Pay attention, Democrats. I’m about to show you the proper, American way to implement a smoking ban.
Westin Hotels & Resorts is banning smoking in all of its hotel rooms and common areas beginning January 1, 2006, and will charge any guest a $200 cleaning fee if they violate the ban.
Westin Hotels & Resorts is banning smoking indoors and poolside at all 77 of its properties in the United States, Canada and the Caribbean, said senior Vice President Sue Brush. Smokers will have to go to a designated outdoor area, she said.
Enica Thompson, spokeswoman for the American Hotel & Lodging Association, said Westin is the first major American chain to go smoke-free and predicted that “many of the other hotel chains will probably want to see how it works out for Westin” before following suit.
Eight Westin hotels were already smoke-free, and at least 5 percent of the rooms at the others had been set aside for nonsmokers, Brush said. But market research found that 92 percent of Westin’s guests were requesting nonsmoking rooms, and some of those who couldn’t get them were “quite upset,” she said.
Brush said customers will be advised about the policy at check-in. If a guest violates the rule — “when we can observe it by smelling it or whatever” — a $200 fee will be added to the bill.
“It’s really a cleaning fee,” she said. The 2,400 smoking rooms in the chain are undergoing deep cleaning and air purifying before the Jan. 1 changeover, “and once you smoke in there you’ve violated that entire environment and we have to clean it all over again.”
The smoking ban will apply to hallways, lobbies, and restaurants, except for the eight restaurants that are run by outside companies and not under Westin’s control, Brush said. “They will be invited to participate,” she added.
The policy will not extend to Westin’s overseas hotels or to other chains, such as Sheraton, that are under the same parent company, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. Westin was the brand that “had the least amount of smokers to begin with,” Brush said.
She said there might be a dip in business at the beginning of the year as smokers go elsewhere, but Westin expects to quickly replace that business with travelers favoring the new policy.
“I don’t think it will be a net loss,” she said. “It should be a net gain.” — Associated Press
Now all you non-smokers have an entire hotel chain all to yourselves, and smokers can go to some other hotel chain which allows smoking.
Take this as an example before you go on a stupid quest to implement a smoking ban via government. There’s no reason to do so, and we smokers will find ways to make you pay for it. Like blowing smoke in your faces when you walk out the door of your favorite restaurant.
Virtually everywhere in the country that doesn’t have a smoking ban, there are a plethora of businesses in all fields which have chosen to prohibit smoking entirely, and a few businesses which permit it. As I’ve said before, this is primarily a business decision. If you don’t like it, quit giving money to the businesses that allow smoking. They’ll either go out of business, change their policy, or thrive on the business of smokers.
There’s no good reason to try to regulate smoking through government intervention. There is, however, a bad reason: Anti-smokers “care” about smokers’ health and want them to quit. Fine and dandy, but banning indoor smoking via force of law isn’t going to do it. I can see evidence of that right here in this city where I’m sitting, where a smoking ban went into effect this summer.
Everyone’s smoking outside, and now the streets are full of smoke, instead of the few businesses which permitted smoking. Are you happy now?
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3423 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
lynda Duguay
Dec 07, 2005
did you know that carnival had a whole ship nonsmoking, and then they stopped the policy due to “lack of demand” ? Yet they said in the beginning that there was market need for this as well. I guess the market was the same statistics that speical intrest groups use, not their own customer survey.
Ron Ray
Dec 07, 2005
I am a non-smoker. I quit around 18 months ago. Before that, I was a heavy smoker for almost 45 years.
I have been on both sides of the fence and can see that this issue, like so many others, has to do with “status”. There are some people that actually care about the health of smokers, but most don’t! It’s just a matter of “status quo”… The ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’; the elite and the ‘more elite’; the executive key and the gold card, etc., etc., ad nausea.
It seems that everybody has to be better than somebody else; and there has to be clubs, groups, communities, neighborhoods, automobiles, etc to define the lines of “better”.
I’ve known many people who quit smoking only to get on their high-horsed, band-wagon denouncing the “sins of tobacco”! They even go so far as to say that they are now “allergic” to cigarette smoke! (Sound familiar?) It’s just that now, they have become “better” than someone else and they want to assert that “line of indifference”… to be “BETTER”.
The only way to show these “self-sanctified” non-smokers the ‘light’ is to hit them where it hurts… in their pocketbook! Don’t spend ANY money at their places of business and let them know why. Let them know, in no uncertain terms, that smoking is your decision, as well as where and how to spend your money. You can do both somewhere else!
I’m a non-smoker, only because the cigarette companies began using the same psychology as others are using… that smokers are less than perfect in decision making and don’t know how to reject their imposed over-pricing and control. I did not quit to be better than anybody else, for I am definitely not!
