Westin hotel chain to ban smoking indoors (Violators Charged $200)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10338589/

A major hotel chain is going smoke-free next month and will add $200 to the bill of anyone who violates the policy, an executive said Monday.

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.

[TomInTib]

1. Man, I am pissed.

Being a Platinum Starwood (Westin, Sheraton, W, St Regis) Guest I am polled on just about everything imaginable concerning their operations.

Not this time.

The Westin Times Square is one of my favorites. Now I will have to stay around the corner with all the wannabes at the W.

[...of J.Temperance]

16. The anti-smoking Fascists are going too far...I mean if someones going

To pay for a hotel suite, they have a right to be comfortable and if they want to have a smoke, they should be allowed to.

There should be a smoking area on all long-haul flights too. The anti-smoking cry-babies are going to far.

I think people drinking alcohol to excess in hotel rooms and people having more than two drinks on flights such be subjected to a $200 fine, alcohol is far more dangerous to others than someone having a few smokes.

Someone wants to smoke by me, I have no problem with this.

[jseankil]

30. Go Westin! I will be giving them my buisness for now on!

Smokers muck up the rooms, try as you might you can't get the stench out of the curtains and the walls. Love this move.

[...of J.Temperance]

33. They should have smoking rooms AND non-smoking rooms

Westin hotels suck anyhow. But they should have BOTH kinds of rooms...by not doing so they're descriminating against people who are entitled to make a personal choice. If they want to smoke in the comfort of a room that they've PAID for, then they should be allowed to do that.

The non-smokers could be also catered for, as I've pointed out, by the hotels alternating rooms - smoking, non-smoking, smoking, non-smoking.

That way everybody could be happy campers.

[Codeine]

37. They did have non-smoking rooms

You guys smoked in them, because you have no consideration for others when the addiction has it's grip on you. Karma's a bitch, ain't it?

[...of J.Temperance]

39. I DON'T smoke! But I'm not discriminating against those that do

Your comment doesn't make any sense in light of my previous comment.

I said that ALL hotels should have SMOKING rooms AND NON-SMOKING rooms...NOT JUST non-smoking rooms. If ALL hotels had smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms, then people who DO smoke obviously would be put in the smoking rooms and they'd be happy...and the people who don't smoke would be put in the non-smoking rooms and they'd be happy.

Hotels should cater for ALL people...WHERE are smokers supposed to stay? In the local park or something, is that where they're meant to sleep because the anti-smoking cry-babies don't EVEN want smokers in the SAME hotel as them?

It's discrimination pure and simple...it's no different than a hotel chain announcing that their hotel is now going to not cater for the disabled or for tall people or for fat people.

[jseankil]

52. It's not discrimination but smokers tend to be selfish a group.

While it could be nice if Westin would open an entire wing of rooms disconnected from the hotel dedicated to smokers where it wouldn't effect the non-smokers but it's not realistic. I'm sure Westin has created this blanket policy because 1, the cost involved in separating smokers from non-smokers is too great and the number of complaints from the majority of their guests (non-smokers)about smokers is high. 2. It's easier to crack down on abuse when an entire hotel is non-smoking.

And you are right, I don't want smokers in the same hotel as me just as I wouldn't want someone who rubs feces on themselves, the fact is you stink even if your not smoking of stale smoke and you make other things stink as well. If you have to smoke go to a dedicated area outside away from entrances and walkways and use this drug that directly harms non-users if they get to close. Some many smokers are so selfish.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

66. You are the one who sounds selfish

...More selfish, in fact than most smokers I know.

"I don't want smokers in the same hotel as me just as I wouldn't want someone who rubs feces on themselves, the fact is you stink even if your not smoking of stale smoke and you make other things stink as well. "

Criticizing and insulting people because you think they "stink" has nothing to do with health issues. Your attitude stinks far worse IMO than residual smoke on people's clothing.

Adding: "smokers, as a group, tend to be selfish" is BS. Not only that, it makes you sound like a bigot.

[jseankil]

81. How is the act of smoking not selfish?

It pollutes, it's kills the smoker as well as non-smokers, and it stinks up areas.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

111. EVERYONE's selfishness affects other people's health in some way

Some people drive too fast and aggressively, or drive too slowly and create traffic jams, or they drive while talking on their cellphones. Or they drive while drunk...

Some people treat their yards with herbicides and pesticides and fertilizers that get into our air and water supplies, others insist on having cars with Xenon headlights which cause light-sensitive people to get migraines, and cause some elderly people to have night blindness. Then there are those who refuse to use public transportation or to carpool to work, who insist on driving their gas hog SUVs, that stink up the environment way more than some poor soul having a cigarette out in the cold behind a building. Many parents allow their obnoxious kids to ruin a peaceful and stress-free dining experience for other diners.

Now a smoker can't even get away from these "family-friendly" places, and go to a bar for a cigarette. Most smokers I know try to avoid bothering people with their smoke. Smokers know that cigarettes might kill them, and most are worried about that. Many are ashamed of their habit have tried unsuccessfully to quit, and doubt their ability to free themselves from the addiction. Why do the non smokers have a little more compassion? Why dont they leave smokers alone, and stay out of smoking bars if they don't like, or can't handle smoke?

The rap that non-smokers are "killed" by 2nd hand smoke is very overblown. Many of you talk as if catching a whiff of smoke as you pass a smoker on a sidewalk is going to kill you... you ought to be more concerned about the more prevalent pollutants in the atmosphere caused by other selfish people.

Smokers are being villainized and marginalized like no other minority group is. And to those of you who are overweight--imagine what the anti-junk food crowd could do to you! In my own infamous words, in regard to a proposed ban on junk food, in order to "combat obesity": They could create a sin tax for junk food and ban fat people from eating inside public buildings...make them eat their lunches in alleyways & have "Fat" sections in restaurants...put up billboards that villianize fat people and teach kids in school that fat people are bad. All these things are being done to smokers, and every whine the anti-smoking Nazis come up with could be altered to attack any group.

