Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Marriott goes 100% smoke free as of September

Just ran across this article here.

I'm really getting tired of being told what I can or can't do when I'm spending my hard earned money. I've been a smoker for many years and don't claim ignorance about all of dangers smoking brings. I have never inflicted my smoking on others and go out of my way to avoid smoking near anyone that is a non smoker. Even before restaurants were smoke free, I would excuse myself from the table and go elsewhere, usually outside, to smoke.

I don't ask permission to smoke in someone's house (I simply excuse myself to go outside) or car ( I wait) unless I know that they are also smokers. Even then, I wait until they light up first before assuming that I may.

I didn't mind when they created smaller and smaller smoking sections in restaurants and accepted it when restaurants and public buildings became smoke free (Though I find it pretty dumb that open air football stadiums are smoke free environments.)

I can even put up with smoke free flights.

But this is way beyond what I am willing to accept. I see no reason for this move by Marriott other than to play Big Brother and to play up to the virulent anti-smoking crowd.

Marriott has always been one of my preferred hotel chains when traveling, whether it be their Courtyard chain or Fairfield Inns or even the flagship Marriott brand. Needless to say, they will not be earning another red cent of my money.

As someone not particularly "anti-smoking" but also as someone that can smell the smell coming from the car 50 feet ahead, I'm going to go with, Yeh! on this one.

I grew up in a family of three packers unfiltered a day. I grew up with the associated respiratory problems, the coughing up blood, the scars on my throat, the whole shibang. It took years away from it before I started to realize it wasn't normal to have hacking bright dayglow reddish-yellow mucas draining out of my sinus for the sole crime of turning over in bed.

I might add that my Ma quit smoking, very suddenly. You understand what I'm saying, right? She's hanging in there and says nothing. Has never said a thing or made a single complaint. She understands why. She still doesn't really comprehend the effects her habit had on the child and the child doesn't bring it up. Life's too short.

Still? A couple sigs a day? I don't see the harm if that's possible but as someone no longer surrounded by the smoke, whose sinuses cleared after decades and who now realizes there are wonderful smells in the daily world that were completely missed as a child please take this on faith; the smell lingers. The consideration you and other considerates show matters and is appreciated but it's not possible to never inflict smoking on others. It's that strong.

Why they don't make a cigarette that has less smell? I don't know. I have trouble believing it can't be done so there must be some reason it isn't done.

I suspect this is a business decision more than a consideration issue. Cleaning the rooms of smell has to be expensive as is separating into smoking and non-smoking.

Eh, there's always the Motel 6?

I have to say I support Marriott's move, and not just because I'm an employee. I don't begrudge anyone wanting to do whatever with their bodies (I'll never lay off the caffiene no matter what the state of Moroni tries to tell me) but I watched my family fall apart when I was only eight because of smoking. I won't go into the details but I will say because of what I saw I've never, and never will, pick up any tobacco product. Won't even buy it for a friend or family member.

And, unfortuately for those who swear off Marriott as Vee proposes to do, you'll be looking at only places like Motel 6 or Super 8. All major hotel companies are jumping on this. Marriott wasn't even the first. There are other announcements in the works (can't say more because of work policies) from the major players besides Marriott.

Just curious...do they really believe that smokers will not smoke in their rooms? I won't because I won't give them my money but I suspect that 99% will just ignore the policy and smoke anyway.

They don't. And I know you wouldn't, even if you did chose to keep staying, but those who do will get hit with a hefty fine. Since Marriott requires a credit card for all stays if a member of the cleaning staff reports smoking activity after a guest checks out they will be charged for cleaning. I think we were told the minimum would be $250 and it can go way up from that. Guests won't have recourse either since all this will be added to the small print at registration.

The phone reps that work at my center are already taking a lot of calls over this and it is one of the first times that management has had to come up with a script for them to read in response to a particular situation.

I'll take this as proof that this is mostly driven by PR than any real concern for health issues. If I'm mistaken, next they should be closing all the hotel bars and removing the mini bars from all the rooms because alcohol is also a killer. And they'll have to eliminate all those "all you can eat" buffetts and replace them with fruits and juice only offerings while getting rid of all of their menu offerings that include any non organic foods, or shellfish, or nuts or....

But they won't because these are cash cows for them after all so the heck with health concerns here.

To be honest, I'm kind of split on this.

On one hand, I don't smoke and I don't like to be around smoke. One of the reasons that I literally hate going home to visit my family at Christmas is because my sister and brother smoke and my mother doesn't require them to go outside when they do smoke. I almost never feel good while I'm there and when I get home I have to wash everything I wore or brought with me to get rid of the smell of cigarette smoke.

That being said, I do think that too many people use "health" concerns as an excuse to dictate how other people should live their lives.

Now that smoking is virtually a pariah activity, they've started going after such things as fast food and sodas. Since there's not a direct impact on other people from those things they argue that we all pay increased medical expenses due to the health insurance costs of treating people who are obese.

When does it end? If by some miracle they ban McDonalds and Coke, they'll be after people who eat red meat like steak or don't exercise ...

We're turning into a nation of busybodies.

I just stayed at a Hyatt and there was a sign warning about$250 charge if I smoked - but that was in a non-smoking room. I'm surprised the big hotels don't just keep a number of smoking rooms and charge a bit more (surely not $250?) to do the extra cleaning on an occasional basis (weekly? monthly?). Or perhaps the ventilation systems are too inter-connected to isolate some rooms? There is an airline now offering smoking flights, so maybe a hotel chain with smoking permitted will emerge to satisfy the marketplace.

I suspect it was driven mostly by the pressure from the insurance industry more then anything else. The bottom line with big business is ultimately financial, and this is the trend the insurance carriers are forcing them to go with.

I once read an article that was written in the early 1980's as a satire of the times and was well written but quite tongue in cheek. It was about a man and wife who smoked and were being hunted down by the anti-smoking police. The story was being told by entries from their journals as they camped out in the wilderness and tried to survive and stay one step ahead of the authorities. In the story cigarettes were like individual sticks of gold because they were so illegal, and smokers were enjoying their last smoke then committing suicide. The couple got hold of a whole carton of cigarettes then set out into the wilds of Colorado to try to smoke them before being captured.

When I read this article, I remember how the people in my office laughed and laughed at how improbable it was. At the time I worked for Salt Lake County Personnel, a local government entity, and employees could smoke at their desks, and in the bathrooms, and in the breakrooms, and in the lunchroom. At that time there wasn't even a requirement that you step outside to smoke, and this was even Mormon land. Look how much times have changed in 20 years.

Makes you wonder how much they will change again in another 20 years. By that time we may not have anything with peanuts in it, as that seems to be a hot-button issue. Look at all the labeling making sure people know what things contain peanuts and what things are produced in plants where peanuts have been processed. If this happens, I know that I will be on the run with Scott, carrying a backpack filled with jars of illegal Skippy Creamy and the Ritz crackers and Hershey bars he loves to smear it on.......

I've got to support Marriott, etc 100% on this. I've got asthma, and before the smoking ban came in here [Scotland] a couple of months back, I couldn't go out to anywhere that didn't ban it. Smoke in the air around me causes me, at best, to break down in a coughing fit - and often to suffer a full-blown asthma attack.

It's not just about the smell, or even the long-term effects on those exposed...

I'm with Vee on this. The anti-smoking propaganda is approaching hysteria. I honestly feel there is some force behind it making some kind of profit...it really doesn't feel benevolent to me at all.

I suggest everyone watch 'Thank You for Smoking'. GREAT movie.

I'm so sick of people shoving it down my throat that ciggerettes are bad that I've considered actually starting to smoke. I can see myself with Scott & Caroline in twenty years, hiding in the woods because I accidently carried a pound of shrimp across the border b/t Rhode Island and Connecticut (*choke* by then I won't be the 'young firecracker' anymore).

As Reboot and I both posted at the same time, I jsut read his post and then mine, and don't like the way they flow

I also believe in everyone doing everything they can to limit the effects of non-smokers on smokers. I don't believe that's mutually exclusive to a policy-wide smoking ban.

Fundamentally, it's a binary subject - yes or no, can or cannot. From personal experience, it's either a ban, or it's not.

This has been playing at Brewvies for a month now. But I have to admit Caroline and I skipped it to watch Nacho Libre instead on Sunday.

All of Marriott's domestic (North America) properties are already 90% or more non-smoking rooms.

I was initially appalled when NY state banned smoking from bars; but a coupel of years later, the bars are doing fine, and I don't come home smelling like an ash-tray.

I'm a non-smoker, but not a rabid one. I generally support the rights of contientious smokers (as per Vee's initial description), but when a decision has to be made regarding public space, it must be made on the side of health.

complete bans in outdoor football stadiums? tooo far.
a hotel chain? well, that's their decision to make, as a private company. if it comes as an insurance-industry mandate, I oppose it, but if it's a legit internal decision by Marriott, it's their call, and its' smokers' call to show their consumer support for a competitor.

PS - I don't buy the booze/health food analogy; second-hand smoke has no accruately-corresponding direct effect. (Yes, I can hear the rebuttals, but all these examples are indirect effects; the act of drinking does not waft across a room the way smoke does)

But drunk people do climb behind the wheels of cars.

Just playing devil's advocate here, I'm actually quite torn on this subject.

But it's illegal for drunk people to climb into cars thus endangering others, as is now being done with second hand smoke. The analogy to the separate smoking sections, would be building two parallel road networks. One where drunk drivers are allowed and the other where they are banned.

Given the more dangersous nature of working on the 'open alcohol allowed in the drivers seat' roads workers exposed to that network would need to get special training/ safety gear and possible higher pay and sign consent forms under most occupational health safety regimes.

Given the known danger of second hand smoke, it wouldn't be unreasonable if I was a worker to demand regular lung cancer monitoring programs as part of my benefits package, would it?

I have seen ads that the Westin hotels are/will be 100% smoke-free.

I am also one of those who can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke and try to avoid it.

