« Help for coping with Alzheimer’s | Main | Country’s military readiness »

September 11, 2008

Smoke-free casino?

I was amused by Ken McGovern’s letter (8/31, “KCK casino should be smoke-free”). A smoke-free casino might be successful. It also might not.

The casino’s investors and owner should decide how to operate the business.

Ken Caldwell
Kansas City

Comments

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

CRD - Then they should just colose the casino and the "little guy" can be unemployed and "safe".

GCYL

“3. Could it be that proponents of the smoking ban are less concerned about "workplace safety" and more concerned about getting rid of an activity they personally find unattractive? Maybe, do you think, they can't stand the thought of having to deal with people with habits they don't like and can't imagine how it is "fair" that private business not be forced to cater their wishes?” - Marctnts

Clearly, yes they’re more concerned about getting rid of an activity they personally find unattractive. Otherwise they’d have to continue in another activity they personally find unattractive called reading. Signs. As in: NO SMOKING.

Simple_Jack

"3. Could it be that proponents of the smoking ban are less concerned about "workplace safety" and more concerned about getting rid of an activity they personally find unattractive?"
Marc

I would bet that most of these people are in favor of legalizing marijuana to......

open question:
how many of the casinos ARE within the jurisdiction of the kcmo smoking ban? Is Isle of Crappy (Isle of Capri) the only one? Or are the Ameristar, Harrah's and Argosy in the jurisdiction too? I have a hunch that Isle of Crappy is the only one, which, if they went to no-smoking with the ordinance, people would just drive 3 miles further to one of the many other casinos that are not in the ban's jurisdiction (supposedly, in my opinion, as I am not sure about this)

Marctnts

CRD,

A few questions:

1. Can you tell me why a casino employee's health is not as valuable as a restaurant employees, or give a logical reason why casinos were specifically exempted from the ban. This wouldn't be a case where proponents of the ban were afraid of the fight (and money) casino owners would put up? Nor would it be a case where KCMO wanted to protect the revenue casinos provide and were concerned about losing gamblers to municipalities without such bans would it?

2. Can you tell me why the long accepted standard of protection for employees, that being the right of an employee to accept a reasonable amount of known risk in the course of providing their service, shouldn't apply to the issue of smoking? It seems to be a very easily identifiable risk factor (much like a steelworker's workplace height or a loggers need to use dangerous equipment. Are you implying that employees in restaurants and bars are less intelligent and thus not capable of weighing the required risks of their job and making decisions accordingly, similar to what is required of employees in many career fields?

3. Could it be that proponents of the smoking ban are less concerned about "workplace safety" and more concerned about getting rid of an activity they personally find unattractive? Maybe, do you think, they can't stand the thought of having to deal with people with habits they don't like and can't imagine how it is "fair" that private business not be forced to cater their wishes?

Rogue

Thank you CRuD, I rest my case!

CRD

It's a basic workplace safety measure. Secondhand smoke is a known health hazard. It's about protecting the rights of workers (that's right, the little guy) to a safe working environment.

dolcemusica1

It's interesting to note that Kansas City, MO just can't decide if one's health is more important or a lot of revenue (casinos). I'm a non smoker but I do think the KCMO ordinance went too far when they made tobacco shops and bars smoke free. After the smoke free ordinance went into affect, it appears the non smokers didn't come out of their homes to frequent the bars that previously allowed smoking. Significantly reduced revenues and some of the drinking establishments will go under.
All because the voters declared it unhealthy for others to be around smoke AND for the employees in those places.

HOWEVER, in casinos, apparently it IS healthy to smoke. Or could it be that BIG money talks. Too bad the smaller bars didn't form an organization and sue the city for discrimination. Just a hand full of bars did but not enough for KC to make a dent in their revenues as the casinos do.

Rogue

Ah but see Ken you just don't understand the anti-smoking crusaders. See it is a question of "work place safety" first. The owners/investors of Casinos have zero say, and they have zero rights to protect their investment.

By god, you can rape, pillage, murder and steal but don't let me catch you smoking those nasty ciggie poos!

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Private businesses making decisions for themselves? You can't be serious?

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright