Marriott Hotels Ban Smoking In Rooms (1 Viewer)

[aps]

Marriott Hotels Ban Smoking In Rooms

By Michael S. Rosenwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 20, 2006; Page A01

Marriott International Inc., the nation's largest hotel chain, said yesterday that it will ban smoking in its nearly 400,000 hotel rooms in the United States and Canada, casting the decision as less about public health and more about taking care of the bottom line.

Two decades ago, about half the company's rooms were set aside for smokers, but demand has steadily dropped, with only 5 percent of customers now requesting smoking rooms. At the same time, complaints about cigarette odor have increased, and company officials have struggled to address the issue.

Marriott, which will enforce its ban by charging violators $200 to $300, follows that of the Westin Hotels & Resorts chain, which late last year announced it was making all 77 of its properties smoke-free. Since then, business has grown stronger, said Sue Brush, a senior vice president with Westin, which is owned by Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc. . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071902003.html

We all know how much I cannot stand cigarette smoke. I am thrilled about this decision! I have had one person fined and thrown out of a hotel who smoked in the room next to me (which was nonsmoking).

It is interesting to me that Westin's business has grown stronger since they banned smoking at their resorts. With new studies coming out about the negative effects of second-hand smoke, I predict that more banning of cigarette smoke will be taking place. Yippee!

 

[AndrewC]

Arkansas's smoking ban starts Friday (I think?). One of my coworkers has always said they could have his smokes when they pry them from his cold dead hand. In light of the smoking ban, he is trying to quit smoking. I believe bans are good.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

it certainly made my quitting easier. (4 days and it is a year without any tobacco!)

Aps, did the smoke actually bother you (since it was in a different room) or were you just being a lame power trip neighbor?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Arkansas's smoking ban starts Friday (I think?). One of my coworkers has always said they could have his smokes when they pry them from his cold dead hand. In light of the smoking ban, he is trying to quit smoking. I believe bans are good.

What do you mean by good? Do you mean that prohibition works?

 

[AndrewC]

What do you mean by good? Do you mean that prohibition works?

Banning smoking in public places is good. Prohibition makes criminals out of otherwise lawful citizens.

 

[aps]

it certainly made my quitting easier. (4 days and it is a year without any tobacco!)

Aps, did the smoke actually bother you (since it was in a different room) or were you just being a lame power trip neighbor?

Major, I don't know if there was some ventilation that we shared because it did affect my room. They actually moved me after that because the scent was in my room. I'm not that mean.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Banning smoking in public places is good. Prohibition makes criminals out of otherwise lawful citizens.

THats exactly what your doing... I'll find another hotel or motel to stay in. You support those places that support you with your dollar. BUt if there a private business and this is what they choose then glory be thats there decision. Better then having the government force a ban on private companies like a bunch of nazis.

 

[ShamMol]

Good for them, sticking up for public health and well-being of those staying in their hotels.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Good for them, sticking up for public health and well-being of those staying in their hotels.

casting the decision as less about public health and more about taking care of the bottom line.


Doesn't sound like it has anything to do with the public health. I have no problem with there decisions but don't turn into some humanitarian horse load

 

[AndrewC]

THats exactly what your doing... I'll find another hotel or motel to stay in. You support those places that support you with your dollar. BUt if there a private business and this is what they choose then glory be thats there decision. Better then having the government force a ban on private companies like a bunch of nazis.

Think of it as safety standards. Do you recommend that government not provide safety standards for manufacturers and mining operations? Aren't you glad the contractor that built your home had to follow regulations?

The fact is that smoking around non-smokers negatively impacts the non-smokers health. True, non-smokers could avoid JoeBobs smokery, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I believe an individuals rights stop when they negatively affect the rights of others. This is the true purpose of these bans.

For the record, Arkansas businesses that only serve customers over the age of 21 are exempt from the ban. So Little Rock nightlife shall remain in the fog.

 

[ShamMol]

casting the decision as less about public health and more about taking care of the bottom line.