So put that in your pipe.

[jseankil]

118. Next time you light up in a bar think of the workers you are effecting

And while you may say that it's their choice to work there should they have to choose between their health or their job? If you say yes then maybe it's time to roll back safety regulations for other jobs, why should we have any job safety regulations?

Smoking is intruding in on my health and you want me to sit back and not raise my voice against this corporate controlled drug that markets to children? Please, I will fight for the banning of smoking in all public places! Addiction gives you no right to harm others but those that are addicted should be given opitions to quite and I'll fight for that as well.

Put that in your pipe but don't smoke it around me.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

134. Yep. It most certainly IS their choice. So they ought to quit

OR quit demanding that everyone else change to suit them. Did you forget that BARS and RESTAURANTS are not public places--they are private businesses? Let's see....hmmmm... I want to work in a strip club but I want the stripping to STOP! BTW, you ignored all of my points, but I am not surprised.

[mondo joe]

144. Bars and restaurants are public accomodations, as a matter of law.

Furthermore, you could apply that standard to anything, giving employers unopposed authority to control all aspects of employment:

"Don't like being groped by the boss? You can quit!"
"Don't like being exposed to plutonium? You can quit!"
"Don't like working without a break time? You can quit!"

[mondo joe]

133. As soon as what you eat magically goes into my body you'll have a case

about what other eat.

But you don't now.

[PeterPuck]

188. He is right

I have stayed in many non-smoking rooms where it was obvious that people still smoked. I have seen people smoke in non-smoking rooms.

For some reason, some smokers book the non-smoking room. I guess I can't really blame them as I wouldn't want to stay in a stench filled room either.

It is definitely easier to enforce with a complete ban. Glad to see it and I am sure other Hotel chains will follow their lead. I'll be giving them my business from now on.

[TX-RAT]

103. Wonder how they would make violators pay the 200?

They going to arrest them?

[LostinVA]

105. Charge their credit card

They may have a policy of needing one to make a reservation. And, if not, then I'm sure they'll bill them/sue them.

[frankly_fedup2]

165. Well it's time they start putting some restrictions on people who

wear cologne/perfume. The smell makes me sick. I get an immediate headache, my nose locks up, and I cannot breathe. My eyes will water as I have an allergy to something included in these products.

I know I'm not alone here either. You can be clean but bathing in these products is ridiculous.

I have less of a problem with smokers than I do with this. I think smokers should bring this issue up to companies that start banning smokers. If they are going to ban smoking, they need to ban drinking as well as anyone wearing perfumes.

They feel smoking is so dangerous. What about the drunk that gets behind the wheel of a car and, if they wreck, they always live. It's the children and other people in the vehicle they hit.

Now with all this banning, they really need to ban fat people. They carry an odor sometimes too. They must be lazy and dirty or they wouldn't be fat . . . right? WRONG.

All of the above is social bigotry that is still allowed today. Bigotry is bigotry, I do not care if it's called something else. A lot of people use these issues to keep the "right" kind of people (or what they consider is decent people) as their customers.

I'm glad they are banning smoking. I'm banning them because they are bigots.

[KitchenWitch]

35. Just so you are aware

I have severe asthma and other lung issues and being around second hand smoke can KILL me. Being on a long haul flight with smokers, even in their own section, would likely kill me.

Westin, as a business, has a right to decide whether to provide smoking areas or not.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

70. Do other businesses, therefore, have a right to decide whether to

provide smoking sections or not?

[DS1]

85. Of course they do

Smoking is not a right, or a priviledge.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

98. Then you are against wholesale smoking bans in bars, I presume

And believe that the business should be allowed to decide if they want smoking or not. Smoking tobacco is most certainly a right because it is a legal substance.

[LostinVA]

106. It is not a right to smoke wherever you want

Just like you can't drink wherever you want, or even eat wherever you want -- and that's all legal. Businesses do have a right to post rules excluding certain behavior.

Smoking in bars? Ambivalent, because of the bar and wait staff. People do have a right to work in a safe environment.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

113. N.O.B.O.D.Y. HAS to work in a place that allows smoking -nt

[jseankil]

120. Let's roll back workers rights, right on! /nm

/nm

[LostinVA]

129. Whatever -- nice anti-labor sentiment there

Nobody has to work at Wal-Mart and be treated like dirt, nobody has to work in an unsafe textile plant, nobody has to take work home at night because their boss tells them to... unless they really need a job. Man.

Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater....

[eowyn_of_rohan]

136. Is it ok that Westin disallows smoking in their hotels?

Is it OK that bar owners choose whether or not they allow smoking in their establishments? I think so, in both cases. We can all choose whether we want to work or spend our money there.

My city just banned smoking and more bar workers than not are complaining that their tips and hours are way down from what they were before the ban went into effect.

[LostinVA]

146. Again, you are expressing anti labor attitudes

Choosing to spend money someplace and choosing to quit a job you need are too different things. I didn't agree with you, but I completely supported your right to express your opinion re: smoking bans. But, you tainted that with your "screw the workers" thing.

All I said was I was ambivalent about smoking bans in bars, because I support the right of ALL workers to work in a safe environment. You're jumping on the wrong soapbox here. I never completely disagreed with you... I said AMBIVALENT.

And so people on this thread take about rabid anti-smokers. Geez......

And, research other threads on DU -- bars and clubs don't go belly up because of them (NYC for example).

[mondo joe]

132. Just like nobody HAS to work in a place that allows sexual harassment?

Or one that allows exposure to toxic materials?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

135. I just said this to someone else but I'll say it again

Now, I have been victimized by sexual harassment, so this is dear to my heart...Just to make a point, let's pretend...

