[OmegaSupreme]

Originally Posted by Hughie

Seems the majority of posts here object to the smell of smoke rather than the health implications. If so, then we must also seperate people with cologne, perfume, deodorant, or just bad body odor. Or the ones whose pores excrete onion smell, or bad breath. What about those we find visually offensive? A bad haircut, blue dye job, body piercings, or just plain bad looking people.?

Yes all of those people

But especially those that last common sense. Those ones should be banned from even posting crap like that

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by beachhead

I remember being a kid in the 1960's, with plenty of tv, radio, and print ads telling of the dangers of smoking. And my grandmother constantly drilling in my head to never smoke, as she'd killed her lungs with the crap. And my parents smoking like crazy (what really kept me from touching the stuff), even sending me down to the corner store to buy them a carton or two. And telling all of us kids to never smoke. Even schools warning against it. I think it was impossible to not know just how bad smoking is for you.

I understand how those generations might have been sucked in, but anyone my age and younger? It just doesn't make sense why this is still such a big problem. Yet, it is.

Advertising the dangers of smoking is not going to deter the inherent gambler in each of us, no more than broadcasting the more horrific pictures of car crashes, to deter people from taking up the potentially dangerous habit of owning, driving a car, in a city, like Las Vegas, with 30-50 car accidents a day.

Younger ones will be quick to point at a grandfather, great uncle, who smoked all his life and was lucky enough not to suffer any respiratory problems, like my Dad, smoked for 50 years, quit at 66, lived on to 196 with no respiratory problems ever to his last day.

Younger smokers must be protected from these people!

And my dear old mother died at 86, breathed in all that 2nd hand smoke for 40-50 years, and died with lungs as clear as a bell!

I've always felt that there should be 2 Las Vegas's, Old Las Vegas (Downtown) and the Strip, so tourists have a choice.

[beachhead]

TIJ...you make some very good points, and you are right! Choice is a good thing. I guess to me, my choice was clear, and easy to make. Sometimes, it's hard to understand why others can't see it as clearly as you might. And me wishing it to be different, won't in any way change that reality, no matter how many ads, or oppressive laws are created. We should apply this line of thought to everything in life. We'd be a lot better off...

[justthe2ofus]

Originally Posted by Willy702

I have stayed everywhere including most of those places. I'd stay in more of them regularly if they weren't inconvenient. Every one of those places has some slow access issues I'd rather not deal with as well.

As for the Harrahs in New Orleans, it actually smells pretty clean these days. I went down there in December. Their smoking courtyards with machines were rather busy despite the casino being not so crowded.

I don't really get what you mean by slow access but you're fairly familiar with your choices and price point.

If money's not an issue, I'd pick Mandarin as it is the closest lobby to the Blvd and spitting distance to the Aria Casino. If price point is more a concern, I'd pick the Hilton Elara and hoof over to PH or stay at the Hilton Timeshare tucked behind the Flamingo to have Central Strip access.

Thanks for your feedback on Harrahs New Orleans.