I remember going to Atlantic City casinos with my parents years ago. It wasn’t fun. I’m not much of a gambler, and I really hated being in a fog of smoke.
The more gamblers lost, it seemed, the more they would chain smoke. I couldn’t even imagine being a casino employee and having to breathe in that smoke day in and day out.
Well, many of the workers were sick of it as well, and they’ve been fighting for a long time to get a smoking ban. Yesterday, they won the battle.
The Atlantic City Council unanimously approved the ban after major opposition from casino owners, and the hair-man himself, Donald Trump.
From a Philadelphia Inquirer story:
The Casino Association of New Jersey, which represents the interests of the city’s 11 casinos, declined to comment on the council’s late-afternoon vote.
But at least one casino mogul, Donald J. Trump, whose name is emblazoned on three casinos here, said the full smoking ban would further cripple Atlantic City’s struggling casino industry against new neighboring competition.
“It’s too bad,” Trump said of the vote. “It will put Atlantic City at a competitively negative advantage, and it’s unfortunate.”
The ordinance now goes before Atlantic City Mayor Scott Evans to sign.
Evans has stated his “wholehearted support” for the measure, which restricts smoking to nongaming lounges - similar to ones found in many U.S. airports. He has 20 days to sign the bill, which would take effect Oct. 15.
Workers are obviously happy about the decision too. Also from the Inquirer:
Kim Hesse, a dealer at Caesars, gave up smoking in 1988 and decided to lead a healthier life. But, she said, her job got in the way.
“Every time I went to work, it defeated my efforts,” said Hesse, who started dealing at age 18, straight out of high school. “As soon as you walk into the casinos, [the smoke] would hit you like a wall.
“You feel like a human filter - that the casinos have no other filtration except us,” she said.
Like many of her dealer brethren, Hesse became active in the fight for a full smoking ban about two years ago and joined forces with local health organizations, including the American Cancer Society.
Their cause was aided by the United Auto Workers, which stepped in on their behalf in December. The UAW has been trying to unionize all Atlantic City dealers for the last year.
It’s great news for workers no matter what Trump thinks because at least now they will live a bit longer.
I have to disclose something here. My father smoked most of his life until he finally gave into his three little daughters who kept begging him to quit.
After nearly 20 years of not smoking, my dad was diagnosed with lung cancer anyway. He had done the damage after a lifetime of smoking. It was too late for him. Well, maybe we were lucky enough to have a few extra, precious years with him because he did quit.
Anyway, smoking devastated our family because we lost the greatest man in the world.
I think Atlantic City gamblers will still make the trek to the casino mecca. Unfortunately, Trump can find solace in a bad economy that typically gets desperate people looking for Lady Luck to shine down on them.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:36 am
This is one of those difficult areas where we must try to balance liberty with the public good. People who oppose smoking bans often argue that employees could choose to work somewhere else if they want a non-smoking environment. Unfortunately, that rhetoric does not acknowledge the reality that there may be few other jobs available at all, and few of those positions (if comparable job duties) will be in smoke-free environments.
The smoke-in-the-workplace issue is where the drunken-driving issue was a few decades ago. People did not want to see mandatory restrictions on blood-alcohol content because they saw it as an affront to personal liberty. Yet we, as a society, decided that preventing drunken driving accidents was more important than allowing people the liberty to drink and drive. Scientific studies have proven the link between exposure to second-hand smoke and health issues, just as accident data proved a link between drunken driving and traffic accidents, injuries, and deaths. The State now has decided to act for the public good, to prevent some of the harm that is caused by long-term exposure to second-hand smoke. I say that’s a good thing. Personal liberty should never trump the fundamental rights (in this case, the right to life) of another. That’s why we have laws against assault, battery, and murder: a person’s right to do things (or have things) their way ends when harm is caused to another.
The only way I would consent to allowing no restrictions on indoor smoking, is if the owners of the smoking establishment would be 100% liable for any and all medical issues that arise from the exposure, and that they would also accept liabiltiy for other damage claims arising from such exposure (e.g., the premature loss of a spouse, the loss of an ability to work).
May 5th, 2008 at 3:05 am
Being sober since 1992, I can personally attest to the dangers of alcohol. Quite fankly, I do not believe the laws especially concerning driving while under the influence go far enough. You could go to any bar and you will find over the half the patrons are truely alcoholc.
I am a smoker. I have been smoking since I was a teenager, over thirty years. There is certainly not any justifiable way for me, in a confined area, to smoke within the prescence of a non-smoker who does not wish to breathe cigarrette smoke. This is very clear and should be respected always. Being a retail salesman for the majority of my adult, working life, the best example I set for every employee I was either in charge of or even those who were in charge of me was always..never eat onions for lunch, and always smoke outside the premises and use gum or something to prevent that ashtray mouth. In the old smoky breakrooms, you’d come out smelling like an ashtray so I avoided it. It is common sense. I applaud the move to smoke-free workplaces. I am also opposed to having designated smoking areas that smell worse than a sewer. I applaud the move to having smoking banned from as much as 200 feet from a public doorway. This makes sense to me. I also feel it is not the responsibility of an employer to provide some sort of filtration area to accomodate those who smoke. This may occur, and it is a good move. However it is not cost efficient for the absolute majority of business. It is also not cost efficient to the taxpaying public.
Now here comes the VITUPERATION. AS ugly as smoking can be, the fact that cigarettes are taxed to an unprecedented rate, unlike alcohol is appalling. In Pa. you are paying $1.12 per pack to the state, and .56 to the fed. Then in Allegheny County, the tax is 7% for sales tax. a pack of brand name cigarrettes is $4.78 here. As of May 1, there can be no quantity discount so you pay that no matter what is purchased. Based on this, I smoke one pack of 20 per day. I give the state $408 per year just to smoke. I give the Fed over $200 per year to smoke. The point is, this money goes toward everything and anything. If cigarettes are taxed at a rate of almost 35%, poured alcohol should be taxed at least the same. I cannot see how smoking 10 fet from you is as dangerous as driving a car toward you if I were intoxicated.