I want to work in a strip club but I want the stripping to stop. Now I don't REALLY want to work in one, and in fact I wish they would all be banned, because I believe these places contribute to the social sickness in this country that has a greater impact on our collective health than 2nd hand smoke does...

But as I would stay as far away as possible from strip joints, I do NOT understand why people who dread and fear 2nd hand smoke so much go running to a smoky bar for a job then demand that everyone else stop smoking.

Now I admit, I have to give more thought to how my beliefs compare and contrast regarding rabid non-smokers who choose to work in bars (which have ALWAYS traditionally been places for people to gather, drink and smoke), and employee abuse/neglect, etc in the Walmarts, of this country... I think this may be an apples to oranges issue.

edited for typo

[jseankil]

137. Poor example

People work at bars and restaurants to serve food and drinks not to suck down toxic chemicals. While you want to protect a businesses right to expose their employees to toxic smoke I'm against that.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

138. Poor response to my post in the first place

you ignored every other issue and example I gave. As has everyone else who is attacking me...

[mondo joe]

142. You're not being attacked. Your fallacious reasoning is.

Even where there are health risks to employees borne of necessary functions, employers are required to MINIMIZE those risks - not let them go on unabated.

Hospitals are required to take measures to protect nurses and staff from risks, even though they can't eliminate them entirely. Same goes for a variety of jobs.

It's sort of funny to see a poster on a democratic message board so supportive of corporate freedom to ignore the health and safety of employees.

[LostinVA]

147. I agree -- the anti-worker rights is confounding me n/t

[eowyn_of_rohan]

149. Fallacious? Now THAT is funny

You anti-smoking nannies and Nazis are irrationally obsessed with the dangers of 2nd hand smoke, while you refuse to acknowledge that other pollutants are far more pervasive and dangerous, or that we all have to tolerate behavior in each other that affects our mental and/or physical health (which go hand in hand)...

I support Westins decision to ban smoking, just as I support the rights of bar owners to make their own choices whether or not to allow smoking in their establisments. I support the rights of people to choose whether or not they want to support these busineses. I support the rights of people to choose where they want to work, but smoking has been a part of the bar/pub scene in this country since Colonial times, so to apply for work at a bar, then expect or demand that you have a smoke free environment to work in is a bit odd, IMO. Sorry if my opinions on this issue aren't in line with the party. Actually no, I am not sorry.

[mondo joe]

150. Who is denying the existence of other pollutants? To the contrary,

I am well aware of them and they are SIGNIFICANT democratic issues.

Ever hear of the Kyoto Protocols? Ever heard of Green Buildings?

Probably not - like worker safety, these tend to be democratic issues.

Edit to add: And you forgot to even try to defend your fallacious strip bar analogy. To deny a business its very product is a far cry from supporting the safety of workers from toxins that are NOT their product.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

151. How dare you imply that because I don't agree with you on this

that I shouldnt be posting here? There are other people besides the workers, and the bar owners, whose rights are being infringed upon here. Perhaps right now, I care more about the lonely, the outcasts, the artists and poets, people who frequent bars (and have been for generations) that your ilk would never consider going to or working in anyway... I think as long as tobacco is legal, these people ought to have a place to go, to congregate with others of like mind, to be free to enjoy a few cigarettes with their drinks.

I also defend my strip bar analogy wholeheartedly. Good night. I have no more to say to you.

[XemaSab]

154. That is the biggest crock ever in the history of crocks

Being anti-smoking equals being anti-artist and anti-poet.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight........ :eyes:

[mondo joe]

159. LOL --- the democratic party certainly has its share of dramatics.

It turns up every now and then.

[Cats Against Frist]

163. There's a certain libertarian element to every good artist

One has to admire the range of human decency and debauchery to make good art. Authoritarian nanny-staters are the antithesis of such.

[XemaSab]

167. One of the biggest turning points of my life

was going to the ICU. It was a moment that I decided to live on and to be a better person. It's also one of the most intense things ever to happen to me... nearly dying.

For me, that's what the life experience is about and what I think informs my art and writing the most.

:hi:

[Cats Against Frist]

173. So "nearly dying" is certainly "not good"

and you learned from it, and it has informed your art. That's all I'm saying -- the human experience has limitless possibilities, and people who have it "all figured out," whether from the viewpoint of authoritarian modernism (PC, do-gooder, nanny state), or religious or classical order (religious right, patriarchs), don't seem, to me, to be best suited to guide us on a path to exploration and discovery. There are, of course, exceptions. Ezra Pound was a fascist, and I like his stuff.

It depends on what kind of art one likes, too. The quick "epiphany," or the hum-drum confessional, the classic, or the experimental. If one likes Thomas Kinkade, I'd be willing to bet that they have it all figured out.

[mondo joe]

158. Who ever said you shouldn't be posting here? Quit the drama, please.

I wouldn't dream of you not posting here - you're the best laugh of the day. Especially when you speak of my "ilk" - whatever "ilk" you believe that to be.

[LostinVA]

180. Your ilk is on of those crazy Pacific Northwestern people

You know, you salmon eatin', latte sipping', rain lovin', Patagonia-wearing fools.

}(

[Cats Against Frist]

162. What they're refusing to realize is that smoking in bars is a tradition

A bar is a sacred place. One might thing that's "too much," to say that, but I disagree. A bar can be one's living room. A bar is a rite of passage. A bar can be a family. Traditionally, a bar is a place for adult fun. Kid's aren't allowed, and various substances are imbibed and smoked. Cigarettes and alcohol are legal drugs that adults can choose to smoke. A bar owner should be able to decide if he or she wants his or her patrons to smoke, and workers who are going to go there for work are free to, or not.

The examples about stripping "workers' rights," are overblown and ludicrous. I think it's demeaning to have to wear a uniform. Should I go to a place that has uniforms, and demand that I not have to wear one, but they should provide me employment. Some jobs specify you have to be able to lift 50 lbs. If I can't, can I demand that they provide me with a job, anyway?

