Smoking in New Orleans Casinos - Essay Example

Module Should Smoking be banned in New Orleans Casinos? New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu has ratified the New Orleans smokingban. A smoking ban is a public policy that puts in place criminal laws and health regulations that ban smoking in public places (Farley & Cohen 169-200). The New Orleans ban includes electronic cigarettes. The Mayor signed the ban on January 30th, 2015 with the message that the State’s intention was to achieve a balance between public health, economic development and public security. The ban is expected to take effect on April 22nd 2015; ninety days after the Mayor signed it into law. It covers Bars, Restaurants, Casinos, Patios, Hotel and Motel Rooms, Patios, Courtyards, Balconies, Parks, Public Events, Hotel and Motel Rooms, Bingo and Video Poker Halls, Sidewalks and Streets, Private Homes, Private Clubs, Conventions, Nursing Homes and assisted living areas, Stadiums, Care Facilities, Correctional Facilities, Amphitheaters and Outdoor Areas, and Bus Shelters. Hookah and Cigar Bars and Vape Shops however will be exempted from the ban (Mahey & Miller 312-46). The Mayor argues that the ban is about quality of life, protecting citizens and making the neighborhoods safer. The City Council will proceed with an aggressive campaign to create awareness about the ban. Enforcement will be placed on the hands of City health and code inspectors. Bars that defy the ban are subject to fines and penalties. Debate is torn between those decrying the dangers of second-hand smoke and those fearing for the collapse of businesses that host smokers. The smoking debate has been raging for a long time. Those in support of smoking bans argue that many people die from lung cancer and heart disease and that the world would be a better place without cigarettes. They say that smoking harms non-smokers who inadvertently inhale second-hand smoke and that it kills more people than alcohol; car accidents and AIDS combined. Smoking kills 1.2 million people in China and 430,000 people a year in America and about 50,000 non-smokers die from smoke related diseases in America (Farley & Cohen 18-20). The National Cancer Institute, Surgeon General of the United States and National Institute of Health all support the smoking ban particularly because of the effects of second-hand smoke on nonsmokers. Banning smoking will improve air quality they say and smoking bans are becoming common in the United States and the world over. The American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation reports that 36 States and 900 cities have enacted laws requiring bars and restaurants to be smoke free. More places in America and the world are going smoke free causing smokers to rethink about the habit. No smoking is the norm the world over and it seems that is better to give the rights to nonsmokers rather than the smokers. To crown it all, America spends twice what other nations spend on health care and yet they are among the sickest people on the globe (Mahey & Miller 813-52). On the other hand, opponents of smoking bans argue that smokers have a right of choice and that they are many legal things that are a danger to humans for example junk foods. They say similar to junk food or sodas, smoking is only harmful if done excessively. There is no proof that cigarettes cause lung cancers as they say and many non-smokers die from it as well. They claim that the debate was started by Insurance companies so as to avoid paying for smoking-related deaths. A ban on smoking would only serve to encourage the proliferation of black market cigarettes and smoking creates jobs, relaxes and is a huge source of public revenue that benefits society in funding social programs like security, education, roads and health services. Cigarette smoking is the lesser of two evils in comparison to say marijuana yet the latter is legal in many States. It is a way of government interference and bans are an expression of the Puritan mentality. In countries like Cuba and England cigarettes are a major export commodity and bars can create specially designated areas for smokers (Maisto, Galizio & Connors 322-58). The moderates are against bans and argue that taxes and age buying ages should be raised to control cigarette smoking. With everybody having an opinion about cigarette smoking, it is wise to look at what the law says. Section one of the 14th Amendment of America’s constitution says that no State shall enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of the citizens of America or deprive any person of liberty. Liberty is defined as those interests that are rooted in the history and collective conscience of the people. The question is if smoking is such a liberty. Tobacco is deeply rooted in America’s history agriculturally and socially and can be said to be part of America’s collective cultural conscience. On the other hand, it is harmful to members of the society. This calls for rationality. The lesser of the two evils would be protecting the majority of the citizens’ health (Fielding, Baum & Weiss 122-34). This is constitutionally paramount as it is for the greater good of the greatest number. Proponents of personal freedom John Locke and John Stewart Mill in their book Second Treatise argue the personal freedom must be surrendered in order to get government freedom. Back to New Orleans, opponents of the ban argue that property owners should have the freedom to decide whether to admit smokers, non-smokers, neither or both. When businesses are forced to implement smoking policies, then the government is infringing on their rights. They say it should be left to