Casino employees in Atlantic City are continuing their efforts to remove the rule allowing smoking inside casinos. Recently, they have taken their battle to the New Jersey Supreme Court, seeking intervention on the matter.
UAW and CEASE Challenge the Ruling on Smoking Exemption in Casinos
Representing the casino workers, the United Automobile Workers (UAW) Region 9 and Casino Employees Against Smoking Effects (CEASE) have expressed dissatisfaction with a previous ruling on this issue. According to The New Jersey Monitor, these organizations oppose the judge’s decision, as they believe that allowing smoking inside casinos puts workers’ health in danger due to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Plaintiffs submit that the State’s decision to allow gambling in Atlantic City did not make it a ‘law free’ zone or render its workers and residents unprotected by New Jersey’s Constitution and laws
The case is now in the hands of the Supreme Court after Judge Bartels ruled that New Jersey’s Constitution doesn’t guarantee absolute safety in the workplace but instead guarantees the right “to pursue and obtain” it. Those challenging this decision argue that excluding casino employees from standard safety rules, like the statewide smoking ban in most indoor workplaces, unfairly favors a powerful industry located in Atlantic City. This, they claim, undermines the state’s constitutional principles of fairness.
Judge Bartels’ decision relied on the legal argument that Atlantic City’s unique legal framework, which allows the state legislature to control gambling within the city, permits certain exemptions, including allowing smoking inside casinos. However, the workers argue that this exemption unjustly singles them out, depriving them of the right to a smoke-free work environment—an entitlement enjoyed by most employees across the state.
Casino Industry Warns of Potential Job Losses Amid Smoking Ban Push
On the other side of the debate, the Casino Association of New Jersey has raised concerns that banning smoking in casinos could negatively affect business, leading to decreased profits and potential job losses. They worry that customers may choose to gamble at casinos in neighboring states where smoking is still allowed indoors, ultimately impacting the local economy and reducing the tax revenue generated by casinos.
These financial concerns have been considered by the courts, with the potential economic consequences of banning smoking being a central point of discussion. Despite this, casino employees argue that protecting their health should take precedence over economic fears, stressing that the right to work in a healthy, smoke-free environment should not be sacrificed for profits.
Legislative Efforts Face Challenges Despite Bipartisan Support
While efforts to introduce a smoking ban in casinos through legislative action have gained support from both political parties, they continue to face roadblocks in the state legislature. Some lawmakers have proposed a compromise that would permit smoking in designated enclosed areas of casinos, but this idea has met resistance from health advocacy groups who maintain that a complete ban is necessary to protect workers’ health.
Republican Assemblyman John DiMaio, along with other supporters of the ban, argues that the issue transcends political divisions and is fundamentally about safeguarding the health and well-being of workers and their families. DiMaio and his colleagues are pushing for swift action, particularly given New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy’s public statement that he would sign a law banning casino smoking if it reached his desk.
The casino workers and their advocates remain hopeful that the ongoing legal and legislative battles will eventually result in a smoking ban that would finally bring their work environment in line with standard health protections found in other industries across the state.
Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke
Secondhand smoke, also known as passive smoking, poses significant health risks to non-smokers. Studies show that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the likelihood of developing serious health conditions such as lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory infections. The smoke contains thousands of chemicals, many of which are toxic and carcinogenic, leading to harmful effects even in brief exposure. Children, in particular, are highly vulnerable, with research linking secondhand smoke to conditions like asthma, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and developmental issues.
In response to these risks, many countries and regions have implemented laws banning indoor smoking in public spaces, including restaurants, bars, and workplaces. These policies have had a profound impact on public health, with studies demonstrating significant reductions in heart attacks, strokes, and respiratory problems in areas where such bans have been enforced. The American Heart Association, for example, reported that hospitalizations for heart attacks decreased by up to 17% in regions with strict indoor smoking bans. In addition to protecting non-smokers, these policies have also motivated many smokers to reduce their consumption or quit altogether.
The positive effects of indoor smoking bans extend beyond just immediate health benefits. Studies show that these regulations contribute to cleaner air quality, improved workplace environments, and decreased healthcare costs. Countries that enforce these laws also report higher public satisfaction and fewer complaints about smoke-filled venues. Furthermore, these policies help to change social norms, reducing the acceptability of smoking in public spaces and encouraging healthier behaviors overall. This shift has led to a significant reduction in smoking rates and overall improvement in population health.
