Post Reply

Forum Index   >   Smoking Bans   >   Smoking bans won't harm the economy   >   Post a New Reply

Share/Bookmark this Topic: Digg it Stumble it Submit to Del.icio.us Reddit it Facebook it Blink it Slashdot it Linkagogo it 
Message Author
by gilster on Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:01 pm
http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2008/08/smoking-bans-wont-harm-economy.html

Monday, August 25, 2008
Smoking bans won't harm the economy . . .

Two Calgary gaming companies are demanding the province close a loophole in the Alberta smoking ban that permits gamblers to light up in First Nations casinos.

The problem, of course, is that the loophole isn’t in the Alberta anti-smoker legislation.

The $40-million Grey Eagle Casino which opened last December is situated on land belonging to the Tsuu T'ina Nation. The $60-million Nakoda Entertainment Resort, which opened this spring, was built on land belonging to the Stoney Nakoda Nation.

Both casinos invoked federal bylaw exemptions for Native lands, as is their right.

The Deerfoot Inn and Casino, and the Elbow River Casino, both in Calgary, report that earnings are down between 5% and 25% respectively. The Deerfoot Inn and Casino, claims it made almost a million dollars less in the second quarter of 2008, a loss of more than five per cent compared to last year. Now, Gamehost Income Fund which owns the Deerfoot Inn and Sam Switzer, owner of the Elbow River Casino want the province to “level the playing field”.

"People who smoke like to gamble, and of course they'll go where they are able to smoke if the option is there for them to do it," said Craig Thomas, Gamehost's chief executive.

Harry Chase, Alberta MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly), is sympathetic to the plight of the non-native casino owners. "I would love to see a blanket ban," he said. "Being able to play the federal regulations against the provincial regulations is an unfair advantage."

The solution, according to the Calgary casino operators and the politicians, is to find a way to force or otherwise coerce the native casinos to comply with the provincial smoking ban and prohibit smoking in their casinos. Les Hagen, executive director for the anti-smoker group ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), is in agreement, saying: "There should be health protection for all hospitality workers".

Alberta’s casinos aren’t the only ones losing money due, at least in part, to the smoking bans being implemented across the country. Casino Windsor workers in Ontario were forced to accept a new three-year contract which included a wage freeze in the first two years with an hourly raise of 30 cents per hour in the third year.

The casino has seen revenues drop in recent years due to the rising value of the Canadian dollar and the Smoke Free Ontario Act. Across the river, in Michigan, casinos may still cater to smokers, giving Michigan an advantage in attracting smoking clientele. Casinos located on native land in Ontario are also exempt from the smoking ban.

But, forcing casinos on native reserves to prohibit smoking isn’t the solution. It may level the playing field as far as the Calgary casino operators are concerned, but it will not bring smokers back to their casinos in any great numbers. It will simply mean that the native casinos will suffer similar losses in revenue as their non-native counterparts.

Smokers still want to smoke. And, if they have to leave the tables or the slot machines to have their cigarettes, they will. That means they’ll spend less time (and money) gambling while they trot outside to have their smoke.

The Great Canadian Gaming Company, which operates casinos in Halifax and Sydney, managed to offset losses by reducing staff and shortening operating hours. Between 100 and 120 jobs were cut in Halifax alone. They have no competition from native casinos. Milton Woensdregt, Great Canadian’s chief financial officer, said that the problems in Nova Scotia included severe weather, the smoking ban and the province’s anti-gaming messaging.

Economic impact studies conducted prior to implementation of the smoking bans warned of economic losses in these areas, but they were ignored. According to Ontario’s Ministry of Health Propaganda, the only studies which suggested any adverse consequences to casinos, or the hospitality industry in general, were those sponsored by tobacco interests or the hospitality industry. So, government relied solely on studies done by the anti-smoker groups and implemented the smoking bans on their assurance that economic losses would be short term and that non-smokers would start flocking to the non-smoking venues.

It hasn’t happened.

Officials with the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission said they would prefer to see First Nations casinos follow the rest of the province. "The whole idea was to protect all Alberta from second-hand smoke," commission spokeswoman, Christine Wronko, commented on the smoking ban. "The First Nations are working with federal legislation, and we have no say in it at all."

There are, in fact, two problems with the position of the casino operators and the politicians. One is that they have not yet proven that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, and two, native communities across the country will be wary of any deal in which they are required to surrender treaty rights.

As far as leveling the playing field, the second of these problems is justifiably the bigger of the two.

Maybe they should deal with their first problem first; stop kowtowing to the anti-smoker fanatics, review the science, and ban the bans.
Posted by The Old Rambler at 12:23 AM
gilster Smokers Rights Activist
Smokers Rights Activist Joined: Apr 19, 2006 Posts: 834
Back to top
 
by dumpstermcnuggets on Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:30 pm
gilster wrote:
The solution, according to the Calgary casino operators and the politicians, is to find a way to force or otherwise coerce the native casinos to comply with the provincial smoking ban and prohibit smoking in their casinos. Les Hagen, executive director for the anti-smoker group ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), is in agreement, saying: "There should be health protection for all hospitality workers".

