af40's Blog

When the New Jersey State Legislature passed a ban on smoking in commercial areas last year, it oddly made one glaring and inexplicable exception: the Atlantic City casinos. Since that time, heated debates have ensued on both sides of the issue. Briefly stated, the pro-smoking "lobby" (which is well-funded by the casinos) feels that banning smoking in casinos will whittle away its important consumer base, especially gamblers. The pro-ban side (which is a side espoused by workers at the casinos) feels that smoking is a health hazard (duh!) and that having a ban on smoking will not draw away customers any more than it has in other commercial areas, areas that have continued to prosper economically even after last year's ban.

To begin with, I wonder why an exception to the smoking ban was made for the casinos in the first place. Oftentimes after watching the hit TV show 'The Sopranos' (which happens to take place in New Jersey), I get a sickening feeing in the pit of my stomach, a feeling that no matter what New Jersey has to offer for all of its bounty in academia, art, business, and a slew of other sectors, it will always be known as that place where Mafiosos run as free as the buffalo and where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. Seeing the casinos sucessfuly lobby the State Legislature (and now the AC council) for an exception to such a common sense bill brings all of these nauseous feelings back again. In any other state, a bill to ban smoking would never have made those exceptions. After all, workers in the casinos have just as much a right to be free of the poisonous vapor as workers in other areas. And if there is a law to protect the safety and health of workers, isn't New Jersey obligated to offer equal protection to all of its workers?

Secondly, I do not understand the economic argument for making an exception to the smoking ban. Casinos might claim that their customer base is largely of a certain variety that tends to have a penchant for smoking (and drinking), that is, they cater to a segment that one might otherwise call the "seedy" variety. I do not completely disagree there. Having been to the casinos a number of times, it is clear to me that smoking is a highly popular activity among the gambing crowd. But it is also obvious to me that if I spend more than a few minutes on any floor of any casino in Atantic City, I need a gas mask.

And that is why the economic argument fails: people like me- nonsmokers- represent a vastly larger segment of the consumer base than smokers. Even if we account for the possibility that smokers are more likely to gamble than nonsmokers, we must consider two things:

1. Smokers will not necessarily go elsewhere if they cannot smoke. I am sure, for example, that bars and clubs in New Jersey are just as full now than they were a few years ago before the commercial ban. That is because people adapt.
2. The legislators and casino lobbyists fail to understand that the situation here is dynamic. If smoking is banned in casinos, it is very likely that nonsmokers will find those casinos a more agreeable place to visit. When the air is cleared and all is said and done, the vastly larger number of nonsmokers will certainly find the casinos a better place to visit, even if fewer of those nonsmokers- by percentage- gamble.

But the most important factor is not economic, it is health and life quality. Workers who are forced to work under smoking conditions are obligated to place their health at risk. There is no doubt about that because numerous studies have shown that second-hand smoke can cause pulmonary disease and lung cancer. Secondly, consumers themseves are subjected to the same kinds of dangers. I am certain that many nonsmokers decide not to visit casinos precisely because they attract such large numbers of smokers. But then again, I believe nonsmokers are likely to come back if they felt it would be safe to visit.

The proposed Atlantic City ordinance to ban smoking in all but a small, supposedly "well ventilated" subsection of the casinos, would be but one positive step, but one that would not go far enough. While it failed to pass a council vote today (by virtue, some say, of the extreme pressure by casino lobbyists), it is likely to come up again.

Legislators must realize that the ban on smoking in casinos would have distinct health and economic advantages. They must also reaize that protections afforded to the majority of New Jersey's workers cannot be excluded for others just for apparently economic reasons.