One thing I will say, I wish large buildings could set aside special smoking rooms. I hate having to walk through the cloud of smoke that surrounds the entrances of buildings. And a plus for the smokers is that they don't have to deal with the weather while getting their "breath of fresh air".

Marriott is completely entitled to put this kind of condition on the use of their property. It's clearly coming from their bowing to politically-correct pressure, though, more than insurance and liability issues, as the number and proportion of smokers have sharply diminished over the past 40 years.

I wonder what the next move will be. Will the anti-obesity crusaders insist on hotels not dealing with customers who are over the approved weights for their heights, according to some government-sanctioned table? Lest they risk damaging the beds in the rooms?

Yeah if they're in danger of dropping through the floor and hurting a guest below.

Not sure you're anology follows? This is about a habit that intrudes significantly (as society dictates) on others, whether for health or comfort reasons. Maybe obese people on airlines might be a closer analogy or high fiber people in hotel rooms. I've long been for separate farting sections in restaurants.

Gotta say I support the ban on smoking at hotels as well. My wife has asthma, and I see what it does to her when we get a supposed "non smoking" room... just to walk into that horrible smell...(in my opinion anyway).

However, I would never agree on taking away someone's right to smoke... smoke all you want.. just not around me and my family, and anyone else who chooses not to be around it, cuz that's kinda taking away my right to clean air.

That's my 2 cents anyway, even though being Mormon now, I would have agreed with this way before I joined LDS.

Wow, interesting topic.

I am a smoker, but I'm really the most anti-smoking smoker you'll ever meet.

If I could change only one of the mistakes I've made through the years, the one thing I would change would be I would never have picked up a cigarette.

I smoke cigars, and i try not to "inflict" them on others. As to the ban, Marriot can kiss my money good bye.

I realize that some folks actually have asthma (sp?), and that some folks don't like it, but...

the insurance industry is quietly rulling this country with an iron fist.

"Wear a seat belt or we fine you because the insurance company says so. Don't smoke because the insurance company says so. Take these tests when you apply for a job to tell us whether you have a genetic propensity for a certain disease, if you do, sorry, we cant hire you. The cost on our insurance carrier would be too high.

Fast food, YOU ARE NEXT!"

Ralph Nader started this crap with the Beetle. Poor people knew that the cars weren't the best in the world, but they were reliable when new. Instead, Nader killed it and then poor people had to drive unsafe cars because they were the only ones they could afford. They were often unreliable and cost more than one poor person their jobs.

The insurance industry watched all this, jumped on it, and now they are the real rulers of this country. Dont' believe it, try to buy a house without insurance, a car, get a loan for a business...the list goes on and on.

so, Marriot, and the insurance companies, can kiss my @$$. If i have to stay in one, i'll pay cash. Lettem try to bill that.

Heh. I like Rick's cash idea. Vee, do that and "stick it to the man"!

Won't work. Like I said before, you have to give a credit card to stay. Most hotel chains now days require a credit card for "additional charges".

Realizing this is another topic altogether, but it's a sad day when cash money isn't good enough to pay for goods and services.

Now that's enough to keep my business away.

I'm totally with my pal Reboot here considering I have the exact same problem. Honestly I don't care if you want to damage your own lungs, get addicted, fritter your money away on cigs, but if you choose to inflict it on me and other people you don't get any sympathy from me. I can't even take a short walk these days without getting a whiff of smoke around my town. It's especially bad that people smoke right outside the doorways of businesses. Honestly I wouldn't mind if it was a law that everyone wear a Darth Vader-ish masked ventilation system so they could get the full force feedback of the drug wihout affecting others.

Unfortunately, I think this will only cause more of that not less. I insist on a smoking room, request it on every reservation I make and 90% of the time, when I get to my room, I discover that it is non-smoking. I then go downstairs and make them move me to another room but I suspect that most people just say "the hell with it" and smoke while they are there. If the hotel would bother to make sure the reservation was handled correctly, this would never be a problem and your wife would be assured of having a room that has not been smoked in, which she most certainly is entitled to have.

And I am more than happy to oblige, Doc (I know that wasn't directed at me ) but they are taking away my right to smoke by this move. In fact, they are taking away my right to take a vacation; travel on business; have a weekend getaway; or have emergency shelter if something happens to my house.

What I find most hypocritical however, is that this policy announced by Marriott is only for it's North American properties (if I read it correctly) I guess their concern for the health and well being of their customers and employees doesn't apply to Europe, Asia, Africa, or South America.

I completely sympathize, but how does the fact that I smoke inside my hotel room cause you any discomfort, unless you choose to come in? As I've said, I have no problem with most of the restrictions limiting my ability to smoke in public places, but this one crosses the line.

Because of the staff who have to deal with it.

Because a partial ban is an oxymoron - the third way never works. From experience, it's never as contained as suggested, and people (not talking about you, but a significant proportion) take advantage and people don't say anything to them.

Because it's not YOUR room, it's THEIR room which they permit you to use for a fee. In your own, owned, house, it's up to you.

Not quite.

And I totally sympathsize with you here Vee. I find it stupid that we (and not just Marriott does this unfortunately) treat smoking preferences as non-confirmable items. Even requesting non-smoking cannot be confirmed at reservation time.