I've figured out that people who don't like smoking in bars are either anti-cigarette zealots, or are jealous, and want to make all bar scenes cater to them, so they don't have to damage their pristine lungs to get to a cool "scene." It's ridiculous, childish and fascist.

I applaud the Westin for making their business decision. People can choose to go to their hotel, or not. That's freedom.

[mondo joe]

141. Fallacious comparison.

The purpose to a strip bar is the stripping. It is a NECESSARY function of that workplace.

Similarly, if you work in a coal mine you assume certain risks that exist because they are necessary to the functioning of the workplace.

The purpose to a hotel or restaurant or theater is not to smoke. It is not necessary to the functioning of the workplace to expose employees to smoke.

There's a huge difference.

[conflictgirl]

189. I've worked in bars

In my experience at least, the vast majority of bar workers smoke themselves. Working in bars doesn't tend to be a popular occupation for non-smokers. And I highly doubt that it's such a prestigious job that there are millions of non-smokers out there telling themselves "you know, I'd really love to work in a bar, but I can't because of all the smokers".

[bbgrunt]

139. no disrespect meant, but

it is strange that with such a debilitating reaction that you continue to survive in a world filled with pollutants.

[XemaSab]

152. I also have severe asthma and serious allergies

I've been hospitalized numerous times. Once I was even put in the ICU because I was in a room where there had been a rabbit.

I'm very allergic to cigarette smoke and I appreciate the efforts of businesses to make me comfortable by banning smoking.

Smokers don't understand what it's like to not be able to breathe. Futhermore, smoking is a CHOICE but for me, sadly, having asthma is not.

[Cats Against Frist]

164. Cigarette smoke is not an allergen

No one is "allergic" to cigarette smoke. It is an irritant. You might have a physical reaction, but it's not because you're allergic.

[LostinVA]

181. Okay then -- my sister has an extreme irritant reaction to cigarette smoke

And, my mom was a pediatric allergy nurse, and when I asked her about this, she said you're mistaken. You can have an allergic reaction to many things. It's just (and I quote her email):

"An abnormally high sensitivity to certain substances, such as pollens, foods, or microorganisms."

I myself am very allergic to mustard.

[jeffrey_X]

179. I can't smell alcohol in my room if I'm next door or above a person...

who's drinking. But I sure as hell can smell smoke from another person who's staying in the room next to me or the hallway.

The continued comparison of alcohol and smoking is the dumbest thing I've seen.

[Corgigal]

28. Try the Doubletree at Times Sq

the minute we walked in the bumped us up to a two room suite.

I smoked like a fiend.

[DS1]

84. Tough shit. Smokers always tell non-smokers to find somewhere else

to be when they smoke. Now YOU have to find somewhere else to stay.

Oh well.

[HeeBGBz]

153. So what if you are in a smoky bar and come back to your room?

They smell smoke and charge you $200.

Fuck them.

[Danmel]

2. There isn't much worse than being in a smoking room if you don't smoke

The stench is unbelievable- it really lingers and sticks to everything.

I'm sure hotels would save a lot of money on cleaning, sanitizing, deodorizing and not having to replace burned fabrics and tables and carpets if they were non smoking exclusively. I will not accept a smoking room- if the chain isn't willing to guarantee me a non smoking room, I won't take it.

[we can do it]

6. Me Either - Its like being in the room with a big dog poop

n/t

[xultar]

8. Makes me ITCH!!!! I Hate it!!

[Raine]

13. Yes really

those rooms stink to high heaven, the smell permiates everything. I'm really glad about this! :thumbsup:

[...of J.Temperance]

18. So hotels should have SMOKING rooms and NON-SMOKING rooms

But just going completely Fascist and saying NO SMOKING at all...it's going too far.

Alternate the rooms, a smoking room, a non-smoking room, a smoking room, a non-smoking room.

Shouldn't be a problem.

[TommyO]

26. Fascist?

Hardly, it's a business making a decision based on it's research. I absolutely hate it when laws are passed limiting smoking in bars and restaurants (and I'm a non-smoker), but when a business decides to make that choice, I support them.

[WillParkinson]

31. I work in a hotel...

And we have smoking and non smoking rooms.

You probably aren't too surprised to hear that people do smoke in the non-smoking rooms. Frequently.

[...of J.Temperance]

34. My Dad stayed at the Amerisuites in Ft. Worth

He was horrified to find out that it was a non-smoking hotel, and they also said that they would fine a guest $200 if they'd been smoking. They told Dad AFTER he'd booked in that they were a non-smoking hotel.

My Dad smoked in his suite in the completely non-smoking hotel. He smoked in the bathroom of the suite, with the door shut and the shower on full blast which generated steam that rendered the smoke down...and he got away with it.

He said "I paid money for the suite, and if I want to smoke, then I'm going to smoke and I did"...he said this to me, not to the hotel people.

Hotels should cater for ALL people, and like your hotel they should have smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms...because thats only fair. Anything else is just raw discrimination.

On Edit: Dammit spelling error.

[WillParkinson]

49. That would be fine, except...

If you put a non-smoker in a smoking room he's not going to "not smoke the place up" so that the next guest can tell there was a non-smoker in there.

If you put a smoker in a non-smoking room and that person doesn't abide by the rules the next guest has a good chance of knowing that there was a smoker there.

If your father smoked in the hotel in his non-smoking room that, in and of itself, should prove the point that others are trying to make. While I do not deny that they should have told your father up front that they were a non-smoking hotel he arrogantly broke the rules instead of trying to find a better solution. In this case two wrongs do not make a right. Sorry.

[LostinVA]

64. And, some people, like my sister

are allergic to cigarette smoke. They won't "just" be nauseated and sickened like the rest of us -- they literally become very sick, and have reactions.

