In a recent development, Superior Court Judge Patrick Bartels has given his approval for a law that allows casinos in Atlantic City to have different regulations regarding smoking inside their premises. This decision has sparked a battle as casino workers, represented by United Automobile Workers (UAW) Region 9 and Casino Employees Against Smoking Effects (CEASE), are now appealing to the New Jersey Supreme Court to reconsider this ruling.

According to a report in The New Jersey Monitor, the UAW and CEASE are concerned about the health risks posed to casino employees who are exposed to secondhand smoke. They argue that allowing smoking in casinos goes against workplace safety standards and puts the well-being of workers at risk.

Judge Bartels justified his decision by pointing out that the special legal status of Atlantic City, which allows the state legislature to have control over gambling within the city limits, permits such exemptions. However, those opposing the ruling argue that this special treatment of the casino industry violates constitutional principles by denying workers a safe work environment.

The Casino Association of New Jersey, on the other hand, believes that banning smoking in casinos could lead to a decrease in profits, potentially resulting in job losses. They fear that customers might choose to gamble in neighboring states where smoking is still allowed in casinos. The court has acknowledged these economic concerns, highlighting the impact on casino revenue and tax contributions. Despite this, casino workers maintain that their right to a healthy workplace should not be compromised for financial reasons.

Efforts to implement a smoking ban in casinos through legislation have faced challenges within the state legislature. While some lawmakers have proposed a compromise that would permit smoking in designated enclosed areas within casinos, health groups have strongly opposed this idea.

The debate over smoking regulations in Atlantic City casinos continues to be a contentious issue, with both sides presenting valid arguments regarding workplace safety, economic implications, and individual rights. As the case now heads to the New Jersey Supreme Court, a resolution that satisfies all parties involved remains uncertain.