Since the average hotel has less than 50 rooms available for smoking (avg. of 500 rooms per with 10% or less for smoking) there isn't any reason you can't confirm either smoking or non-smoking other than the fact they want the booking and would rather deal with you when you get there than not making the reservation at all.

I may work for them but it doesn't mean I agree with everything they do to make a buck.

The point that's so hard to get across, and I'm told that ex-smokers are the most radical about this, is that you can't NOT "inflict" the smoke on others. Some will always have alergies, perfume is a problem for some, but there's something about tobacco smoke that's just so much more pervasive.

I don't see how the action takes away anyone's "right" to a hotel room or a vacation or even to smoke. It does make it more inconvenient but many see this as righting a wrong, correcting something that never should have been.

It's a drastic change in lifestyle and takes some fun out of vacationing for smokers, I understand and sympathize, but there's just a bigger issue here. Whether it be the health reasons or the pervasiveness of the smell or the cigarette butts that litter the walks, it's a matter of manners that unfortunately so many of your fellow smokers don't get. I believe they brought this on you moreso than the insurance companies or the radical non-smokers.

This is a nice venting topic. It's a shame the inconvenience. Hooka's don't seem to have that same smell problem to me. They need more hooka's on street corners.

Ah hell, while I'm at it (you didn't hear this from me):

What is Marriott’s Smoke-Free Hotel Environment strategy?

According to Marriott’s Smoke-Free Hotel Environment strategy, all of the company’s lodging brands in the United States and Canada will become 100 percent smoke-free, with implementation beginning in September 2006. This represents the industry’s largest move to a non-smoking environment, with more than 2,300 hotels and corporate apartments and nearly 400,000 guest rooms under the Marriott, JW Marriott, The Ritz-Carlton, Renaissance, Courtyard, Residence Inn, SpringHill Suites, Fairfield Inn, TownePlace Suites and Marriott ExecuStay brands.

The new policy includes all guest rooms, restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms, public space and associate work areas. Currently more than 90 percent of Marriott guest rooms are already non-smoking and smoking is prohibited in many public spaces due to local laws. Demand for non-smoking rooms continues to rise with new information from the Surgeon General on the hazards of secondary smoke.

Why has Marriott made this decision?

The vast majority of requests of our guests favor a completely smoke-free hotel environment. The only way to provide this experience is to not allow smoking within the building. Therefore, we are extending this preference throughout all areas of the hotel. To accommodate the needs of guests who smoke, we will offer special designated smoking areas outside the building.

When will this take full effect?

Transitioning will begin immediately, with the full policy taking effect October 16, 2006.

Is this decision related to the June 2006 Surgeon General’s report?

The main impetus was our concern for the strong preference expressed by the vast majority of our guests for smoke-free environments. We also recognize the rising awareness of health concerns over secondhand smoke most recently articulated in the Surgeon General’s report.

Does this include your international hotels?

This program will be optional in our international properties at this time. We will continue to offer non-smoking guestrooms in all these hotels but will allow international properties to accommodate local cultures and preferences on allowing smoking within the hotel.


Are you doing anything to convert your properties to non-smoking?

All areas of our properties periodically undergo a thorough process to cleanse them from environmental pollutants, including smoke. We are announcing this decision in advance to allow properties time to complete that extensive cleaning in their smoking guest rooms as well as public areas.

What room renovations will take place?

Renovations are not required. However, all smoking rooms will go through an extensive cleaning process to include carpet, walls and draperies. This transition will start immediately and conclude by mid-October.

How will smokers be accommodated? Will they be able to smoke within the building?

While there will be no smoking areas within the building, smoking will be allowed outside in special designated areas. We will seek to accommodate guests as best as possible.

What will you do with existing reservations or guests already in your properties who are smoking?

Reservations with stays occurring between now and October 15, 2006, will be accommodated. We will continue to honor the room reservations and stays past October 15, but will not be able to accommodate a smoking preference. We will be contacting guests to convey this message.

Are you just following Westin's lead?

Westin’s decision was a consideration, but the main impetus was our concern for the strong preference expressed by the vast majority of our guests for smoke-free environments and the rising awareness of health concerns over secondhand smoke most recently articulated in the Surgeon General’s report.

Are you doing this out of concern for liability?

This direction reflects the strong preferences of the vast majority of our guests, who request non-smoking rooms. Therefore, we are extending this guest preference to the rest of the hotel.

What will we do with existing long-term guests?

Guests will not be allowed to smoke within the building after October 15, 2006. They will, however, be able to smoke in designated areas outside the building.

What measures will Marriott take to enforce this policy?

This policy will be part of our Quality Assurance process. We are training our associates to respond. For example, housekeepers will be taught to look out for signs of smoking in the hotel.

Guests will be reminded at the point of reservations and upon arrival that smoking is not allowed. Pre-arrival emails will also include a reference to the policy. There will be a significant room recovery fee for guests who do not comply in order to cover the extensive cost of restoring guest rooms to a smoke-free condition.

Will you accommodate your associates who smoke?

