2010/11/29 P-D: “Illinois casino smoking: Compromise bill would allow separate rooms”

Another attempt by a well-intentioned but misguided legislator, state Rep. André M. Thapedi, D-Chicago, to put smoking back into Illinois casinos, using the economic argument for doing so. One of the comments posted on-line following the article hit the nail on the head though:

Tonymustgo said on: November 30, 2010, 1:55 pm

Of course revenue is down. We have 10 percent unemployment and nearly everyone feels the pinch on discretionary spending. Unless you’re a gambling addict, spending at casinos comes from your discretionary funds. ……

As she has done consistently in the past, Kathy Drea of the American Lung Association argued against the proposal on health grounds. That was the foremost reason for the Illinois Smoke Free Air Law in the first place.

Illinois casino smoking: Compromise bill would allow separate rooms

BY KEVIN McDERMOTT > kmcdermott@post-dispatch.com > 217-782-4912 | (48) Comments | Posted: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:34 pm

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The question is still smoldering in Illinois this week: Should the state re-allow smoking in its casinos — after banning it in all indoor public places more than two years ago — as a way of recouping gaming losses from Missouri and other neighbors?

An Illinois House committee today advanced a bill that would allow Illinois casinos to set up separate smoking rooms for gamblers. The bill, HB1850 (House Amendment 1), would require “state of the art” air-filtration systems in the rooms, and anyone who wanted to work there would have to apply separately and sign a waiver acknowleging the dangers of second-hand smoke.

Representative André M. Thapedi (D) 32nd District IL

“I’m a non-smoker. I’m also an asthmatic. But I can count,” state Rep. André M. Thapedi, D-Chicago, told the House Executive Committee as he presented the bill. He cited estimates that Illinois has lost some $200 million a year since the state’s landmark indoor smoking ban took effect in January 2008.

The casino industry says the facilities in East St. Louis and other border areas around the state are losing customers to casinos in adjacent states where people are allowed to smoke. Illinois heavily taxes casino income, and proponents of resuming smoking in the casinos say better profits at the tables and slots could help alleviate the state’s crushing budget deficit.

Earlier this month, another measure was introduced that would open up smoking entirely in the casinos, with the condition that the ban would go back into effect for any casino whose border competition bans smoking. That bill (HB1846) passed the same committee two weeks ago, and is pending in the House.

Thapedi’s bill was presented as a compromise that would continue to limit smoking, while allowing enough of it to lure gamblers back to Illinois. It passed the committee, but neither side in the debate appeared to be embracing it.

Opponents, including Kathy Drea of the American Lung Association, cited data showing that the Casino Queen in East St. Louis had high smoke content in its air throughout the facility even when it used to have separate smoking and non-smoking sections, and they said experts don’t believe it’s possible to filtrate smoke-filled air to safe levels. Meanwhile, state Rep. Daniel Burke, D-Chicago, sponsor of the earlier measure to re-allow smoking, questioned whether the latest proposal would really help the casinos by allowing smoking on such a limited basis.

Burke and Drea started getting into it at one point, with Burke demanding: “Ms. Drea, do you have recommendation on how we can recover that kind of revenue?” Drea responded that the state would save billions in health care costs by further discouraging smoking.

The bill now moves to the full House.

3 responses to “2010/11/29 P-D: “Illinois casino smoking: Compromise bill would allow separate rooms”

  1. Tonymustgo said, “Of course revenue is down. We have 10 percent unemployment and nearly everyone feels the pinch …” Really Tony? “Everyone”? Then why aren’t the casinos in the Free Choice states down 28%? They seem to be doing about plus 5% or so the last time I checked. See p.18 of my “Stiletto” at


    and then try to explain how unemployment produced that graph for Minnesota. Kathy Drea says air can’t be filtered to “safe” levels — but she doesn’t mention that she considers air “safe” only if it has ZERO smoke. Nor does she mention that she considers it “safe” while it’s filled with flu germs, formaldehyde, airborne fungal colonies and all sorts of other nasty things that would be reduced in smoking facilities.

    The bill should expand to include ANY venue using filtration/ventilation systems to bring its air into reasonably safe limits for consenting workers and patrons.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

    [mogasp character count = 998!]

    • Michael, Water companies remove harmful constituents from drinking water to make it safe for human consumption. It may not be completely free of all contaminants but would that be a reason to criticize the water company?
      Your efforts are similar to those employed by tobacco companies for years, as illustrated by the following quote from a 1969 internal Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. document:

      “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the mind of the general public.”

  2. MoGASP, that’s not very nice. You know perfectly well that I have no tobacco relationship other than being a smoker. Your comparison of my efforts to those of BT would be like my comparing your efforts to those of Adolf Hitler as he accustomed the Germans to accepting division, distrust, and reporting on their fellows with his pioneering ‘passive smoking’ campaign. Except your comparison is even worse since BT is still an active player that people believe secretly controls things. You have my assurance: if I ever found a way to bring the power of BT resources to the aid of Free Choice activists the connection would be public and without such control.

    Re the water: Criticize the water company? Just because a 16oz glass of water contains the same amount of arsenic (rat poison) as as a person might get sitting in a smoking bar for 165,000 hours? Nope. Not me. They’re both harmless except in the eyes of crazy folks (Heh… ok… now we can go back to playing nice… )


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s