Les Hagen's quote makes me laugh really hard, since virtually no one in the 40%-45% of ban-less communities in America(and not counting the additional percentage of local areas, and/or states that chose to only impose limited smoking bans, making the total percentage of areas with comprehensive bans UNDER 50%!) that are doing fine without smoking bans are crying out loud for one. Where's all the outcry in the many cities without total/comprehensive bans for one, such as in *St. Louis, *Milwaukee, *Casper(WY), **Indianapolis, **Atlanta, **Wichita(KS), and ***Amarillo, TX?
* - a city that was smart enough NOT to enact any ban at all.
** - only prohibited smoking in 18 and under businesses, and though this isn't perfect to me(I'd prefer exterior signage laws stating if a business is smoke-free, has a mixed smoking/non-smoking policy, or smoking throughout), I like this solution FAR MORE than a total smoking ban.
*** - has no local ban at all, and local voters were smart enough to vote down 2 referendums within the last 3 years that would've imposed an unnecessary, comprehensive city ban!

gilster wrote:
Alberta’s casinos aren’t the only ones losing money due, at least in part, to the smoking bans being implemented across the country. Casino Windsor workers in Ontario were forced to accept a new three-year contract which included a wage freeze in the first two years with an hourly raise of 30 cents per hour in the third year.

The casino has seen revenues drop in recent years due to the rising value of the Canadian dollar and the Smoke Free Ontario Act. Across the river, in Michigan, casinos may still cater to smokers, giving Michigan an advantage in attracting smoking clientele. Casinos located on native land in Ontario are also exempt from the smoking ban.

What were Canadian provinces thinking when they blindly bought the anti-smoking BS and lies that bans would bring more non-smokers to casinos? (and of course, we know that never exactly pans out anywhere near the prediction of antis, as any who make it to casinos spend MUCH LESS money than the smokers who used to go to these casinos did) I'm hardly surprised that the union representing Casino Windsor workers had to agree to a wage freeze for the first 2 years of their new contract, since banning smoking is only gonna result in decreased casino revenue! Just look at what occurred to one Illinois casino in southern IL(Metropolis, IL), where 30 employees were laid off:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=716554

gilster wrote:
The Great Canadian Gaming Company, which operates casinos in Halifax and Sydney, managed to offset losses by reducing staff and shortening operating hours. Between 100 and 120 jobs were cut in Halifax alone. They have no competition from native casinos. Milton Woensdregt, Great Canadian’s chief financial officer, said that the problems in Nova Scotia included severe weather, the smoking ban and the province’s anti-gaming messaging.

Don't forget that Nova Scotia is one of the more anti-smoking provinces in Canada, since in addition to having a comprehensive smoking ban, they were one of something like 8 provinces that've required retailers to sell tobacco products behind closed/concealed displays, and not open ones(like it used to be throughout Canada, and still is in all U.S. states). That's probably another reason RIGHT THERE why NS casinos aren't getting the same business they used to get, since by NS passing a province-wide ban, they've (in essence) thrown out an unwelcome mat to any smokers that visit there.

Props to Prince Edward Island for being the only eastern Canadian province still without a comprehensive ban, at least for now! (and however little time left we know that'll last for...)

gilster wrote:
Economic impact studies conducted prior to implementation of the smoking bans warned of economic losses in these areas, but they were ignored. According to Ontario’s Ministry of Health Propaganda, the only studies which suggested any adverse consequences to casinos, or the hospitality industry in general, were those sponsored by tobacco interests or the hospitality industry. So, government relied solely on studies done by the anti-smoker groups and implemented the smoking bans on their assurance that economic losses would be short term and that non-smokers would start flocking to the non-smoking venues.

It hasn’t happened.

Officials with the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission said they would prefer to see First Nations casinos follow the rest of the province. "The whole idea was to protect all Alberta from second-hand smoke," commission spokeswoman, Christine Wronko, commented on the smoking ban. "The First Nations are working with federal legislation, and we have no say in it at all."

There are, in fact, two problems with the position of the casino operators and the politicians. One is that they have not yet proven that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, and two, native communities across the country will be wary of any deal in which they are required to surrender treaty rights.

As far as leveling the playing field, the second of these problems is justifiably the bigger of the two.

Maybe they should deal with their first problem first; stop kowtowing to the anti-smoker fanatics, review the science, and ban the bans.

I love the statement at the end of this article! Since obviously(though I know anti-smoking politicians won't give 2 s****), any TRUE fair-minded politician would've long sensed the junk science coming from the anti-smoking tent.

And btw, there have been some real studies out there that've shown that revenues truly went down after government-imposed state(or Canadian province), or local city/county/town bans. This page has NUMEROUS pdf files on the damage local and/or state bans have done to private businesses:
http://banthebanwisconsin.com/Projects_View.aspx

Another good page, from The Smokers Club site:
http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm

Thanks go out to gilster for posting this interesting article here!
dumpstermcnuggets Enthusiastic Smoker
Enthusiastic Smoker Joined: Nov 06, 2006 Posts: 249 Location: Health Fascism Capital of the Midwest, Illinois
Back to top
 


All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1