[Cats Against Frist]

166. No one is alkergic to cigarette smoke. It's not an allergen. n/t

[meow2u3]

68. Big Business Takes the Law in Their Own Hands

That's what the headline should read. Businesses are not allowed to enforce the law, and that's what the Westin hotel chain is looking to do: deputize itself as law enforcement officers.

One man sued a rental car company for charging him a $150 fine for speeding. He won his case because businesses are not allow to take the law into their own hands.

[KitchenWitch]

125. Westin is not "taking the law into its own hands" as you put it.

Westin has made a business decision, and I am guessing they did a significant amount of research as to the consequences of making such a decision, and as such they are willing to lose the business of some people who smoke, in order to gain the business of people who appreciate smoke free places.

Cleaning up after smokers, in both smoking and non-smoking rooms costs money. Have you ever seen the walls in a house where a heavy smoker lives? For years after the smoker quits, the walls literally leak this nasty yellowish brown substance.

[XemaSab]

155. That's sad that he's such an addict

Have you spoken to him about his addiction?

And will you champion his violation of the rules in order to feed his addiction when he comes down with a smoking-related respiratory problem?

[LostinVA]

63. Which is what my cousin the hotel manager says

And there's not really much they can do.

And, as a traveler, I have booked non-smoking rooms, and at least 50% of the time, one of the following happens:

1.) someone has smoked in the non-smoking room, leaving it smelling disgusting, and the hotel can't "fix" it in time, or
2.) They've run out of non-smoking rooms

I smoked two packs for ten years. I know what the addiction is like. But, I also now know how literally nauseating it is for non-smokers to have to be in a room, especially a small, self contained-room, reeking of cigarette smoke. Gag.

[noonwitch]

59. I thought that way worked best, too

I don't stay at hotels often, but the most recent was a Sleep Inn. They had smoking and non-smoking floors, so that non smokers wouldn't even have to smell smoke seeping out from rooms while walking from the lobby to their rooms. I thought that was the practical solution, but companies are free to do whatever they want. If this hotel wants to be totally smoke free, that is their perogative. Their success or failure will determine how popular their policy is.

[Danmel]

61. Alternating isn't great

because the smoke goes from room to room- you'd be better off alternating floors. Either way, I just make sure I don't get in a smoking room.

[bbgrunt]

143. that won't satisfy health nazis---they complain if neighbors

smoke in another building or they have to pass a car on the highway where someone is smoking.

They are hysterical over this issue because it is one thing they can actually see being done by someone they can actually try to blame for all the other uncertainties and scary realities in their lives.

[mondo joe]

145. And how about those car emission Kyoto Protocol nazis?

They're just hysterical over car emissions!

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

148. I know -- when I smoked, I NEVER acted like it wasn't

a disgusting, dirty, unhealthy habit... and also did my best to be respectful and not bother people with my smoke. I am so supportive of understanding the addiction, but some of these attitudes on this thread are confounding to me. Tammywammy's is by far the best -- very much like me when I smoked.

[kskiska]

27. I left a motel after one night because the room absolutely reeked

of cigarette smoke. The smell was in the rug, the drapes, the bedding. We moved to a small motel down the road in Vancouver. We got into a conversation with the owner (of the second motel), who complained that smokers would purposely ask for a non-smoking room because they thought it was better than a smoking room. Then he would be forced to fumigate it to bring it up to the standards of a non-smoking room again.

[NMDemDist2]

3. Bill Maher on smoking (they'll come for the fat people next)

MAHER: It's saying we're screwed up. It's saying we're screwed up. There's no reason for this. There's no reason to put these in these categories, to point fingers at the people -- you know, the smokers. You, you alone are the...

KING: You defend the smoker.

MAHER: Oh, yes, I do, Larry.

KING: Explain that.

MAHER: Well, again... KING: It kills. It's a killer product, isn't it?

MAHER: Larry, so is fatty food, so is sun cancer, so are prescription drugs -- all these things. Why do we point at the smoker and say, You know what? Your bad habit costs society, and that's the real -- you know, because that's the cover reason why we have to get rid of smoke. Your bad habit costs us in health care. Well, the person who's overweight, his bad habit is costing society too.

KING: So what you're saying is everything goes or...

MAHER: No, I'm saying I don't want to, like, attack the people who are overweight. I'm saying get off the smokers. I'm saying just be consistent.

We're all in this society together. We're all costing it in one way or another, OK. We all do something. None of us are perfect. We all pick our own poison. Don't point at me because mine is the one -- why do they pick on smoking? Not because it's the most important issue, because it's the one that's easiest to pick on. So that's why I defend smokers. And my mother still smokes.

KING: You also permit smoking on your show, right?

MAHER: Oh sure, if somebody wants to smoke, let them smoke.

KING: You could be the only show on television that has smoking.

MAHER: I've had -- probably am the only one.

[megatherium]

14. Maher has a point, but he and many people don't realize how bad cigs are.

If nothing else gets you by the time you're 75, if you're a smoker you have a 1 in 7 chance of getting lung cancer by that age. Seven of eight lung cancers occur in smokers or former smokers. 150,000 people die each year of lung cancer in the US, it's the leading cause of death by cancer. As many smokers die of heart disease as lung cancer. The average smoker loses 13 years of his or her life because of their smoking.

This subject is on my mind a lot lately: a close relative of mine is dying of lung cancer. He was a 2-pack-a-day smoker for 27 years. He quit 27 years ago, but alas the risk for lung cancer decreases but not all the way to zero when you quit.

So anything that communicates the message that cigarettes are not really that big a deal, is a bad thing. Maher should think about what he's doing. He shouldn't carry water for the tobacco companies and their toxic, addictive product.

[high density]

17. My love handles don't linger around in the room after I'm gone

I understand his point but I don't see how it applies to this specific thread. I don't think Westin cares whether we have healthy habits or not, they just want to make more money.

