On the Missouri side, Kansas City bar owners have blamed the smoking ban for hurting local businesses alongside the relative novelty of the Power & Light District and everyone losing their jobs.
Thanks to the bad economy, KCK residents will probably get to keep their lung candy a bit longer, but it'll be harder to play nickel slots while they puff.
First there's this story from the Associated Press, which says the recent collapse of just about everything is causing lawmakers across the country to think twice about smoking bans. We assume they should have better things to worry about at the moment, and the story notes that lawmakers have cold feet about messing with any business that's managing to turn a profit. This is bad news for Kansas anti-smoking advocates, who've been circulating a health report that claims the state would save $20 million in health-care costs within the first year of a smoking ban.
When KCMO banned smoking in bars and restaurants, the city left a loophole allowing smoking in casinos, which angered business owners since they couldn't let people light up unless they got the zoning, permits and slot machines to convince them to drop their kid's college fund. The universe at least has a sense of justice about these things. Which is why there's this story about how there will be at be one fewer place for Kansas smokers to go if the mom-and-pops do lose the ability to chose their preference. The arguments over gambling regulations started when legislation was introduced to try to kick-start the gaming industry's plans in Kansas. Since it would require lowering the state's cut of a casino's profits, among other changes, and since the state isn't exactly bringing money in hand over fist as it is, no one wants to back it. Over the last year, developers have withdrawn plans for casino's across the state. We're sure the canceled resort plans aren't entirely the fault of just one thing, be that legislation or monetary disintegration, we're just happy everyone's getting screwed equally.
Showing 1-3 of 3
Newsflash: when folks lose everything they have worked for they tend to drink and smoke. When the government tries to limit that, folks still do it (Google prohibition, young folks) and do it with much higher frequency. Plus, when the government allows it, they can extract even more tax dollars for those that they have pillaged.
So, stop with your pretty little summary equations with equal signs and slogans and face the reality already.
These bans have never been about public health. The casino exemption is perfect proof of that--politicians KNOW that smoking bans drive away business at bars and casinos, but bars don't have the lobbying power of big gambling. We wouldn't want the state's slush fund, er, education dollars to go away, would we?
Whichever side of the smoking ban issue you're on, it's only fair that the law be applied equally. If it's banned in bars, it should be banned in casinos. The ONLY exemption that's fair is tobacco/cigar shops, and in those cases litigation must be written forcefully enough to avoid creating loopholes.
Breathing is not a choice...no matter where you work, especially in a casino.
Secondhand smoke is toxic. It causes asthma, heart disease, low-birth weight in babies, breast cancer, lung cancer and so on.
By exempting casino employees, the law discriminates against a segment of citizens merely because of who their bosses are. Doesn't this sound like greed at the expense of worker health?
Exemptions = discrimination.
Stop lung discrimination.
like
dislike
