There’s a reason casinos are among the last remaining venues to still allow smoking indoors: Consumers tolerate it. (A small fraction even demands it.) 

Indeed, there has long been an understanding in the industry that non-smoking visitors are more than willing to tolerate the kind of smoke-filled environments that keep nicotine addicts feeding dollar bills into slot machines. As a result, pretty much every pit boss, slot manager and resort executive agree that clearing the air of tobacco smoke would be bad for business — cigarettes and profits being deeply intertwined within the industry.

And while it’s easy to assert that clean air should be more important than profits, it’s important to understand that profits are often the market mechanism through which businesses judge how well they are responding to consumer preferences. When profits increase, it generally indicates consumers value what they are purchasing — while declining profits indicate the opposite. In a sense, consumers have democratic control over corporate policy through where, how or if they spend their dollars. 

And judging by casino profits in recent months, “the people” simply don’t seem to prioritize clean air over the entertainment value of bustling slot machines and gaming attractions.  

However, a new study issued by the Las Vegas firm, C3 Gaming, attempts to convince the industry otherwise, as a number of states toy with the possibility of imposing new smoking bans. While the study raises some important observations about consumer expectations in the wake of a recent global pandemic, much of it won’t be welcome with open arms by the industry — likely for good reason.  

For starters, the report dismisses historical evidence that smoking bans eat into corporate profits by shifting some of the blame for dips in revenue onto “external factors” — and it largely asserts that “this time’s different” per an analysis of post-pandemic casino environments. However, relying on data from the disorienting post-pandemic economy is, itself, hardly free from the kinds of “external factors” the study uses to dismiss the negative impact bans have had on the industry in the past. 

More telling, however, is that the report doesn’t merely suggest a financial incentive for casinos to go smoke-free in a post-pandemic world, it seemingly encourages government policies that would mandate such a policy. And it’s this embrace of government-led prohibitionist policies that betrays the objectivity of the report — indicating that the authors seem less concerned about whether financial incentives exist for smoke-free gaming establishments, and far more concerned with giving political cover to policymakers (or even casino operators) who wish to use the power of government to impose reforms upon the industry. 

After all, if moving toward smoke-free gaming floors was the potential revenue-generator suggested by the study’s authors, profit-seeking industry leaders would hardly need a government diktat to embrace reform. Just as properties up and down the strip were quick to begin charging parking fees once visitors showed a willingness to pay, casinos would be quick to kick smokers to outdoor patios and back alleys if there was real-world evidence doing so could inch up quarterly profits. 

That’s not to say there aren’t reasons to believe the underlying assertion of the study might be at least partially correct: Given the changing expectations among consumers in a post-pandemic world, a change to casinos’ smoking policies might not have the ruinous financial consequences they otherwise would have had in previous years. The commonly accepted presumption within the industry that smoking bans are costly to overall profits could, indeed, be an outdated way of thinking. 

Luckily, no policymakers or industry consultants actually have to depend on hypotheticals or theorized statistical analysis for guidance. The market, as it turns out, is already in search of the answer with commercial casinos like Park MGM having voluntarily adopted smoke-free policies. 

If there was ever an opportunity to demonstrate, rather than postulate about, the supposed benefits of a smoke free casino, Park MGM is probably it. As the only entirely smoke-free gaming experience on the Las Vegas Strip, Park MGM offers a real-world experiment comparing the profitability of clean air gambling to smoke-filled alternatives in the highly competitive entertainment capital of the world. 

And, make no mistake, if Park MGM’s new non-smoking experience resonates with visitors and—as a result—rakes in the profits, the corporate decision to ban smoking on casino floors will be replicated elsewhere faster than $10 parking charges. If a Vegas experience, sans-tobacco, is a welcome change for smoke-weary tourists, it means such policies will be adopted by countless casinos without the heavy hand of government meddling in company policies. 

And that seems to be what C3 Gaming misses in its attempt to excuse government-imposed smoking bans in other states: If it were truly a profitable strategy for casino properties to prohibit smoking, there would be no need for legislative or regulatory action — profit-driven industry leaders would be adopting such policies of their own volition.

On the other hand, if newly smoke-free commercial casinos such as Park MGM prove to be financial disappointments, it will indicate that casino visitors simply don’t value such healthy alternatives as much as other considerations — which will doubtlessly irritate cultural scolds and tobacco prohibitionists who want to relegate smoking to only unused fire escapes or parking garage stairwells.

Even among casinos, indoor smoking may not be long for this world. However, it’s a policy that shouldn’t be decided by pandering politicians, public-health activists or state regulators. It should be decided by the people who matter the most to the industry: Those who actually show up to spend their hard-earned money at slot machines and table games. 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding consultant based in Las Vegas and founder of Schaus Creative LLC, an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He is the former communications director for Nevada Policy Research Institute and has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary as a columnist, political humorist, and radio talk show host. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.