Doesn't sound like it has anything to do with the public health. I have no problem with there decisions but don't turn into some humanitarian horse load

By appearing to stick up for it, they look good and thus people will want to stay there. Plus, people don't want to stay where they will get second hand smoke and where it will smell.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Think of it as safety standards. Do you recommend that government not provide safety standards for manufacturers and mining operations? Aren't you glad the contractor that built your home had to follow regulations?

Sorry that doesn't work. In a private business( of a non essential need). All decisions concerning legal activities should be left to the bar owner. The comparisons yuor making are apples and oranges.

The fact is that smoking around non-smokers negatively impacts the non-smokers health. True, non-smokers could avoid JoeBobs smokery, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I believe an individuals rights stop when they negatively affect the rights of others. This is the true purpose of these bans.

Thats not a fact and there is just as many reports saying second hand smoke is crap as thereis saying it's a problem. So you can't pass of psuedo science as fact by any stretch. If your willing to ban legal activities from people then why not ban everything. Lets move back to prohibition, we know how well that worked once. If you as an individual are choosing to enter into a private establishment that allows smoking. Then you know the possible risks involved. And you are accepting those risks by voulantarly entering.

For the record, Arkansas businesses that only serve customers over the age of 21 are exempt from the ban. So Little Rock nightlife shall remain in the fog.

So there leaving bars Alone.. THats good. Personally I think they should leave restaurants alone also. There are plenty of non smoking restaurants so people can pick and choose according to there lifestyle

 

[Calm2Chaos]

By appearing to stick up for it, they look good and thus people will want to stay there. Plus, people don't want to stay where they will get second hand smoke and where it will smell.

I have no doubt that non smokers will stay there. It's a non smoking hotel, not exactly sure how there going to enforce a fine. Unless there is a cop giving me a ticket i'll tell weston to kiss my big white a.ss. As it is non smoking i wouldn't be staying there anyway ...LOL

The dangers of second hand smoke are ify, the smell is something noticed more by non smokers then smokers I would imagine. Again it's a private business making a decision so I have no problem with it. I won't stay there but I would prefer they make decsions for there own businesses instead of having the nazi book burning crowd force them to do it. Long as there are choices out there it all works out in the end

 

[Stinger]

THats exactly what your doing... I'll find another hotel or motel to stay in. You support those places that support you with your dollar. BUt if there a private business and this is what they choose then glory be thats there decision. Better then having the government force a ban on private companies like a bunch of nazis.

And as a non-smoker (ex-smoker) if a hotel puts me in a smoking room, or doesn't make sure their non-smoking rooms are not smoked in or can't book me a non-smoking room, I too go to another hotel. That is what the hotel is looking at, who do they want to offend, the 5% of smokers or the 95% of non-smokers. But it should be the decission of the private company.

I ate at a McDonald's the other day (it was either that of some no name chicken joint in a small town). I went in and sat down and started smelling smoke. There against the wall were two guys talking and smoking and the smoke was drifting through the restruant. It was a pefect example of the inconsideration LOTS of smokers show "by god I'll smoke where I please regardless of anyone else" and the demands for smoking sections do not work, the smoke STILL goes through the entire room. Same happens in hotel rooms when a smoking room is unavailable, smokers just consider it their right to smoke in it anyway.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

And as a non-smoker (ex-smoker) if a hotel puts me in a smoking room, or doesn't make sure their non-smoking rooms are not smoked in or can't book me a non-smoking room, I too go to another hotel. That is what the hotel is looking at, who do they want to offend, the 5% of smokers or the 95% of non-smokers. But it should be the decission of the private company.

I ate at a McDonald's the other day (it was either that of some no name chicken joint in a small town). I went in and sat down and started smelling smoke. There against the wall were two guys talking and smoking and the smoke was drifting through the restruant. It was a pefect example of the inconsideration LOTS of smokers show "by god I'll smoke where I please regardless of anyone else" and the demands for smoking sections do not work, the smoke STILL goes through the entire room. Same happens in hotel rooms when a smoking room is unavailable, smokers just consider it their right to smoke in it anyway.