[sofa king]

4. Psst. I got coke, meth, Marlboros... try some buy some!

Remember, when tobacco becomes illegal, it will instantly become a "gateway drug." The gateway is the dealer, not the dope.

[Beaverhausen]

5. I thought the smoking ban threads weren't supposed to be posted until Tues

you are a day early.

oh well.

:popcorn:

[RamboLiberal]

9. Sorry - you forgot to clue me in

:smoke:

I'm one of those anti-smoking freaks. I have no problem with smoking rooms as long as I don't have to be in one.

[truthisfreedom]

7. i'm sure it costs a bit to get the room ozoned to remove the smoke

who wants to sleep in a smoky-smelling non-smoking room?

[DoctorMyEyes]

10. Why did they only reserve 5% of their rooms?

If there was such a big demand, why didn't they designate more than 5% of their rooms for non-smokers before going to 100%?

I also think it's bullshit to tell people "at check-in". If they're not telling when you make the reservation they're going to have just as many "quite upset" guests as they did before.

[wakeme2008]

11. POOLSIDE....

that is crazy....

[VegasWolf]

12. "Quite upset?" I'd be screaming if I was stuck in a stinky, smelly

room!

[lynne]

15. No problem -

- I'll just take my business elsewhere.

Now, if they would get rid of the people wearing 2 gallons of God-Awful perfume and cologn, THEN I'd be happy.

[...of J.Temperance]

19. This WILL happen, they're going to lose custom

But they can't see it right now because they feel the need to pander to the anti-smoking cry-babies.

[SoCalDem]

20. 92 % vs 8%.. They just decided to jettison the 8%

Smokers will stay elsewhere.. I wonder how their European hotels will welcome this change:shrug:

[sadiesworld]

78. "The policies will not extend to Westin's overseas hotels..."

LOL.

[rinsd]

123. It's strange.....

...if non-smoking rooms are in such demand why not reverse the percentage. Keep 5% of rooms as smoking and leave the rest non.

[VegasWolf]

21. Even when I smoked I would ask for a non smoking room and then I

would go outside to smoke. I couldn't stand the dank, smelly odor of cigarettes trapped in hotel rooms.

[meganmonkey]

53. Why don't hotel windows open anymore?!

I am a serious smoker, but I don't like to smoke in hotel rooms because the windows never open anymore, and it seems like lately there isn't even a fan in the fricking bathroom. That's just ridiculous.

I always get smoking rooms, but if I do smoke I generally do it in the bathroom and then shut the door so the whole room doesn't get stinky. Sometimes, if the hotel set-up makes it difficult to get outside easily I'll smoke in there at night too, but again - just in the bathroom.

I just wish the windows would open :(

But I also don't smoke in my house, we go into the garage or on the deck.

[tammywammy]

122. The last time I was in a hotel was in San Francisco

the windows did open. My friend and I stayed in a smoking room, but we kept the window cracked almost the entire time, for the extra ventilation.

Wow, and I checked the name of the hotel it was The Westin St. Francis in Union Square.

[meisje]

22. YAY! I'll give them my business

[DemoTex]

23. Why? You smokers violated the non-smoking rooms .. consistently!

And don't try to argue it with me. As an airline pilot whose life was spent in hotel rooms, I know the score. Curb your disgusting habit and cork your pie-trap on any retaliation to this anti-smoking thread. Westin's decision will make them millions. Non-smokers are savvy. Smokers are liars who prove it by smoking in non-smoking rooms .. consistently!

[Skink]

24. I worked on Carnival's nonsmoking ship for a few months....

when you exited the gangway if other ships were around you could smell the stench from 15 feet.
It really was a smoke free Paradise.

[DemoTex]

25. How on earth did Carnival keep the addicts from smoking?

Did they allow it on deck?

Mac

[Skink]

29. They had to give up the goat. It couldn't be done.

Actually they signed a few guests off and flew them home. It was the crew that did the ship in. They had plans for other smoke free ships but I don't think that has happened yet.

[Centered]

32. Not much else for crew to do

on a cruise ship but smoke and drink...you have to share bunks so often sex is out too (the girls/guys go for the officers with their own cabins) especially the "crew" as opposed to staff and officers... it's very difficult to find large quantities of non-smoking crew for a fleet. 1 or 2 ships but not a fleet.

Finding people who will work 14+ hours a day/7 days a week for 6+ months straight is hard enough.

[Codeine]

36. Why do the smokers

always say that they want businesses to have the freedom to make the choice to be smoke-free or not, and laud the supremacy of the free market, but then bitch when a business actually does make the choice?

And for the guy that keeps saying "crybabies" - notice who's crying on this thread?

[tammywammy]

38. I agree with you

I'm a smoker, but if Westin wants to do this then that's okay. If I have to stay at a Westin, then I'll smoke outside.

I'd rather have business decide what they want to do instead of the government legislating it.

[VaYallaDawg]

92. I'm a non-smoker, hate to smell it, but I agree, don't want govt. involved

[...of J.Temperance]

40. I'm not a guy...I'm a girl

But banning people who have a right to smoke if they chose to do so is NOT adhering to the free market is it? Because it's discrimination pure and simple and it's preventing an individual from exercising their right to make their own personal decision...by threatening to extort $200 out of them.

[tammywammy]

41. But

you're going into a private establishment, that can choose to allow/not allow smoking.

I don't agree with the smoking bans in bars, because I feel the business owners should be able to decide if they want smokers or not.

It's the same here. This hotel chain chooses to not allow smoking. It seems they have good reasons too, the smokers were smoking in the non-smoking rooms.

You do have the personal decision to smoke. Just like this business has the right to not allow smoking. And you can choose to not stay there.

[KitchenWitch]

42. Not to mention the fact that the hotel DID have smoking rooms

and that smokers CHOOSE to smoke...It is a business decision that will likely save Westin a ton of money, in cleaning costs.