If this trend continues (which it probably will), God help us all!
james carlin
Dec 09, 2005
The issue of smoking in a place of bussiness is not about the customers, it is about the employees of said bussiness. They are exposed to high levels of second hand smoke. The forced exposure of said empolyees is why we are trying to ban smoking in these locals. At least outdoors you have the ventalation to lessen the impact of your second hand smoke.
Michael Hampton
Dec 09, 2005
James, employees testify over and over again that they know what they are getting into when they work in places that allow smoking, and they know they are free to work in non-smoking environments, and they choose to work in the smoking environments.
It isn’t forced exposure at all.
Stephen Gordon
Dec 09, 2005
James,
Is the white slavery cartel so active in America that they kidnap people and force them to work in bars and similar places that allow smoking?
If you don’t wish to be around the smoke, go work at a place which doesn’t allow it. There are plenty of them around.
Jan 01, 2006
Chicago, Washington, D.C. ban smoking - Homeland Security or Homeland Stupidity
ed brown
Jul 19, 2006
Drug companies want to outlaw tobacco and replace it with prescription drugs at
ten prices. They’ll use any tactic that works, and when they succeed, they’ll rule
the world.
Outlawing tobacco is OK with the four out of five citizens who don’t smoke; let’s
see how they like being ruled by “health” nazis.
Stephen
Dec 01, 2006
the notion of smoking having a disastrous effect on society is really been quite popular for some time now. just like all fads, there is something fashionable about hating smoking. the reality is that complaining never got anyone anywhere. voting with your wallet always works well.
it’s been said so many times before that this should be a business owner’s decision. how un-american to tell an owner he can’t allow something as trivial as smoking in his/her establishment. c’mon people, this is just pure lunacy. if you don’t like it, then go somewhere else.
nobody has the right to force their feelings on anybody else. smokers don’t blow smoke in your face to piss you off, so why act like that is the case.
as a smoker, i always request a table right on the edge of the smoking/non-smoking section. yes, i am sure to exhale all that cancer causing smoke into the non-smoking section.
call me a jerk, but the idea of huddling around a portable heater with a cold beer on a 30 degree night in our nation’s capital just to smoke is mean and nasty.
we are all assured one thing in life…we are all going to die someday. the funny thing is, we don’t get to pick the way we’ll die. let that be a lesson to all…
all you overweight people…you’re assured a early death simply because your body can’t handle your weight. i’d rather be a smoker than a porker. at least i’ll live longer! maybe the fact that restaurants go smoke free will get you out more often. then you can continue to eat yourselves to death without worrying about getting lung cancer while forcing food down your throats.
JRL
Apr 24, 2007
> There’s no reason to do so,
> and we smokers will find ways to
> make you pay for it. Like blowing smoke in your faces
Assholes like you are EXACTLY the reason for a nation-wide smoking ban in ALL public places at ALL times.
With extra fines for those who violate it in the presence of former-smokers, children or pulmonary patients.
JRL
Apr 24, 2007
> Is the white slavery cartel
It’s about MONEY, not slavery.
Tobacco costs HUNDREDS of billions in health-care costs every year.
I’m a cheap bastard.
Not for me to pay your emphysema and cancer costs.
So we’ll abolish the expense by abolishing the pracxticde of smoking.
That smokers are suckers and patsies for big bid-neZZZ is merely pathetic.
That the suckers and patsies (aka: smokers) figger me to pay their bills is pure-f-ING-bullShit.
Michael Hampton
Apr 24, 2007
And people like you, JRL, are the reason that health care in the U.S. has gone to shit over the past couple of decades. Your proposed policies of nationalizing health care and shooting anyone who smokes a cigarette will just make it worse.
DrewZee87t
May 31, 2007
I am a platinum Starwood preferred member. I have not spent a single night in a Starwood and will avoid Marriott or any other hotel chain that chooses to fine me for smoking. I am not going to shuffle down the elevator to have a cigarette. I stay at properties where they either can provide you a smoking room (very few left) or where they do not penalize you. Note to the smokers, they cannot penalize you for smoking if they do not place very clear signs indicating the punishment for smoking. This is a revenue play for them. The health effects of the lingering odor from RESPONSIBLE smokers that don’t trash the place, is a spray with some air freshener and turn up the AC.
If they do post the signs about fining you for smoking, go ahead out in your bathrobe into the hallways and stairwells and smoke. The safety fire stairwells are a perfect place to start a tobacco fire. Let the other guests taste a bit of the ban that used to be confined to your room.
Starwood has lost over 100 nights from me since they started fining guests. I leave no evidence of smoking that is more than circumstantial. Prove that in court. I have beat the fines on several occasions just by pointing this out to the establishment, but I am way beyond arguing with Westin at this point. F them. I smoke in your hallways, I smoke in your stairways and I avoid you whenever possible. I don’t need your points, and you cannot enforce your fines. There will be a class action on this subject soon. Marriott, Hyatt, Starwood, how do you plan to PROVE I smoked, or that any other member of the class smoked in your stupid room? Your air is already dirty as you don’t maintain most of your equipment. How do you plan to gather the evidence?
