File photo

NEW CUMBERLAND, W.Va. — The Hancock County Board of Health is set to vote Tuesday on a smoking ban that the county’s largest employer claims could cost it 20 percent of its business.

Mountaineer Casino, Racetrack and Resort—which features a staff of 1,300—has opposed the ban at every public meeting for the past year. The casino is in competition with gambling venues in other states and maintains that a total smoking ban would be devastating.

The proposal, previously approved in draft form, would eliminate smoking in all public indoor areas and some outdoor areas. It would mandate that smoking areas must be at least 20 feet from an entrance.

“The current regulation from 1999 is very vague as far as protection of workers and the public from secondhand smoke,” said Hancock County Board of Health administrator Jackie Huff.

While the casino and its workers have been vocal in their criticism of the ban, Huff said the health board must keep all residents in mind.

“Our board has reiterated we are in public health and have to look at second-hand smoke,” Huff said.

Casino officials said they installed a new clean-air system and feature smoke-free restaurants and a smoke-free video lottery parlor. They claim it’s a necessity to keep some areas for smokers to gamble or they will go someplace else.

The meeting of the five-member health board is scheduled to start at 12:30 p.m. Tuesday at the New Cumberland City Building.

bubble graphic


bubble graphic


  • harleyrider1778

    They passed the ban 5-0 but we already figured that anyway. Bribery is a good way to get what you want in the world of PROHIBITION..............

  • Shane

    So why do smokers stick their hands out the window of their car with their lit cigarette?
    It's obvious... they have an issue with breathing their own smoke so don't allow them to expose it to everyone else!

    • harleyrider1778

      Get rid of ashes that's why! and to vent smoke the same as you do with a fireplace or a restraint does with a range hood..........I suppose you suck on your tail pipe to save the environment at least a smoker knows better!

      • harleyrider1778


  • Stephanie

    Smoking releases 7,000 chemicals and chemical compounds into the air and into the lungs of people. 70 of those chemicals are cancer causing.
    No one should be breathing it. Especially the employees who have to breathe at work 8 hours a day.
    We don't allow the casino to serve contaminated food or contaminated water then so too should the air NOT be contaminated.

    • harleyrider1778

      They have only ever identified and trapped 800 actual chemicals in tobacco smoke the rest of your spin is theorized as maybe being in it. Yet they cant trap it everytime. Only 6% of the whole smoke contains those chemicals you claim are there.

      The other 94% is the same as ordinairy air we all breathe everyday. The health depts. job is food sanitation and that's it nothing more. You see bacteria is proven to cause death and disease smoking has not been proven to do that in any end point study to a disease outcome. OSHA controls indoor air quality and they say SHS/ETS isn't at levels to harm anyone or anything!

  • harleyrider1778

    Clean Air Quality Law

    It is hereby ordered that all things that generate chemical releases simular in nature to tobacco smoke are hereby OUTLAWED.

    1. Automobiles and gas or diesel engines or any other contivance that emits chemcial releases. This savings equals to the public not being forced to inhale 100s of billions of cigarettes each day.

    2. All plants are outlawed as they releases tons daily of the Carcinogen ISOPRENE. Equal in volumes of Millions of cigarettes each day.

    3. Restaraunts will be outlawed from preparing any cooked foods as these release 100s of millions of equal cigarettes each day.

    4. In home cooking is also outlawed as it produces upwards of 10s of thousands of equal cigarettes inside and outside the home.

    5. Outdoor cookouts and fireworks are outlawed as they releases 100s of millions of equivalent cigarettes a day or on weekends in the yards and parks of our city.

    6. Humans are hereby outlawed from existence insode the city limits as their own human breath contains hundreds of the same chemicals as found in tobacco smoke!

    7. Nature itself is outlawed as it generates Billions of chemcial releases naturally into the atmosphere a day hense posing a threat to human life.

    8. This Clean air law becomes effective Immediately.

    9. Your preference of suicide is a personal choise,Police will write tickets and lock up any survivors after this law becomes effective. A grace period of 30 days will be in place to educate the public on its existence.

  • Mr.P

    Smoking= Cancer,how can you argue the fact?

    • harleyrider1778

      Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

      It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

      (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
      Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
      2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
      ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
      long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
      said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
      cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
      (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
      arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
      to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
      therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
      lung cancer.

      • harleyrider1778

        [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
        Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
        use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
        causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
        cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
        it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
        individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
        (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
        [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
        point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
        case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
        consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
        knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
        individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
        intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
        life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to

        • harleyrider1778

          7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
          November 2004.

          "5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

          In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

          The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

          • Jim

            Don't you just love how smokers state facts put out by the tobacco companies. They are lying to them to get them to smoke and they lie to you to keep you smoking. Read some real science maybe you will change your mind.

  • Mr.P

    I hope they ban smoking in every county in the state maybe it will save lives in the long run.

    • harleyrider1778

      The longest lived folks in the world were all smokers.

      Smoking Kills! Really? 130 Year Old Brazilian Smoker Demolishes Health Myths – Health – Nairaland

      Jose Aguineldo dos Santos last month turned 126-after smoking over a 100 years

      He’s actually in perfect health which shows yet again:


      In Milan ,Italy, over 35,000 Milanesi are over 87 years and many smoke high nicotine cigars. Over 200 are centenarians

      The comedian George Burns was another famous and inspirational life long cigar smoker who died at 100. Between 10 and 15 Cubans daily-wow!

      • harleyrider1778

        Lifestyles of the old and healthy defy expectations

        People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits, according to researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University.

  • harleyrider1778

    Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

    About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

    4 % is carbon monoxide.

