Inside Asian Gaming

March 2011 | INSIDE ASIAN GAMING 21 Policy Outlook around the whole floor, then the smoking zone must inevitably become ‘smokier’ than before (even when high quality modern ventilation systems are used to clean the air). That in itself could create greater incentives for the non-smokers to stay out of the new smoking areas than under the current‘mixed use’ arrangements. There’s a third problem. If the floor is split 50:50, where is the smoking zone going to be? In the very centre of the floor? If not, then either non-smokers will need to walk through it (which rather defeats the object) or no-smoking ‘corridors’ will need to be built from the main entrance nearest to the smoking zone through to the smoke free area, in the manner of the connecting corridors at The Venetian Macau that allow families with children to walk around the property without entering the gaming area. If governments in Macau and Hong Kong were really acting in good faith toward smokers and non-smokers alike, rather than acting like busybody nannies, they would have allowed the sale and marketing to Hong Kong residents and Macau gamblers of smokeless ‘electronic’ cigarettes (known as eCigarettes). But the Hong Kong government banned the importation and sale of the devices, driven by fear of a collapse in tax revenue from conventional cigarettes and perhapsmore importantly because theywere lobbied hard by the commercial interests that run Hong Kong and that have the exclusive rights to import leading brands of cigarettes. That also seems to have killed off the product in the Macau market. Macau seems willing to take a leap in the dark with a halfway house policy on smoking that is born of opposing objectives. The first of those objectives is for Macau to be seen to be conforming to the international standards on public smoking seen in many developed economies. The second is to be seen as responsive and supportive of its core industry, casino gaming. In the end, it risks pleasing neither one side nor the other. Singapore has shown clearer leadership on this issue. The presumption of rights in the integrated resorts there is against the smokers. Resorts World Sentosa has a larger amount of space designated for smokers than Marina Bay Sands, but in both cases the smokers are catered for as a minority group, and their allocation of space is measured accordingly. A similar principle is applied in most developed countries in public spaces such as airports and offices, where smoking rooms or zones are sealed off from the ‘majority’ public areas. In casino-free Hong Kong, where public smoking was banned in January 2007, some bars, karaoke parlours, saunas and nightclubs were given until July 2009 to implement the new rules. Many European Union countries have also passed anti public smoking laws on the presumption that the right of non-smokers to breathe smoke-free air outweighs the right of smokers to pursue their habit. Not all developed countries take the same view. In the United States, where the constitution and political tradition strongly support the rights of the individual, there is no national ban on public smoking—though some individual states have passed laws to control it; in likelihood as a defensive posture by public bodies against litigation from private individuals or from class actions. In Nevada, however, attempts to introduce a smoking ban in casinos have so far been resisted. Smoke without fire—smokeless ‘electronic’ cigarettes atomise a mixture of water and nicotine to make a breathable vapour; like smoking a cigarette but without burning tobacco If the floor is split 50:50, where is the smoking zone going to be? In the very centre of the floor?