There will not be a smoking area within the building. As with our guests, smoking will be allowed outside the building.

Will you continue to employ smokers?

We currently have no employment policies (nor benefits) that exclude smokers.

Will the non-smoking policy apply at your corporate headquarters building?

This is currently under review.

Will your policy on smokeless tobacco change?

Smokeless tobacco presents no issues and will continue to be permitted.

Will you continue to sell tobacco in your retail operations?

We realize that some of our guests smoke and no change is planned at this time.

How will dedicated interior smoking spaces, such as cigar bars, be handled?

Currently dedicated interior smoking areas are under review for possible consideration for conversion or alteration. Interior smoking will not be permitted after October 15, 2006.

What does this mean for revenue and business?

This decision is designed to accommodate the preferences of the vast majority of our guests. We do not anticipate it will have a material detrimental impact on hotel revenue.

When should ALL rooms be non-smoking? Does this include banquets and events?

All smoking guest rooms will be converted to non-smoking by October 15, 2006, including for in-house guests. Public areas of the hotel, including banquets and events, will transition almost immediately.

How long will reservations for guaranteed smoking rooms be honored?

Guarantees for smoking rooms will be honored through October 15, 2006.

Is there an expectation that ALL properties will create a special outdoor smoking area?

Yes. We will provide special designated areas outside the building where smoking is permitted.

Kinda hedged their bets on that one didn't they.

Well, the corporate office is in Bethesda. Anyplace else, like SLC, the answer would be you already can't smoke inside the building. Bethesda must be one of the last holdouts where you can smoke in public.

The best way to keep me from "inflicting" the smoke on others is exactly the opposite of what they are doing. With this policy, I would now have to go downstairs and outside everytime I want to smoke a cigarette. Most hotels have the smoking area right by the front door outside the lobby. As others have posted, this is irritating to them as they walk past.

You must never have been a smoker (good for you) Keeping me from smoking in the comfort of my hotel room creates an unbearable situation, insures constant discomfort, makes me grumpy, anxious, and irritable along with all sorts of other nasty side effects. Would you pay to have someone force you to feel like that? No? Didn't think so. Smokers are addicted to cigarettes, it is not a fashion statement. Righting a wrong by wronging someone else is not right at all (Boy that's an awkward sentence )

You started your post by saying "The point is so hard to get across" but it appears that you get less of my point than you claim others don't get of yours. This is not "inconvenient" nor does it just "take some fun out of vacationing" If you really believe that than you don't understand the smokers situation at all. In effect, I would be forced to go through chemical withdrawl symptoms everytime I stay at a hotel. I can think of much more pleasant tortures to endure than that. So yes, I beg to differ, it does take away my right to be comfortable while staying in a hotel (of course, there is no such "right" that I know of, but that really applies to both sides of this argument.)

Funny to read some of those answers. They are concerned for my health and well being but will still sell me a pack of cigs for $4.50!

I don't know Vee. Mostly you just gave me several great ways to torture smokers. Clever new ways to torture override any natural tendancies towards sympathy I might have.

We'll just keep moving the smoking permitted barriers a few feet everyday until they all merge together in some nice corner of the city park. Someplace with a view so the smokers still feel they're getting good value for their tourist dollar.

Well at least you're not in Singapore where you have to hang an ashtray around your neck when smoking in public.

Vee, I definitely understand where you're coming from. I grew up in a house full of smokers, and I'm sure they feel the same way you do.

Alot of the problems with smoking in hotel rooms, is that the smell lingers long after a smoker has gone.

Most smokers don't notice it from my experience, but I've seen a few who quit who after some time has passes, realize how thick and strong that smell can be.

Spray all the febreeze ya want, but it's still there.

This reminds of a girl I dated when I was in High School. She was a smoker, and I knew that, thought it was no big deal. Until I kissed her...

The results were... well, just let me say I never dated another smoker again. Please, no offense is meant to anyone.. these are just my opinions...

And I think this is the first time I've agreed with anything Reboot has said....

Nuthin' but love for ya all...

Oh btw... did you know Marriot is owned by LDS members? lol

No offense taken Doc.

I do notice the difference between a smoking and non smoking room and that is exactly why I have always refused to stay in a non smoking room. Your wife is entitled to stay in a room in which there has been no smoking. I respect that. But now they are saying I can't stay there at all basically, because they will not provide even a minimal number of rooms which I can stay in and smoke.

I would even be willing to pay more for reservations in those rooms. I just object to being banned from these hotels for all intents and purposes.

What gripes me anew, upon reading Marriott's full policy above, is the bowing and scraping paid to a report created by an unelected bureaucrat.

Nothing is holy about the office of the Surgeon General. That person happens to be the one in charge of the public-health minions. It does not confer scientific or practical wisdom, or a superiority of his or her analyses above all others'.

The only force behind a Surgeon General's opinion is just that -- force. Warnings can be mandated and procedures required, ultimately at the point of a (usually figurative) gun.

If one reads the Articles of Faith of the LDS church, though, this obeisance to government on the part of Marriott is not at all surprising.

