Abstract
BackgroundHigh levels of airborne particles from secondhand smoke have been reported in California Indian casinos. Yet, little is known regarding the smoking status of casino patrons, their avoidance of secondhand smoke while visiting, and their views on a hypothetical smoking ban.MethodsPredictors of visiting an Indian casino were assessed among participants of the 2008 California Tobacco Survey (n = 10, 397). Exposure to and avoidance of secondhand smoke were subsequently analyzed among a subset of participants who had visited a casino in the year prior to the survey (n = 3, 361).ResultsEthnic minorities, older individuals, current smokers and residents of sparsely populated regions of California were more likely than other demographic groups to visit a tribal casino. Avoidance of secondhand smoke was more frequent among the never smokers than former and current smokers, particularly those who last visited a casino lacking physical separation between non-smoking and smoking sections. The never smokers versus current smokers disproportionately expressed a willingness to extend their stay and visit again if smoking were prohibited.ConclusionsIf casinos became smoke free, then it is anticipated that they would be visited by a significantly larger number of Californians, including both patrons and those who otherwise would not have visited a casino.
Highlights
High levels of airborne particles from secondhand smoke have been reported in California Indian casinos
The smokefree laws in California were opposed by the tobacco industry and its sponsored organizations (e.g., Beverly Hills Restaurant Association) who argued that such laws would cause economic loss for bars and restaurants in California [3]
The tobacco industry collaborated with the gambling industry in financing economic studies, ventilation projects and lobbying activities against the smoke-free policies [9]
Summary
High levels of airborne particles from secondhand smoke have been reported in California Indian casinos. It was the first to develop a comprehensive tobacco control program in 1988 [1] and the first to enact a smoke-free workplace law in 1994 (i.e. Assembly Bill 13). The smokefree laws in California were opposed by the tobacco industry and its sponsored organizations (e.g., Beverly Hills Restaurant Association) who argued that such laws would cause economic loss for bars and restaurants in California [3]. No such long-term economic loss occurred following enactment of the indoor smoking ban in California [4]. Loss of gaming revenue from enactment of smokefree laws was reported in Victoria, Australia [10], but not in the U.S states of Massachusetts [11] and Delaware [12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
