It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The ban would include the Atlantic City casino's which could be damaging to their business and also to the state economy.
Increasingly, data from states with smoking bans show that restaurant business has increased.
In Massachussetts, revenue from the state's 5 percent meal tax rose after a smoking ban took effect July 5.
New York City's restaurant and bar business also has surged since its smoking ban took effect in 2003, but the city has experienced a general resurgence after the recession and the 2001 terrorist attacks.
Rhode Island, for example, exempted gambling areas, and the Dover Downs racetrack and casino reported a 24 percent drop in income during the first year of Delaware's smoking ban.
What we have here is a government attempting to impose its will on its people.
All casinos should be banned, because people are not smart enough to realize that casinos steal all their money!
When should we consider the masses too ignorant to think for themselves?
Originally posted by 10 over 6
It seems to me that the greater issue, here, is being overlooked. It does not matter if you smoke or not. It does not matter if second hand smoke is dangerous or not. It does not matter if the new law will be enforced or not. None of this matters! What we have here is a government attempting to impose its will on its people. The question that needs to be asked about this situation is: “Does the sate have the right to tell private businesses what they can or cannot do on their land?”
At what point does the individual turn over the issue of his personal well being to the government? It is my opinion that, if I were so inclined, I should have the right to open a restaurant that served food laced with arsenic, so long as everyone who entered the establishment knew that they were going to consume unhealthy doses of the substance.
There greater issue here is this: Does the government have the right to protect you from yourself?