Oh, and the irony of Bethesda, Maryland? It's one of the few cities that has had the temerity to start regulating smoking on private residential property. (To prohibit smoke from going onto other houses' lots or into other apartments.) It's not the sanctuary you may think, Reboot.

Everyone knows that smokers are todays lepers.

Unlike real lepers, we all have a choice - if you chose to be continue being a leper then you deserve everything you get.

I for one don't want to be surrounded by someone elses smelly, stinking, cloying, carcinogenic smoke.
And why the **** should I?

BO and farts are bad enough - but they don't give you cancer nor do they hang around you until you wash all of your clothes and have a shower.

Think back to when you were young - just how DISGUSTING !!!!! was cigarette smoke.

Think about this morning - how much fun was it coughing up half a lung?

Peer pressure is a helluva thing to die for folks.
Are you really going to let those little white bastards rule your life?

Nothing personal you understand

and unfortunately, the coughing up half a lung thing doesn't come until too late.

Gramps didn't smoke: lived to 93 and was healthy and walking five miles a day until about 90. All his five kids smoked.

Lost the oldest Aunt to cancer
Lost the oldest Uncle to cancer
Lost the next Uncle to heart disease
Lost an Uncle who married in to cancer
Of the two youngest, my sole remaining Aunt and my previously mentioned Ma, both stopped smoking cold turkey. My Ma had already made the coughing step. My Dad still smokes and seems relatively unaffected (to my knowledge).

Many of us have all been around here quite some time from this board or previous.

How long until we start saying goodbye to friends for this? Personally Vee, I'd rather you have a few nightes squirming in a "clean" hotel room.

Okay. Time to take a breath here, folks.

The fact remains that however you feel about cigarettes, the choice to smoke is a lifestyle choice, as much as any other choice.

You know, there are plenty of people who spend an inordinate amount of time railing against certain lifestyle choices I have made, and as such, I'm going to stand in solidarity with my friend Vee and support his right to smoke. He's an adult, he's aware of the risks, and the prejudices involved.

I don't think we need to hear any more about how smokers are today's lepers, not when we have good friends who are smokers and who are posting on this board.

If Julio were to come into my house, he would not get a scolding look, a lecture, or a raised eyebrow. Do you know what he would get? An ashtray. Dealing with secondhand smoke for a few minutes is an acceptable risk for me in order to be hospitable to a good friend.

I also understand how asthmatics and others with respiratory health problems might have to act in a different way, and that's just fine.

As far as Marriott and other hotel chains, prohibiting smoking is of course their own business. I don't see any inherent goodness or badness in their decision. It's financially motivated, just like most business decisions.

Well, I'd be wrong to shed crocodile tears over that. There are already loads of things you can't do in your own private properties, from planting leylandii, to smoking all kinds of other drugs, to underage sex, to murder (notice there's a scale there - I'm not calling planting fast-growing hedges equivalent to murder!!!!). If you're prohibited from using cannabis, even for medical use, why should tobacco (which has no medicinal properties whatsoever when smoked) be any different, TBH?

*edit - didn't see KP's post above until after I'd already posted...*

Because pot is EEEEEEEVIL.

Actually murder on your property is becoming more and more legal. At least 17 states now have a law on the books that allow excessive force in protecting your private property. And gone are the days of having to prove the "intruder" meant you bodily harm. You only have to claim self defense in most of these places. Texas, of course, leads the way with the new revision.

:rolleyes: and simultaneously...

And just how the hell did you infer that from this:

We recognize the rising awareness as pointed out in a recent report is bowing and scraping? That's the equivalent of me claiming Vee must work for a tobacco company because of his stance on Marriott's decision. We have only said that we recognize the increased awareness in the issue of second hand smoke due to the report.

As does it seems, every other poster on this thread. "Right to smoke" isn't even on the radar screen of the debate. Where smoking can take place is the point of the discussion.


As you mentioned, smoking, though habit forming, is considered a "choice." This debate isn't even in the same ballpark as other debates illigitimately (my opinion) framed around "choice" and privacy issues play differently when it's not possible to keep the action behind closed doors, as is the case with smoking.

It's also IMO a personal reflection on what would be considered "enabling?" Would we give another drink to a drunk that "chooses" to have another. Would we give them the car keys? Where is the line here? Its worth personal reflection. Its worth hearing viewpoints that might not support ones personal action.

Knowing what we know about the effects of cigarette smoke, why would we condone such a choice to smoke, let alone support the habit like Melanie Griffiths, recently caught on film helping her 16 year old to light up.

No ashtrays in my house and my friends that smoke, who understand what they do is bad for themselves and for me, tell me they respect me for caring (as they head to the driveway . )

Good for Melanie! I think smoking and drinking should be 'taught' in the home and discussed and educated about, rather then sneaked in a friend's basement or on the street somewhere. Kids get into more trouble by hiding and sneaking then they do from straightforward behavior.