If the place you were eating was a non smoking establishment. THen the management should have been doing there job and either had the men put it out or leave. If It was a smoking restaurant or facility then I see no problem with them smoking at all. But again it should alsways be the owners decision and the patrons. Were slowly letting this naziesk type group of people force there ideals on everyone. Incapable of making there own decisoins they would rather have the government force it on everyone. Pick a different restaurant, choose another chanel. All you need do is exercise your freedom of choice

 

[Stinger]

If the place you were eating was a non smoking establishment. THen the management should have been doing there job and either had the men put it out or leave.

It wasn't, but that doesn't keep the smoke wrapped around them. It was obvious the smoke was permeating the room and the smoking section was right next to the drink counter. It was extremely discourteous of them.

If It was a smoking restaurant or facility then I see no problem with them smoking at all.

Even if it bothers the other patrons including children?

But again it should alsways be the owners decision and the patrons.

Even when I smoked I refrained from smoking in enclosed rooms where there were non-smokers trying to enjoy the meal they just paid for.

Were slowly letting this naziesk type group of people force there ideals on everyone.

I think it is a reaction to the smokers who believe they have a right to have thier smoke bother other people. It's rediculas how we have to walk through a waif of smoke to get into a department store because of all the smokers standing outside.

I smoked for 20 years quit for 12 then smoked again for 4 and have been quit again for the last 6. I know the arguements from both sides and smokers are on the losing end of it. There is no way to justify your smoke bothering someone else at any time in any place.

 

[AndrewC]

Sorry that doesn't work. In a private business( of a non essential need). All decisions concerning legal activities should be left to the bar owner. The comparisons yuor making are apples and oranges.

The government regulates private business all the time. They do it to ensure the safety of the public. Answer the question, Why do you single out this regualtion and not others? Do you want all government health and safety regulation abolished? If not, why is this public health and safety issue not warrant the same attention as others?

Thats not a fact and there is just as many reports saying second hand smoke is crap as thereis saying it's a problem. So you can't pass of psuedo science as fact by any stretch. If your willing to ban legal activities from people then why not ban everything. Lets move back to prohibition, we know how well that worked once. If you as an individual are choosing to enter into a private establishment that allows smoking. Then you know the possible risks involved. And you are accepting those risks by voulantarly entering.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272006a.html

Smoking in public harms others. It should not be allowed. Drunk driving endangers others and so does smoking in public places.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

It wasn't, but that doesn't keep the smoke wrapped around them. It was obvious the smoke was permeating the room and the smoking section was right next to the drink counter. It was extremely discourteous of them.



Even if it bothers the other patrons including children?



Even when I smoked I refrained from smoking in enclosed rooms where there were non-smokers trying to enjoy the meal they just paid for.


I think it is a reaction to the smokers who believe they have a right to have thier smoke bother other people. It's rediculas how we have to walk through a waif of smoke to get into a department store because of all the smokers standing outside.

I smoked for 20 years quit for 12 then smoked again for 4 and have been quit again for the last 6. I know the arguements from both sides and smokers are on the losing end of it. There is no way to justify your smoke bothering someone else at any time in any place.

My position is simple. If you make a decison to go into a place that allows it then you have to be willing to put up with it.

If you start banning smoking your going back to prohibition. A lot of the same arguments if not better ones can be used for it

 

[Goobieman]

The government regulates private business all the time. They do it to ensure the safety of the public. Answer the question, Why do you single out this regualtion and not others? Do you want all government health and safety regulation abolished? If not, why is this public health and safety issue not warrant the same attention as others?

This is a property rights issue.

You do not have a right to force a business owner to serve you, because it is his establishment, not yours. As such, you do not have a right to be there -- you CHOOSE to exercise the privilege to be there that the business owner offers you by being open for business.

He has the right to offer that privilege on his terms, because it is his place.

If you do not like the terms, you go elsewhere.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

The government regulates private business all the time. They do it to ensure the safety of the public. Answer the question, Why do you single out this regualtion and not others? Do you want all government health and safety regulation abolished? If not, why is this public health and safety issue not warrant the same attention as others?

