Advertisement

Archive for Friday, July 9, 2010

Statehouse Live: Banning smoking in casinos would be costly, officials say

July 9, 2010

Advertisement

— Casino officials on Friday said banning smoking from their facilities would greatly reduce revenues.

“Once you eliminate smoking in a casino, you see a 30 to 35 percent drop in revenue,” said Marty Naumann, vice president of operations for Kansas Entertainment, which is building a casino next to the Kansas Speedway.

Clint Patty, an attorney representing the Boot Hill Casino and Resort in Dodge City, said studies show that removing smoking in casinos drives down business.

Under state law, 22 percent of gambling revenues at state-owned casinos goes back to the state.

The comments came during a general discussion on smoking in casinos before the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission.

A statwide ban on smoking in public, indoor places took effect July 1, but exempted casinos. A subsequent lawsuit resulted in a court order blocking the ban in 31 private clubs.

More legal challenges are expected. Many owners of bars and bingo parlors have said it is unconstitutional that they must ban smoking but that casinos are exempted.

Patty said Boot Hill spent more than $1 million on a filtration system to remove smoke from the air.

Don Brownlee, director of security for the Kanas Racing and Gaming Commission, said smoking is pervasive on the gaming floor at Boot Hill.

“The Boot Hill casino put in a fairly expensive system to try to filter that out. It doesn’t filter it all out, but for the number of smokers I see, it does a very good job of limiting the effects,” Brownlee said.

Comments

Waldoneatsie 2 years, 2 months ago

Since I'm allergic to smoke I rarely can ever go to a casino except in the middle of the night during the week. Smoking is a disgusting, filthy, costly habit so if a person could not smoke in a casino it would only be doing them a good service! The tiny few that would stop going to a casino because they could not smoke would be offset by those who would start going because of the lack of stinking smoke.

0

edjayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Its all about the fact that the vast majority of their patrons smoke. They want to continue to pray on the poor people.

0

pace 3 years, 9 months ago

They don't care what happens to private business but when it hits their slush fund they get open minded and practical.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

The exemption from the ban for casinos will be declared unconstitutional, but the rest of the new state ban will be upheld.

0

situveux1 3 years, 9 months ago

Gee, I've heard these arguments before. I wonder where?

0

beobachter 3 years, 9 months ago

If state owns them, why aren't they simply paying a management company to run them for flat fee?

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Good question.

I'm sure some of the revenue goes to operating costs and salaries, but 78% seems a bit high for that.

0

HW 3 years, 9 months ago

"Under state law, 22 percent of gambling revenues at state-owned casinos goes back to the state."

If the casino is state-owned, shouldn't 100% of the revenues go back to the state? Where do the other 78% of the revenues go? I am sure that private owners of casinos don't keep just 22% of the revenues. I am pretty sure they keep 100% of the revenues (after taxes of course).

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

The urge to gamble is greater than the urge to smoke. Gambling will never stop!

Ban smoking across the board!

0

d_prowess 3 years, 9 months ago

I am sure there is some study that they used to come up with the "30-35% drop in revenue" figure, but has any state actually banned smoking in a casino?

0

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

Once you eliminate smoking in a casino, you see a 30 to 35 percent drop in revenue

Hypocrites. You can shove your bayonets into the backs of the small business owners and force them to give up 30 to 35% of their revenue and have the audacity to defend the same revenue stream for yourselves?

Why don't you just line us all up and spit in our faces too?

0

Tom Wilson 3 years, 9 months ago

Why not just ban gambling while we are at it? After all, isn't it potentially dangerous to one's financial well being? ...just as smoking is potentially dangerous to one's physical well being. While we are at it, why not just ban everything YOU disagree with? To hell with individual freedoms. YOU make the call.

0

beobachter 3 years, 9 months ago

Seems they only want the ignorant losers who can't control their addictions.

0

chzypoof1 3 years, 9 months ago

It's all about the Benjamins baby

0

mistygreen 3 years, 9 months ago

They are so worried about their precious smokers. What about a non-smoker like me that cannot tolerate being around smoke. Guess it's a win-win for me, I don't go to the casino and I get to keep my money.

0

rooster 3 years, 9 months ago

Since when is our government not two faced?

0

beobachter 3 years, 9 months ago

There should be no exceptions. Being stupid is no excuse for an exception. These losers will come no matter what.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.