When I was 16 I smoked. I was told how wrong it was by my parents, my church, my teachers, and part of soceity, but I still wanted the experience. I played 'spin the bottle' too, even though that and strip poker and skinny-dipping were also frowned upon. Most of the things I did when I was 16 I did in hopes my folks would eventually find out or catch me and be pissed. Like a lot of kids, I wanted to piss them off and dissappoint them and have them take an interest! At that time my mother was too interested in cleaning the house and cooking five course meals, and my father was never home. My grandfather had died from emphasema, and I totally knew the breath of life was scared, but peer pressure meant more then.

Maybe Melanie is modeling behavior or inviting experimentation to her child to open communication and let the kid make their own decision about smoking. They are sure old enough to watch mommy cough and hack, and they can hear the changes in her voice and smell the reek on her clothes. But still, to me, it's kind of cool to bond with your child so much that you trust them to be exposed to something and make their own decision.

There is, and if I have my way, will never be any smoking in our home out of respect for Scott and because of my mom's health issues. But if Julio visited Salt Lake City, we could take him to Brewvies and he could smoke all he wanted and we would still love him.

Because many of those who smoke feel that it enhances their quality of life. Who are we to dictate to others how to live their lives, even when they find enjoyment and meaning in doing something we find personally distasteful? Because it's not just smoking. Working in the restaraunt industry, I've been around a lot of smokers in my life. Very few of them do it because they just love smoking. For many, it's the convivial atmosphere, it's the conversation, it's even the old "smoke break" at work. And people are aware of the risks more now than ever.

If I were Mariott and I were absolutely intent on this policy, I would have smoking lounges on every other floor or something like that. But I'm not Mariott.

I understand that you feel obligated to help non-smokers to "see the light," but where you see good motivations, I see a pervasive culture of telling people what they can and can not do. You ask where the line in giving a drunk a drink is, but I have to ask you where the line the other way is. How far do we get to dictate to other people how they live their lives?

I say smoke 'em if you got 'em.

All agreeable, but isn't it possible to respect the child's decisions and experimentations, good or bad, without encouraging or facilitating those that are harmful?

Isn't telling a child it is okay and good to be honest about decisions to smoke different than actually lighting it up for the kid?

I respect a trend I'm seeing in my neighborhood, where parents with chidren do not even smoke in their own house. They head to the porch or steps out front.

I don't want to get into the business of government telling a parent how to raise kids but I still retain my right to think smoking in front of kids or encouraging/enabling kids to smoke is bad parenting.

Marriott's decision delights me. Whether it is callous marketing, cowardly submission to pressure from insurers, or threats of worker litigation, I do not care. I support most any effort to remove the smell of lighted tobacco from public spaces. It is, in my opinion, as obsolete today as hitching posts and the smell of horse$#!+.

There is no right to smoke, therefore property owners have the right to restrict at will smoking on their property; and legislative entities have few limits on their ability to restrict smoking within their jurisdictions.

If corporations see profit potential and elected officials see public health or political advantage in promoting smoke-free environments, then let them pursue it. They will get credit for their actions when I make my purchases and my election choices.

Kid Prime, apologies but you seem to me to be struggling with the difference between "dictating" and "opinion."

No one (on this thread) has proposed legislation making smoking illegal and neither has the hotel. The hotel certainly has a right to do with their property as they wish, as it pertains to "choice."

When you wrote refering to me "that you feel obligated to help non-smokers to "see the light," " well you show that you don't understand at all. I agree, there are some that way. I and others are simpley expressing personnel experiences and opinions on both sides of the topic, mostly without getting defensive. If that provides new insight for someone, then so be it.

That's a good thing isn't it?

Even if the opinions do cross our personal imaginary line into prostelizing, so what? No harm.

Well, I apologize for assuming something and for referring to you in a manner that you felt beneath you. Regardless of what I meant to say in my internal dialogue, if you feel that I am demeaning you in anything I say, well, it's not worth saying. So I'm sorry 'bout that.

As far as the rest, I do respect your right to your opinions. Please grant me the same courtesy. I also think that society's feelings toward smoking are germane to this conversation and should be explored. It is my opinion that smokers are generally a demeaned and humiliated group of people in our current society. I think the way this conversation has been going could be seen to support that opinion, as posters have been talking about modern-day lepers, hitching posts, and horse feces.

As "dictate" was a word I used in a rhetorical question in support of my own opinion, I feel entirely comfortable in saying, no, I'm not struggling with the difference with "opinion" and "dictating" at all. But perhaps I could tone down the hyperbole a bit, so thanks for reminding me of my own regrettable tendency toward it.

I didn't think you were attempting to "demean."

Maybe you were and I stupidly missed it but I did think you were misinterpreting MY intent anyhow. That's all.

As I wrote, opinions can provide new insight and I'd have to say I'm forced to agree with yours, that many in society seem to be going overboard in their demonization of "smokers." They do seem intent on making smokers to be the new stereotype.

However, the "lepers" reference when originally used I don't think was meant to convey that smokers WERE lepers, but was used to introduce the point you just made and I agreed with, smokers are being TREATED as if the were lepers and that the treatment of lepers came to be seen as wrong as should the currect treatment of smokers.

I'm beyond the stage of nagging smokers to quit. They can do what they want as long as its far from me.

Since they haven't reached it they are looked down upon b/c when society asks a rhetorical question of "why should we respect smokers when they obviously don't respect their own health".

