private parties have chosen to offer...in this case, casinos.
Get ready, airweare and thumper(who has an OBVIOUS oral fixation)...I am a smoker. Worse yet, I smoke CIGARS! (oh my...the devil himself) Guess what? I believe that casinos SHOULD offer smoking and nonsmoking areas...equal in size, PHYSICALLY partitioned, and separate air filtration and circulation systems. That way, BOTH sides can enjoy an evening out satisfying one vice. (of course, smokers ARE multitalented...we can satisfy TWO vices at the same time...THREE if you include drinking)
The problem? Smoke nazis will wander into the smoking area and complain about the smoke. They don't want ANYONE to enjoy something THEY personally despise. Why do you have such a big issue allowing us our own areas? Why do you insist that EVERYTHING must be YOUR way?
My wife is a nonsmoker. She is also bothered by heavy perfumes and colognes. They make her physically ill...just like the scented air they have at Palazzo and Venetian. We CHOSE not to visit those casinos. Are you going to force all casinos to do a sniff test before allowing people into their casinos? After all, it IS a health risk to her. If you want to use health as an issue, then maybe you should shut down all the restaurants and buffets...more people die from obesity-relatd issues than second hand smoke (look up the numbers...and avoid wiki...obesity related issues are supplanting cancer as the number one killer).
When you're done choking on your twinkies, keep this point in mind. People who smoke tend to stay longer and spend more when they're out where they can enjoy it. If you doubt that, pay a visit to the Silver City Casino...they went smoke free years ago...oh, wait, you can't...they're now a Walgreens.
Nonsmokers have as much right to casinos as smokers do. If you want the Las Vegas economy to thrive, force the casinos to PROPERLY set up smoking/nonsmoking gaming areas...not just say, this bank of slots is one, that bank is the other...physically separate them, and let both parties live in peace. If the smoke nazis get their way, the casinos in Las Vegas will suffer the same decline in revenues that Atlantic City has over the last two years with THEIR ban. Where did all those smoke nazis disappear to then? They certainly didn't embrace AC!
Okay thumper. Take whatever you have in your mouth out and let me have it. :-)
(Non-Smoker)
This issue won't be decided in Vegas alone. Let the rest of America work this one out for you.
My advice? For now? Keep Las Vegas the city that indulges peoples vices, it's what Vegas is good at, making do-the-right-thing laws and decisions, not so much.
The people damaged by workplace conditions? A cost of doing risky business. Risky profitable business.
The people damaged by workplace conditions? A cost of having risky jobs. Risky profitable jobs.
I have no doubt that Ms. Price conducted herself with dignity and respect but I would not want to hire her, nor others with a private agenda.
"Do you cite wikipedia as a reliable source? HA ha ha"
airweare -- Wikipedia is quick and convenient. And unlike Encyclopaedia Britannica it's free. One good example is my link to the article "Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany." It's heavily footnoted to outside sources.
I know how to research, hence the links from Cato (always found them to be credible, unlike many government sources -- the Surgeon General being one too eager to accept junk science).
Quick and convenient, yes.
Lies, well that too, but quick and convenient.
Good enough for me.
aireweare -- I pretty much know the difference, been doing this kind of thing a long time.
Thanx for the comeback.
Yo Killer,
I use wiki too, but I don't always trust it. Ebsco is good. So is Grolliers. They're online too.
I am suprise that the cry for free market place has not been raised as a solution to this issue. Isn't the concept that if there are no regulations the market will provide the public with what they want at a profit?
If you don't want to work in a smoking environment, don't work in the casino. I don't want to fall of a building, so I don't work the high steel. Plain and simple.
Source: UK Sunday Telegraph
Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998
The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.
The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.
The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.
The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."
Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
After reading this letter from the WHO report, it makes me wonder just who is telling the TRUTH about second-hand smoke. I've always believed it was about money and control, not your health.
I fully agree with MacDaddy. Half the time the people complaining about the smoke are only there solely for the purpose of complaining about the smoke.
"You shouldn't be doing it, it's bad." "It smells." "I don't like people who smoke cigarettes. Or cigars."
If your opinion matters, why doesn't mine? I prefer to have a smoke every now and then, particularly when I'm having a drink and doing a bit of gambling.
As it's quite commonly known, if you have separate areas of a casino that aren't separated and designated smoking/non smoking, this isn't going to do much. I understand this.
If there are fully separated areas, though, the smokers and non smokers should get along just fine. Of course, as MacDaddy stated, they'll still find a reason why they need to come into the smoking area and cause a problem.
"Oh, but there's a certain type of sandwich in the cafe' in the smoking section I can't find in the non-smoking section; why should smokers have the right to access these sandwiches and not me, without harming my health?"
Yeah, right. I care ( a lot )
Go find a sandwich someplace else.
Fact of the matter is some people still enjoy having a smoke, and enjoying a smoke while you're sitting at a blackjack table or on the slots is very much enjoyable for those who do it. It's just a couple of simple guilty pleasures that go so nicely together.
For those who are so against it they have to constantly complain, go to a smoke free hotel ( they exist ) or gamble someplace else.
Las Vegas is the last great party town where you can still enjoy a smoke, and if they ever put an end to it, I won't travel there to gamble either.