In a bold move to protect the economic interests of Atlantic City’s famed casinos, the state of New Jersey and a powerful union have joined forces to ask a judge to dismiss a potentially crippling anti-smoking lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed by a group of non-smoking individuals claiming that secondhand smoke in Atlantic City casinos is a public health hazard, has drawn the ire of officials and casino owners alike.
The state of New Jersey, known for its staunch support of the casino industry, has long been a bastion of gambling and entertainment. Atlantic City, in particular, has been a thriving hub for both domestic and international tourists looking to try their luck at the famed casinos lining the boardwalk. But with the rise of anti-smoking sentiments and increased awareness of the dangers of secondhand smoke, the industry has been forced to reckon with the issue of smoking within their establishments.
In response to the lawsuit, the New Jersey state government has partnered with a prominent labor union, representing thousands of casino workers, to push for its dismissal. The union argues that a ban on smoking in casinos would not only harm the industry’s bottom line but also jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of workers who rely on the casinos for employment.
“We cannot allow a few individuals to threaten the economic well-being of an entire industry and the livelihoods of our hardworking members,” said the union representative. “We must protect the jobs and economic activity generated by the casinos in Atlantic City.”
The state of New Jersey has also thrown its support behind the casinos, with Governor Phil Murphy stating that the industry plays a crucial role in the state’s economy and that any drastic measures to restrict smoking within the casinos could have serious repercussions.
This united front against the anti-smoking lawsuit highlights the deep economic and political stakes at play in Atlantic City. As the legal battle rages on, the fate of smoking in the city’s casinos hangs in the balance. Only time will tell whether the court will rule in favor of public health concerns or economic interests.
