Just wondered what everyone else thought about this. I think it would anger some customers, but I believe the majority of customers are non-smokers, so business would still be fine. As for smokers, I guess it would be a case of which addiction is stronger.

__________________
"Coffee is for closers." -- Glengarry GlenRoss

If all the casinos in town banned smoking, then no, it wouldn't hurt business. But if one casino banned smoking, and another casino didn't, people would play at the casino where they could smoke.

I'm opposed to smoking bans on general principle.

Why is that? Just too much of the government meddling in our affairs?

__________________
"Coffee is for closers." -- Glengarry GlenRoss

I, and many people I know, would play at the Casino that did NOT allow smoking ... I don't smoke and really dislike the smell. I don't know if it's still the case, but I remember hearing about an entire non-smoking casino (or at least building of a casino) in Laughlin, NV (near Las Vegas). When I was in Detroit a few years ago the MGM Grand had a non-smoking floor, and some casinos have sizable non-smoking sections (sometimes closed off) that get plenty of action.

I think there's definitely room in Las Vegas and Reno for at least a couple non-smoking casinos, and I heard recently that Atlantic City is contemplating a law to make all (or at least most?) of them non-smoking.

--Havspace

Interesting the hear the perspective of a non-smoker.

I've also heard about the Atlantic City law, and it would be interesting to see how it affects business. I imagine, however, that if all casinos were smoke-free, gamblers who smoke would still frequent. After all, they really won't have a choice at that point.

Still, I agree that it seems perfectly reasonable to have a few smoke-free casinos. That way, everyone can go and enjoy losing their money.

__________________
"Coffee is for closers." -- Glengarry GlenRoss