    6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
    (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

  • harleyrider1778

    Congratualtions to everyone who ever survived a single cookout! LOL

    Barbecues poison the air with toxins and could cause cancer, research suggests.
    A study by the French environmental campaigning group Robin des Bois found that a typical two-hour barbecue can release the same level of dioxins as up to 220,000 cigarettes.

    Dioxins are a group of chemicals known to increase the likelihood of cancer.

    The figures were based on grilling four large steaks, four turkey cuts and eight large sausages.”

    Even the AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY has relay for life BBQ cook-offs..........oh the Hypocrisy of it all!

  • harleyrider1778

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  • harleyrider1778

    They don't need to do anything except for the council to kick the smokefree prohibitionists out of the county and the state. Then send their tar and feathered butts back to California from where they likely originated!

  • Jim

    Thank you BOH for protecting us non-smokers from the murderous rath of smokers. They have the right to hurt themself when smoking but not others. It passed 5-0. Thank you again.

    • harleyrider1778

      Crae to start naming dead non-smoekrs to being around a smoker...........50 thousand they claim it should be easy! Or would you rather just admit the truth that no one is harmed by passive smoke..........You survived a cookout didn't

      • Jim

        Sure when the HIPPA regulations are changed and you can get these names. Right now you can only get stats and data not names. You know better than that smoking troll.

  • northforkfisher

    If they have installed the air filtration system, and have the non smoking section that provides everything that the smoking section has then leave them alone. Allowing smoking within 20 feet of the door, most smokers take a big drag and exhale it as the walk through the door.

  • cutty77

    This will be very simple. The people that like gamble more than smoke will still go,and the ones that don't wont. The study said only affect 20% of people.

    • harleyrider1778

      Its more than that buddy. Revel the atlantic city non-smoking Casino lost everything in under a year then came back as a smoking Casino,but to late Atlantic city and New Jeresy in general with park and beach smoking bans plus porch smoking bans and all the rest ran off all the tourists altogether across the entire state!

      People don't quit smoking they quit going to places that outlaw smoking!

  • JTC

    Yes they may lose 20% from a smoking ban but may gain 30% from people who do not go there because of the smoking, which last time I was there was suffocating!

    • ViennaGuy

      Where do you get your 30% number from?

  • tim

    still don't understand how the govt can tell a privately owned family business they can't smoke in a place that they own. and I hare smoking! but I disagree with bans on privately owned businesses

    • Jim

      Easy. It is the same as the govt telling them at what temperture they have to store food. Or the same as the govt telling businesses at what temperture they have to wash and sanitize dishes. I do not see why it is so hard to understand. Govt tell business all the time what they can and can not do.

      • harleyrider1778

        OSHA has jurisdiction over indoor air quality not the local health dept!

        Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

        This sorta says it all

        These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

        So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''


        All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

        For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

        "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

        "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

        Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

        "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

        For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

        The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

        So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

        Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

        Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

      • skycat

        Government is justified in protecting the public from bacteria in food. I don't need the gubmint to tell me when secondhand smoke is in the air.

        • harleyrider1778

          This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

          Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

          By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

          Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

          What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

          “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

          Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

          The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

          Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


          A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

          Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

        • Jim

          The gubmint is justified in protecting the public from secondhand smoke. If they don't do it you smokers will just go on making everyone else smoke around you.

          • Charles

            You appear to be an attorney who has no other job than to be a shill for the tobacco.

          • Charles

            You appear to be an attorney who has no other job than to be a shill for the tobacco companies.

          • harleyrider1778

            The government isn't justified at all to protect you from anything except foreign armies and hoodlums beating you up!

            You want to protect you from yourself then get smart! Don't be a DARWIN AWARD WINNER!

            Second hand smoke has never harmed anyone and never ever will!

            Some facts that the tobacco CONTROL industry don’t want the people to know about, but that should be of massive importance to lawmakers and anyone who values tolerance, freedom, truth and impartiality;

            In the last 60 years or so, smoking prevalence has reduced by roughly half in the USA but Lung cancer cases continue to rise.

            Lung and Bronchus cancers in USA ( American Cancer Society; 2010);
            NEW Cases;
            2000: - 164,100
            2008: - 215,020
            Increase - 31% in only EIGHT years.
            (US population increased by 8% over the same period)

            “80% of new lung cancers are now diagnosed in NON smokers in USA” (Dr L Eldridge; cancer specialist; 2012)

            The above historic Lung and Bronchus figures, from the American Cancer Society, that are invaluable for comparison purposes and contradict anti-smoker rhetoric, have been removed from their website and replaced by ‘adjusted’ statistics in an impressive looking graph that claims lung cancer (mortality) has been reducing since 1990. This graph is almost identical to Russia and Ukraine showing similar reductions, BUT there, smoking continues to increase, with some of the highest smoking rates in the world;


            Male smoking rate;
            USA; around 25% (or less)
            China; around 60%

            All cancers male (age adjusted);
            USA - 407 per 100,000
            China - 205 per 100,000
            (The Burden of cancer in Asia; Pfizer 2008)
            ie. The USA has less than HALF the male smoking rate of China, but DOUBLE the cancer rate, and China has only 2/3s the lung cancer rate of USA!

            ACS now state in 2014, that New cases of lung cancer (male & Female) amount to 224,210. So
            L Cancers continue to increase but at a reducing rate. This probably reflects the fact that the reduction in smokers and quitters has stalled since smoke bans, which began in earnest around 2006/7, were forced upon the public.

            The generation-long anti-smoker campaign has failed to prevent ANY ill health, in fact it could be argued that it has CAUSED far more. No wonder anti-smoker mercenaries are flapping and squealing as they see the end of their gravy train rapidly approaching and the probability of having to account for their mendacity.