18 Comments - Anon - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 10:10 am: If the Senate does indeed meet today, will they read the Governor’s vetos into the record? And if not, will the Governor sue the Senate Clerk as he is suing the House Clerk? - Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 10:14 am: They can’t read the vetoes into the journal until after the House takes action. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 10:25 am: Again, if the casinos receive an exemption from the smoking ban, we will know the ban was never really about health. - Ghost - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 10:29 am: make some new licenses, which cost more, but allow for smoking. Require that there be a non-smoking casion within x miles of ones which allow smoking. In short allows for some of the expansion based upon promises to establish non-smoking casions, and some expansions by selling higher priced smoking license. The come back to the table and appropriate more money to help gambling addicts and their families. - Rob_N - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 10:31 am: Casinos are bluffing… The only possible effects might come near state borders and from what I hear the St. Louis casinos are 10x nicer than the dinghies on the Illinois side as it is. - Princeville - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 10:39 am: I’m not sure on the con-con how the delegates are elected. I understand all but who runs for delegate and exactly who then approves/votes for them to be acepted. Anybody got a second to clarify for this simplton? - Rob_N - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 10:40 am: Princeville, I had thought it was like a typical election — candidates have to file ballot access petitions, etc. But now that I think of it I don’t know that for sure. Good question! - Leroy - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 10:42 am: Wrong, Fan of the Game… If Springfield passes the exemption, what they are telling us is that the lives of casino workers are worth less to us as a society, than those who work in bars and restaurants. - Legaleagle - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 10:42 am: Someone ought to ask the casino people why they value the almighty dollar more than the health and longevity of their employees and customers. I’m a non-smoker who enjoys a little blackjack now and then, and I would visit a casino more often if smoking is banned inside. There are others like-minded, so who’s to say business won’t improve (and they will save employee health-care dollars)! - Ghost - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 10:50 am: Legaleagle blue cross, and I beleive other insurance companies, are starting to offer discounts for buisness’s that are non-smoking. - Fan of the Game - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 11:08 am: Leroy, Different words, same message. - VanillaMan - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 11:22 am: A smoke-free casino? The entire idea is ridiculous. People willing to gamble away their savings and weekly wages, are usually willing to gamble away their health using tobacco. They are often willing to suck down sugar while diabetic. They stuff food down their throats while overweight. These people are the crowds that go to riverboat casinos and keep them afloat, (pun intended). What the casinos are telling legislators is just plain common sense. They know who are their customers. They are obviously correct about the loss of revenue that will occur if the legislators cease cigarette smoking on casino premises. I loath cigarettes. I will not step into a casino just to breath the stench of tobacco. Just as I am not an idiot regarding this sad habit, I am also not an idiot pretending that banning smoking from casinos won’t have enormous negative fiscal impacts on their bottom lines. Instead of ruining casinos we depend upon for state revenue because, lets show a bit of respect by allowing casinos to regulate themselves at this time, provide non-smoking areas, perhaps try out a non-smoking casino to see the results, and leave these people alone. I know when to stop meddling. - no smoking please - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 12:02 pm: The reason we have EPA, OSHA and health and safety laws is to protect us from casino operators who “know their customers.” If given the opportunity, the private sector will often put proftis in front of public health. Look at the contaminated products that have been made for U.S. corporations in China and other countries. I wish somebody had shown the sense to “meddle” to prevent this activity. It’s up to the legislators, not the private sector, to put a value on public health and well-being, and pass laws the protect all people. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 1:03 pm: Here’s an idea: Instead of banning smoking in the casinos as an act of protecting the patrons’ welfare even as they gamble away their life savings and mortgages on an illusory dream- Why not make the casinos true “sin palaces” where anything and everything goes, and is taxed accordingly. Enough money would be generated to fund the CTA, a capital bill, and the universal health insurance that would surely be needed to address the additional physical and mental ills that would be created, especially among the elderly and the working poor. - Team Sleep - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 2:18 pm: Six, that’s an interesting idea. But I could never see the GA sanctioning that. Remember the outrage when Governor Jesse Ventura wanted to legalize prostitution?! I think it’s a necessity to allow smoking in casinos. Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky and any state up north with Native American-owned casinos would draw a LOT of our business. For people in the Metro East, St. Louis is not much more of a drive; the same would go for people in the Quad Cities or the south Chicago suburbs. People from all over the state make trips to go to casinos. Unfortunately, smoking is a prerequisite for some people, and if we outlaw it all together and casinos are not exempt, a portion of our precious revenue stream that legislators cannot live without would dry up. Do we really want to see what would happen if we had an additional half billion to make up? Our dear leaders would never get out of session. And I know that is a high figure, but it could reach that if more people than expected go to other locations. The problem with the stance that no exemptions should be made is that some of the same people who refuse to allow for the possibility are the same advocates who push for more programs and more spending. That just is not feasible. I agree that smoking is a problem and is dangerous, but you can’t assert your opinion to increase spending while simultaneously decreasing a revenue stream. - Independent - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 3:17 pm: If smoking is allowed in casinos then why not in bars where over 75% of revenue is from alcohol sales? In these types of places if food is served it’s frozen pizzas, microwaved hot dogs, and chips. These are not restaurant/bars where people take children or their elderly parents for a meal. In these “dive bars” 90% of the patrons smoke, as well as almost the entire staff. Why can’t adults have a place to smoke with their drink? - Blogless - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 5:04 pm: The casino industry is blowing smoke up our ace. The smoking ban allows Illinois casinos to focus marketing on nonsmokers. There are plenty of high rolling nonsmokers who gamble big bucks. - Out of Business - Monday, Sep 17, 07 @ 8:23 pm: Small business such as restaurants and bars cannot compete with casinos exempted from the smoking ban. These greedy corporations want a competitive advantage over the mom and pop shops to increase food and beverage and revenue exempted from the gaming tax. Why eat at the local restaurant or bar? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.