Patrick wrote on November 18, 2008 10:53 AM: Get a life Pete. After suffering 30 years of second hand smoke your chances of getting lung cancer will still be less than 1%.

Pete wrote on November 16, 2008 02:55 PM: Smoking goes hand in hamd with nothing but poor health. More than 80 percent of the adult population are non-smokers. Their health should trump the minor inconvenience of having to take the occasional smoke break outdoors.

CATHY CULL wrote on November 16, 2008 01:54 AM: My response to this opinion:

A non-smoker from N. J. wrote on November 15, 2008 03:45 AM:
GAMBLING, DRINKING AND SMOKING go hand in hand. Take away any one of the three, is a sure way to lose your customers and the money they pay in taxes. Ask Atlantic City.
A better way is a better filter system in the casinos.
Remember, once you lose a customer, its hard to replace the revenue lost.


You are wrong about this, way wrong. I am from Ohio and I frequent The Borgata in A.C. with my husband who has business in the region. We are both NON-SMOKERS and we dance the happy dance each time a new smoking ban goes into effect. We play slots for hours and have drinks in the evening and, no, cigarettes do not go hand in hand with these other activities. Sure, for a smoker it might, but they tolerate the smoking bans because the majority ruled on this. Do you really think a non-smoker who starts going to casinos just takes up smoking?! That's crazy. I hate being around smoke and always have. Believe me, the smokers go out for their cigarette breaks and then come back and play their favorite machines or tables. Smoking bans don't stop them.

And another thing, the casinos in A.C. who are whining about lost revenue, the problem isn't because of smoking bans, it's because they have outdated ugly casinos or they have their machines too tight. They are losing business because people go to the nicer places, such as The Borgata which offers a beautiful, comfortable, high end experience. Who wants to go to Ballys when you can go to The Borgata?

douglas wrote on November 15, 2008 09:44 PM: seems to me that toxic smoke in a "public", "licensed" premises that serves food *or* beverages already is governed by health regulations.

how is toxic smoke any different as to adverse health effects on patrons than say... dirty kitchen food prep areas ? unwashed glassware ? unsanitary rest room facilities ? employees with communicable diseases ? spoiled/out dated food ? moldy beverage dispensing equipment ? etc. one of my favorite lvrj sections is the wednesday "restaurant report" some of those joints oughta qualify for frequent flyer miles, as often as they are gigged.

perhaps the "private property" establishment could be exempt from *any* health [or building & fire codes while we're at it]. mebbe the patrons could "enter at their own risk" and be personally responsible for their health and safety. and, the bar/restaurant owner would then be held harmless if the patron suffered any injury, acquired any disease from his patronage.

i'd have no complaint about that as long as the patron was sufficiently made aware of the risks. but the "change" administration is beholding to the slip and fall/trial lawyers association/contributors and they wouldn't allow such "personal responsibility".

tj wrote on November 15, 2008 08:10 PM: And carl, I wil take-out a new subscription in my dogs name. It is more and informed and inteligent.

tj wrote on November 15, 2008 07:54 PM: Ah, herbicide, still drunk on liberqalism , we see! Not to worry, the chosen one chain-smokeing community orginiser will make everything right, oh, excuse me, OK, in your world!

Carl wrote on November 15, 2008 07:54 PM: Nick is right. Once again the RJ demonstrates how it does not reflect the views of most Nevadans. Like Don Quixote's farsical quest in La Mancha, the RJ never misses an opportunity to push its ackneyed agenda. I think I'll cancel my subscription, too.

Herbicide wrote on November 15, 2008 06:32 PM: You make claims, Herb. Back them up. Why should we believe anything you say? Based on your "good name?"

Wisconsin is one state. One. Even if your general assertion is right, right-wingers love to make ridiculous claims that are products of the paranoid e-mails they keep forwarding to each other (the ones that end with "If you agree, forward, if not delete). Their other general source of information is the right-wing echo chamber that can twist anything.

Why should we take your word for anything, Herb? Based upon on your "good name?" Well, you don't have a good name, Herb. You're not an authority on anything, Herb. You're just not that important.

If you agree, forward. If not, delete.

Herb wrote on November 15, 2008 06:27 PM: One more thing Herbicide, I clearly remember in one of the Democat debates Obama said he would favor a national smoking ban if states don't continue bans at the current rapid pace.

I don't even smoke, but I hope you smokers who vote for Obama feel the sting when tobacco taxes go way up and they WILL. The delicious irony is that most smokers are working class or below, the exact folks Democrats say they represent.

Herb wrote on November 15, 2008 06:14 PM: Herbicide, do a little research and you will see that I am right. Most blue states have smoking bans, most red states do not. Read articles from any state with a smokingban and you will discover about 95% of Democrat politicians favor bans compared to only about 25% of Reps. When New Hampshire changed from a Rep to Dem majority government the FIRST thing they did was ban smoking in bars.

Here's an article about how Wisconsin is expected to ban smoking now that Dems took over their state government

twincities.com/wisconsin/ci_10936784

There is endless information out there to prove my point. Besides banning smoking Dems love to raise cigarette taxes. If it wasn't for Bush the children's health isurance SCHIP would have passed and smokers would have funded it 100%.

Read All Comments