customers to decide whether to enter a smoking establishment or not. Backers of the constitution argue that such bans are against the United States Constitution. They say the constitution should be rightly amended to outlaw smoking instead of the gradual and incremental laws phasing out smoking that are easier to implement than sweeping reforms. Ironically the small laws are more difficult to reverse. The ban infringes on private property (Farley & Cohen 51-6). Do governments have a right to dictate how individuals run their businesses? They can do health inspections in kitchens because the public does not have access to restaurants to judge their cleanliness, but for smoking customers can easily decide if they want to be in an establishment or not. On the other hand, private property is subject to government regulation, and there is a limit to what one can do with it. Casino owners in New Orleans argue that it is a matter of Adult liberties choice and that the ban will change the city’s nightlife and culture. They argue that New Orleans has always been a place to drink and smoke. Traditionally the City is famed for the service industry. It has long held a reputation as an easy-going city that attracts many visitors. Those against the ban formed the Freedom to Choose Coalition and pushed for the position that businesses should decide on their own whether to be smoke-free. They argue that the law is discriminative as it only supports non-smokers, and it is bad for tourism. Bars will be shut down because they will lack clientele as most of their patrons are smokers and these shut down will affect smokers and nonsmokers as well as the city’s economy. Alternatively customers will be forced to go to more pricey establishments. On the other hand, proposers of the law argue that servers, bartenders and musicians and other bar working staff should not be forced to choose between their jobs or their health. Businesses will get better, and the crowds will become happier and more comfortable as opposed to earlier times when they would run away from the smoke. Smokers have no right to pollute the air used by the entire population (Maisto, Galizio & Connors 209-13). Moreover, it has taken the populace many years to reverse the dangers posed by cigarettes, and this is no time to back down. They say the talk about infringing on personal space is just paranoia. Casinos are big business in New Orleans that attract millions of visitors and generate massive revenues. One such example is Harrah’s Casino located in Louisiana. It is one of New Orleans biggest Casino’s and is at the forefront of opposition to the smoking ban. The Casino has launched a push to avert what it terms an economic disaster. It argues that the ban would result in losses of between $1.8 and $3.6 million in public revenue, money that would benefit social services. Harrah’s and fifty other bars and restaurant have sued the New Orleans City’s smoking ban arguing that it is a piece of dictatorial and retrogressive legislation that takes back the democratic choice of the people. Casino business is the third largest employer in New Orleans and no doubt the ban will hurt business. Harrah’s alone estimates a 20% loss of its $287.5 annual income. It is seeking an exemption. Looking at these figures, we must admit that Casino’s have a point. New Orleans is not the rest of America or the world for that matter. Just like Las Vegas, many visitors go to New Orleans to partake in pleasures that are forbidden in other parts of America and the rest of the world. Drinking is allowed in the streets, strip clubs advertise about love acts and bars don’t have to close. The city’s culture is liberal to personal behavior and has resisted government regulations so far. It relies on tourism, has a reputation for vice and flexible drinking laws (Farley & Cohen150-53). Should the city give up its uniqueness? What are at stake are business owner’s fears of lost customers against the protection of nonsmoking customers and employees from secondhand smoke. Studies show mixed results and opinion is divided. Some say that the economic impact to the hospitality industry is small, and there are no big gains or losses, others show a 6% decline in restaurant sales as a result of the smoking ban as middle ground groups advocate for partial bans that cater for both the interests of smokers and non-smokers. Establishments that have gambling business are most affected and have seen as much as 20% decline in revenue. Once patrons step out to smoke they leave and do not come back. Gambling is a very intense activity that cannot withstand disruption. The City must contend with cultural norms. A while back banning public smoking was seen as a violation of personal freedom. Today visitors may be encouraged to visit the city because of the smoking ban. New Orleans has always been exotic and weird. Residents may want the city to change direction now and implement the smoking ban as it sits well with current global norms on smoking. However, the bans sweeping nature may be counterproductive considering the city’s nature and affect business. Casinos should, therefore, be exempted from this ban. Work Cited Farley, Tom & Cohen, Deborah. Prescription for a Healthy Nation: A New Approach to Improving Our Lives by Fixing Our Everyday World, Beacon Press, 2007. Mahey, David & Miller Jon. Alcohol and Drugs in North America: A Historical Encyclopedia: A Historical Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, 2013. Maisto Stephen, Mark Galizio & Gerard, Connors. Drug Use and Abuse, Cengage Learning, 2010. Weiss Stephen, Jonathan Fielding & Andrew Baum. Health at Work, Psychology Press, 2013. Read More