I do not see it as discrimination, as smokers - however addicted - ultimately chose to be smokers.

[...of J.Temperance]

43. Well WHY are they ALSO banning smoking from the Poolside area?

The pool is like outdoors...and there are facilities around the pool where people can put their cigarettes out...and the pool being OUTDOORS doesn't cause the carpets and the curtains INDOORS to smell of smoke.

So yes, it's discrimination against the FORMER guests who smoke. If it wasn't then Westin wouldn't be banning people from smoking outdoors around the pool, would they?

On Edit: Dammit spelling error.

[KitchenWitch]

44. They still have to clean the ashtrays

and the pavement (because not everyone who smokes can be bothered to USE an ashtray...) and the grounds. Not all poolside areas are outdoors. Hotels in more variable climates often have INDOOR pools, since an outdoor pool would be useless for a majority of the year; and the humidity tends to hold the second hand smoke in the air longer than dry air.

[WillParkinson]

50. Sorry to say....

Hotels are PRIVATE property. Though they do rent rooms to the public it is still very much their property to do with as they see fit.

[Samurai_Writer]

56. Pools aren't always outside

Some hotels have indoor pools.

[Nye Bevan]

76. I don't care if the pool is outdoors

I hate being by the pool when people are smoking. The wind always seems to carry the smoke directly to my face.

Can't these people chew nicotine gum instead? Then they get their fix without affecting me.

[SoCalDem]

130. because non-smokers must be shielded from smoke by any means necessary

I wonder if their valet comes to their room and hands them the keys to their car.. (It's "dangerous" to sit there waiting for your car to be brought around,..all those nasty exhaust fumes)..

I wonder if non smoking guests are supposed to receive their food in their rooms too, since breathing fumes released from teflon coated pans in the kitche, could be dangerous to their delicate lungs..

[chopper]

65. asdf

nobody has a 'right' to smoke on someone else's property.

[TommyO]

82. They're not banning people who smoke

they're banning the smoking itself. You're free to stay there, but not smoke in the room.

[Codeine]

117. You don't have a "right"

to do anything on private property. The hotel can decide that they won't allow drinking, or music, or television, or anything they want in their buildings. That's their right because they own the place.

[High Plains]

101. Yes, Westin has the right to go smoke-free...

As a smoker, I won't whine about it. I just won't stay there.

[Psephos]

45. This is how it should be done. Not with laws, but with choices.

People who think it's a great idea (like me) give their business to Westin. People who think differently give their business to a hotel that welcomes smokers. The market allocates the right number of hotels to each way of thinking.

No nanny state bullshit. I LIKE it.

Peace.

[sadiesworld]

46. What bullshit.

My husband smokes and travels for his company fairly often. No Westin for him. I used to travel extensively (and I smoked). There would be no Westin in my intinerary today. I haven't smoked in 8 months but I hope Westin loses $$$$$ out the a$$ over this.

For those DUers who want to say it's the fault of smokers who smoke in non-smoking rooms, did it occur to you that the problem is the SCARCITY OF SMOKING ROOMS?!?! So Westin's response is to eliminate somking rooms entirely?!?!

How about reserving the $200 fine for those who smoke in non-smoking rooms? Duh.

[WillParkinson]

51. The fine....

Because you may smell the smoke in the room and you may know that the guest did it but how do you prove it?

As for there not being enough smoking rooms that won't fly, sorry. At the hotel I work at the floors are clearly marked as NON-SMOKING and people still smoke in them. I've been in rooms and seen it done.

Now, some people make an honest mistake or in some cases it is the front desk person who made the mistake but there are others who smoke in the room but there are people who are told that it's a non-smoking floor and still smoke in the room. My parents are smokers and they used to swear you can't tell. You can. Believe me.

[sadiesworld]

54. Presumably you prove that someone smoked

in a non-smoking room (instead of using one of the designated smoking rooms) the same way Westin will need to prove that someone smoked in a non-smoking room (when no alternatives are provided).

I never said that people don't smoke in non-smoking rooms. In fact, my whole post was based on the assumption that they do they do.

Exactly WHERE did I argue that you can't tell when someone has smoked in a room?

My suggestion is this:
-Offer additional smoking rooms.
-Use the $200 fine for that vast number :eyes: of individuals who insist on passing up a smoking room so they can smoke in a non-smoking room.

[WillParkinson]

77. Not disagreeing with you

I'm agreeing that Westin will have a very hard time proving that people smoked in a non-smoking room.

And Im not saying that a "vast" number of individuals pass up smoking rooms so they can smoke in a non-smoking. We've had front desk people make mistakes and check smoking guests into non-smoking rooms and the people didn't ask to be moved or insist there was a mistake. They went ahead and smoked. Again, more people tell the desk that they've made a mistake than those who would just stay in the room.

As for where did you say that you can't tell....you didn't. My apologies. It was more of a stock reply to several other messages and that part was not related at something you said.

[Samurai_Writer]

57. There was no scarcity of smoking rooms

They had 95% of their rooms reserved for SMOKERS, but found that 92% of their guests were requesting NONSMOKING rooms. You do the math.

Westin is a private business and can do what they like. I love how the smokers on this thread are getting so upset that ONE hotel chain out of HUNDREDS has decided to go nonsmoking. That gives you only thousands of other hotels to choose from. Poor smokers, you're so mistreated. Not.

[sadiesworld]

67. Don't you find those numbers a bit ODD?!

Gee, why not change the percentages of smoking vs. non-smoking rooms it that's the issue?! My guess is that Westin is taking this course b/c they think it may improve their bottom line (I'm sure they'll pass along any savings to their non-smoking clientele :eyes:) and they hope to win the approval of the militant anti-smoking crowd. People won't even be allowed to smoke in outside areas?!?! I guess they know better than to try this shit in Europe.

