Shareholders Ignite Change: The Burning Need for Smoke-Free Casinos

As the world continues to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, health and safety measures in public places have taken front and center in most discussions. Recently, one such contentious issue cropping up in the casino industry pertains to indoor smoking. A significant number of shareholders have been pushing casino management teams to reassess their stance on indoor smoking in the interest of public health, sparking debates about the finer balance between revenue generation and casino customers’ welfare. An overarching factor in this discussion is the potential health ramifications of indoor smoking. Scientific research shows that indoor smoking can contribute to Poor Indoor Air Quality (PIAQ), a key driver of respiratory diseases such as lung cancer and asthma. The World Health Organization (WHO) indicates that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, emphasizing that nonsmokers exposed to indoor smoking are at risk of developing health problems. Hence, it is within this context that shareholders are urging casinos to rethink their policies. These shareholders argue that prioritizing customer health and safety is not just a moral obligation but also a business imperative. They opine that a smoke-free casino environment can attract a larger and more diverse customer base, including individuals who previously stayed away due to health considerations. They also argue that banning indoor smoking can position casinos as socially responsible entities, thereby boosting their reputations and increasing customer loyalty. Despite these compelling arguments, the push for reassessing indoor smoking is met with resistance. One common counter-argument is the potential revenue loss associated with a smoking ban. A considerable number of casino customers are smokers who might find smoking restrictions unattractive, thereby affecting the casinos’ bottom line. Additionally, some key stakeholders argue that ventilation systems effectively remove smoke, thus mitigating associated health risks. Another friction point lies in jurisdictional regulations. In some states like Nevada and New Jersey, indoor smoking in casinos is legal, while others like Illinois and Colorado have enacted comprehensive clean indoor air laws that also cover casinos. Consequently, changing the status quo regarding indoor smoking in some states requires navigating complex legislative terrains. Integrating the perspectives of the health sector and casino industry, various measures are being proposed to reach a compromise. One such solution is the designation of separate zones for smokers and nonsmokers. While this strategy offers an immediate resolution, critics argue it doesn’t fully eliminate secondhand smoke hazards as smoke can travel between zones. Technological interventions such as sophisticated ventilation systems are another potential pathway. However, no system can eliminate all harmful particles linked to secondhand smoke, and the effectiveness of such systems varies significantly. Tobacco-free gaming, on the other hand, is viewed as the best long-term solution to protect all stakeholders. In conclusion, while the demand from shareholders to reassess indoor smoking policies in casinos is underpinned by valid health and business considerations, there are significant hurdles that impede the realization of such changes. However, exploring the balance between business operations and health consequences presents a unique opportunity for the casino industry to innovate and redefine its operating models in a way that caters to a broader customer base while promoting public health.