It's a legal activity in a private buisness that you do not have to frequent. Why should the shop owner e forced to do anything if it's legal. If your talking about outlawing tobacco and smoking then thats a different argument. Your talking about health and safety issues were?? I am talking about private business that you CHOOSE to go into that allow smoking. If you don't like it ... DON'T go in. Why does there have to be a ban .. Unless you can't make that simple decision by yourself

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272006a.html

Smoking in public harms others. It should not be allowed. Drunk driving endangers others and so does smoking in public places.

Again I have seen this.. What type of study was it? how was it conducted. What were the amounts, what size was the control area, what type of ventilation was it. Sugar in a high enough dose will give you cancer. Are we going to outlaw sugar?........ Nope... we are going to assume your smart enough not to consume such an incredible amount as to give yourself sugar. Course this study may have possibly been done introducing 1000"s times more exposure then you would ever run into during your lifetime if you lived in a bar full of smokers... I a not saying second is or isn't .. I am saying don't go into private establishments that alllow it then you don't have any problem whatsoever

NOt drunk driving by the way. Drinking period.. Empairment starts at the first drink so there is no safe level of drinking. There is just a standard for which you can kill someone and not be hit with a dui.

 

[AndrewC]

This is a property rights issue.

You do not have a right to force a business owner to serve you, because it is his establishment, not yours. As such, you do not have a right to be there -- you CHOOSE to exercise the privilege to be there that the business owner offers you by being open for business.

He has the right to offer that privilege on his terms, because it is his place.

If you do not like the terms, you go elsewhere.

Yet that same business will be shutdown if it does not follow health or building code. How is this different from that? If you want to provide services to the general public. You have to provide a somewhat healthy, safe environment for the general public. That includes people who do not smoke.

 

[Goobieman]

Yet that same business will be shutdown if it does not follow health or building code. How is this different from that? If you want to provide services to the general public. You have to provide a somewhat healthy, safe environment for the general public. That includes people who do not smoke.

So tell me - according to this theory, how far can those restrictions go?

Can the government force you to not serve cheeseburgers because they are unhealthy? Fries? Milkshakes? Cheese puffs?

Where is the line -- and why is it there?

The patron/proprietor relationship is COMPLETELY voluntary on the part of the patron -- if the patron doesnt like the way the establishment is run, then he can go elswhere. If he were a captive audience, then you might have a point -- but he isnt, and so you don't.

 

[Stinger]

My position is simple. If you make a decison to go into a place that allows it then you have to be willing to put up with it.

My point is simple also, if you go into an inclosed space, especially an eating establishment and there are non-smokers in there be courteous and don't foul the air with smoke.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Patrickt]

Smoking is prohibited by law on some beaches, outdoors within twenty-five feet of a door or window, and in neighboring apartments. It's gone way beyond courtesy. I find heavy perfume irritating as do a lot of other people. Should that be outlawed? Courts have held that transients with extremely strong body odors cannot be barred from libraries but anyone smoking within twenty-five feet of the door will be issued a summons. The whole thing is getting ridiculous.

I totally support Marriott's right to make their hotels non-smoking. Laws making places non-smoking are wrong.

 

[aps]

Smoking is prohibited by law on some beaches, outdoors within twenty-five feet of a door or window, and in neighboring apartments. It's gone way beyond courtesy. I find heavy perfume irritating as do a lot of other people. Should that be outlawed? Courts have held that transients with extremely strong body odors cannot be barred from libraries but anyone smoking within twenty-five feet of the door will be issued a summons. The whole thing is getting ridiculous.

I totally support Marriott's right to make their hotels non-smoking. Laws making places non-smoking are wrong.

Do you suffer health consequences when you smell perfume or body odor? There is a difference between an act someone is doing that isn't physically harmful to those around him/her. Studies show that such is NOT the case with second-hand smoking. There is NO benefit whatsoever to smoking (well, maybe in increase in metabolism), so everyone benefits when people cannot light up.

My husband and I wonder about people who smoke in their cars but leave the windows open. If you smoke, why wouldn't you love the smell of second-hand smoke and want the windows closed?