I vote with my dollar. After I quit I will still avoid these obnoxious schmucks.
Rant over
Just Me
Jul 21, 2007
Ah – well said DrewZee – I am so sick of non-smokers who think they are so grand. I find that I am superior to a non-smoker – because I can AFFORD it. As for you jerks complaining about health care cost – I miss less work and have fewer illnesses than my non-smoking co-workers. And …. I pay for my own medical insurance – not you. However – I do pay for white trash people who have babies they can’t afford and for all the illegal aliens who cannot be turned away. And for you fat slobs – maybe you should get some exercise, diet pills, etc. Am I to pay for your diabetes and heart problems? You non-smoking people who rant over smokers make me sick. Quite frankly – my husband’s cooking, and even mine, is better than most restaurants —- and I can pay $10 for a decent bottle of wine instead of 7.00 for a small glass —- So who wins?
emmbee
Jul 25, 2007
they banned liquor and we got al capone and murder in the streets. they banned drugs and we’ve got gangs and massive violence along with a prison population of over 2 million! now they’re going to screw everyone who smokes. soon, it will be fatsos, gays, lesbians, uglies, transexuals and anyone else who happens to offend at that moment. people in a free society ought to be allowed to pursue behaviors of their choice, even if they are detrimental to themselves. the key is to keeping those behaviors confined within specific areas. i hate loud music, therefore, i do not feel i need to be subjected to ghetto blasters and karaoke machines eminating from cars, bars and nightclubs. i detest loudmouthed cell phone users on subways and public places. do we ban cell phones? of course not! but we do limit their usage in public places. if you don’t like smoke or drink, stay the hell out of bars. if you don’t like prostitutes, stay away from cathouses. if opera offends you, don’t go to opera houses. we have choices, and part of of the glory of human freedom is self-determination and free will. i’m sick of these american archangels telling us all how to live. if they really want to do something good for us, tell them to campaign for higher wages, against corporate greed, against downsizing and globalization for its own sake and for a nationalized health care system that will guard access to decent and affordable health care for all. this smoking ban is nothing but a distraction and an empty display of hubris for which so-called american radicals are justly famous. fie on them, i say!
Zeph
Jan 27, 2011
First off – one point you make is that private businesses should be able to ban smoking on their premises. Agreed; I can see no reason for government to force businesses to cater to smokers.
You also seem to think this is the only way it should be dealt with, and of course that’s going to be debatable. I understand that you have faith that the market will provide a proper solution to the conflicting sense of “my rights” that smokers and non-smokers have. We won’t find an explicit resolution of this conflict in self-asserted rights (to smoke or to avoid smoke) written into the constitution, so it’s either going to be resolved through some combination of market dynamics and legislation – and whomever loses is going to feel righteously aggrieved. Smokers and non-smokers can actually be similarly whiny when they don’t get their way. (Of course, one can usually one perceive this characteristic in the other side, not in oneself and one’s colleagues).
Your other solutions betray a stunted sense of maturity, however. “Blow smoke in the faces of (non-smokers) when they leave a building”? How do you know who is who? Did the recipient of your “revenge” actually lobby against indoor smoking? (Probably not). This is more like vandalizing white people’s neighborhoods in general because you feel some particular white person mistreated you – except you’d probably see the fallacy of that immediately.
You seem to believe that smokers can change such business policies by voting with their wallets – forcing smoking banning busiensses to go out of business or thrive by welcoming smokers. This seems to be “blowing smoke” and living in a fantasy world, if you live in the US. The wallets heavily favor non-smokers. The best you are likely to do is create a small niche of “smokers hotels”, which will probably NOT be the newest and most modern in the city but to the contrary.
One business option is to buy a run down hotel and welcome that 7% who prefer smoking rooms – you have them over the barrel so you can compromise accordingly in other aspects of service vs price. There will always be specialty niches which the big chains don’t bother with (another is renting rooms to impropmtu couples by the hour – in fact, these may be the same hotels that continue to cater to smokers).
That’s too bad, tho, as I don’t have anything against smokers. A more ideal situation would be special rooms which have outside ventilation, but are otherwise similar to the rest of the rooms. But big hotels may not find this worth investing in unless smokers are willing to pay extra. Sounds like a better solution than an outright ban or pushing our smoking friends into dingy run down hotels only.
So if a hotel tells you they don’t have any smoking rooms, don’t think that losing your “same price” business is going to have a big weight; instead tell them that you’d be willing to pay 20% more for a specially ventilated smokers room. If they heat enough customers say that, the rooms will appear!
American
Mar 26, 2011
Zeph-
No they won’t. Those level employees are not listened to, and are not able to cause change of that nature.