I think society is moving past the point of nagging smokers to quit as as well. We've tried everything, hitting them with taxes, giving them insurance coverage for quitting regimens, hitting them with warnings and commericals, restricting where they can light up. The only thing we havent tried is to ban health insurance plans from covering self-inflicted medical expenses caused by lifetimes of smoking.

At this point folks just want to put them out of sight and out of smelling range.

"I was initially appalled when NY state banned smoking from bars; but a coupel of years later, the bars are doing fine, and I don't come home smelling like an ash-tray."

A friend of mine has a rock & roll band. She doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't do drugs, doesn't sleep around (yeah, I know, some have joked, "Sounds like she's in the wrong business")... but I think ever since they banned smoking in NY bars, she doesn't wanna come down to Philly to play music anymore. Over the years, smoke in Philly bars seems to have gotten progressively WORSE. Or could it be that, since my Mom (a chain-smoker) passed away (from LUNG CANCER), I just NOTICE it more now??? (6 MONTHS after she died, my best friend, visiting, said he noticed a big difference in the smell of the house.)

Whenever I go to see live music in Philly, I wind up having to hang up all my clothes to air out afterwards... sometimes, that's not enough, and I have to toss them in the wash in order to wear them again at all.

TLad's as reasonable description of the path we've taken as any I'd think and probably also as to where it's headed, loss of insurance "rights."

Still I think a valid point was made, there's a problem is this use of the word "they" when refering to smokers as it is to any collective of people.

I mentioned before, my neighbors who have children smoke outside instead of inside where the kids could be affected. To me, that's progress. Many listen, many quit. Recent polls have shown the rate of increase of teens smoking has declined, though maybe not yet the actually numbers. That's progress.

"Actually murder on your property is becoming more and more legal. At least 17 states now have a law on the books that allow excessive force in protecting your private property. And gone are the days of having to prove the "intruder" meant you bodily harm. You only have to claim self defense in most of these places. Texas, of course, leads the way with the new revision."


Sounds like a return to sanity to me.

If someone breaks into your house, they DON'T BELONG THERE. You should never have to justify SELF-DEFENSE.

"Good for Melanie! I think smoking and drinking should be 'taught' in the home and discussed and educated about, rather then sneaked in a friend's basement or on the street somewhere. Kids get into more trouble by hiding and sneaking then they do from straightforward behavior."


Ever see THEY CALL ME MISTER TIBBS! ? Great film. Sidney Poitier finds his son drinking or smoking (or both) and decides the "teach" him the RIGHT way to do it. With a bottle of booze and a BIG cigar. Within 5 minutes, the kid got SO sick, you figure he never touched either again for years (if ever).

Another great film to check out is COLD TURKEY. As a publicity stunt, a cigarette company makes a bet that they'll pay a huge sum of money if an entire town can quit smoking for a month. What they didn't expect was that one small town would actually go for it...

I must say I'm appalled by some of the comments that have been made on this thread. It just goes to show you how nasty the virulent anti smoking campaigning has become.

I've been called a modern day leper; had posters express delight at something that will cause me physical discomfort; read that perhaps I need to lose my "insurance rights" and for the first time ever have been made to feel somewhat unwelcome on Legion World.

To those of you that are rejoicing or going in orgasmic throes over this move, I provide a warning. It will soon be time for "controllers" in our society to shift their attention elsewhere. And it may well get focused on you next.

When did it become okay for you to rejoice or delight in something that will cause someone else physical discomfort and anxiety?

You argue that "we" are infringing on your rights to not be subjected to second hand smoke. Fair enough, I completely agree but I would argue that "you" (society) long ago crossed the line and began infringing on my rights.

Do you drive a car? You are poisoning me with the fumes it emits. Do you wear a fragrance or perfume? Use scented deodorant or laundry detergent? You are inflicting physically harmful odors on thousands of asthmatics that are sensitive to them. Do you own cats or dogs? Have well tended flower gardens and shrubs? What gives you the right to inflict those allergens on neighbors that suffer from all sorts of allergies?

Do you ever drink and drive? Have you ever? You are more dangerous to my well being than I am to yours. It would take me years and years to kill you with my second hand smoke, you can kill me in less than 1 second by the choice you make.

Do you really think I should lose my "insurance rights?" I already pay higher premiums because I'm a smoker, plus more than 2/3 the cost of a pack of cigarettes in taxes to cover the "medical cost to society" What's next? Should we begin charging overweight people more for a Big Mac? How asinine would that be? ("Step right up on this platform so as to weigh you and measure your height please. The cost of your meal is dependent on how closely you match the Surgeon General's guidelines for a healthy weight.") What about coffee and soda drinkers?

My apologies if my diatribe is disjointed. I'm not very rational at the moment having just read some of the most discourteous and insensitive comments ever expressed in this thread.

<strike>I think everyone has said whatever they need to say about this subject.</strike>


[Re-opened since some believe they need to discuss this topic further. This thread will be subject to another time out should the debate get heated again. Please be aware that others may not share you're POV and be respectful to everyone.]