And, yes, in my experience a lack of non-smoking rooms is common. Find a business traveler who smokes and ask him/her about this issue--they'll set you straight.

Obviously, Westin can do as it likes--just without my $$$$$.

(If this type of thing were limited to businesses making their own choices, I might be a bit more understanding. In the city I live in a restaurant can't MAKE THE CHOICE to have a smoking area--we're smoke-free).

BTW, I quit smoking 8 months ago as I stated in the original post (read, read).

[Samurai_Writer]

83. Then count me in with the 'militant anti-smoking crowd'

When only 8% of your customers smoke, it's more cost-effective to make all the rooms nonsmoking. As has been stated before, smokers will and do smoke in nonsmoking rooms quite a bit. I worked in the hotel and restaurant industry for 16 years, and it is a well-known fact that smokers cost hotels money and smoke in non-smoking rooms and other non-smoking areas, like public bathrooms.

Personally, I have severe asthma and cannot go to a business that allows smoking. I haven't been to a bar or nightclub in years. When they allowed smoking on flights, I could not fly, because being trapped in a pressurized cabin with smokers would have killed me. I was in a non-smoking room during my move from FL to CO two months ago, and it was obvious someone had been smoking in there. I ended up spending the night in the ER instead of the room I paid for.

I'm glad you quit smoking. But I'm addressing this to all the smokers who seem to think it's their god-given right to pollute everyone else's air and cause people like me to go to the hospital because they couldn't step outside a NONSMOKING ROOM to placate their addiction.

[sadiesworld]

87. So you're in favor of jettisoning the 8%

instead of implementing a rational policy of reapportioning the smoking vs. non-smoking rooms and using fines to punish those who don't comply?
Also, you say that you were recently hospitalized after spending the night in a room where someone had smoked, yet you worked in the bar/restaurant industry for 16 years? Hm. Oh right, I guess now I'm going to hear about how those 16 years of second-hand smoke caused all of your "problems". :eyes:
Once again, Westin can do as it likes but it doesn't make their new policy particularly rational nor consumer-friendly. Except, of course, those consumers who sit up at nights in their non-smoking rooms freaking out about the possibility that someone in a smoking room is...er, smoking!
Tip: Stay out of Europe--YOU WOULD HATE IT!

[Samurai_Writer]

88. No, it didn't cause m y problems...

I used to smoke. That's what caused my asthma and to have my lungs permanently damaged. I worked in the kitchens, mainly, under high-ventilation hoods. I did not go to the employee break rooms on my breaks. However, I did finally have to leave that industry because of my asthma. I couldn't walk through the dining rooms anymore without it aggravating my asthma.

Adult-onset asthma doesn't always start out severe, but it worsens over time... the opposite of childhood asthma, which lessens over time and sometimes goes away when the child becomes an adult.

No one is freaking out about smokers in smoking rooms. People are complaining that smokers are smoking in NONSMOKING rooms. Quit with the drama already.

And believe me, I would love to go to Europe, but I know that if I did, I would end up spending most of my time in the hospital. Which is why I have not gone, and probably never will go. So all those European smokers are safe from the asthmatic.

[sadiesworld]

90. I'm NOT being overly dramatic.

My simple question is this: If the REAL problem is smokers smoking in non-smoking rooms, why not keep the smoking rooms but impose the $200 fine on those who smoke in non-smoking rooms??? The fine seems more justifiable when an alternative, i.e., smoking rooms, has been offered, no?

[Samurai_Writer]

91. No, it isn't more justifiable

The hotel chain has every right to say "we are not going to offer smoking rooms". If a smoker chooses to stay there, they know smoking is not allowed in the rooms. If the smoker then chooses to smoke in the room, and gets caught at it (which is very hard to do, I doubt they will be imposing many fines), then they pay the fine. If they want to use a smoking room, they can stay at one of the gazillion other hotels that DO offer smoking rooms.

I fail to see what the big fuss is about because ONE hotel chain from among hundreds doesn't want to offer smoking rooms. It's not like there aren't any alternatives.

[sadiesworld]

93. Once upon a time it was only ONE airline.

Once upon a time it was only ONE public building.

Once upon a time it was only ONE smoke-free city.

Once upon a time...

[Samurai_Writer]

99. Yes and thank god they've seen the light.

Now I can do things like go to court, pay taxes and register my vehicle without having an asthma attack because some smoker is puffing away inside the building. Or even work in an office that isn't full of blue hazy smoke. I remember the times when smoking was allowed everywhere... but I'm sure that is what the nicotine addicts want, is to go back to allowing smoking in every building, every non-ventilated office room, even in the courtrooms and classrooms. Right?

[LostinVA]

107. And grocery stores -- even when I smoked, that was icky to me

I probably saw that close to 1990 or so.

[XemaSab]

157. Trust me. You are being way overly dramatic.

And not only that, but you're completely dismissing the NUMEROUS people in this thread who think smoking is totally foul.

Stay out of California. You'd hate it.

[mondo joe]

160. It's probably not in the financial interest to reserve rooms for smokers

since so many MORE customers would take room if they are smoke free.

[Crowdance]

185. RadFem, I'm sorry to hear of your illness.

You are a victim, as are so many others, of an industry and government that is eager to addict us to a deadly compound of substances in order to make massive bucks. I, too, was once addicted, but am (so far) unscathed. I'm sorry this board can't easily afford you compassion for your plight; you have mine.

[in_cog_ni_to]

172. This past summer we were trying to go to the Wisconsin Dells

and I must have called 20 different hotels/resorts and NONE of them had smoking rooms available (GO FIGURE! ALL of the smoking rooms were FULL!)and MANY of them had NO smoking rooms period, BUT they DID have non-smoking rooms available which tells ME, they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. They would prefer to lose a 6 day stay from smokers and leave the room EMPTY but smelling fresh and clean. Now that's profitable. :eyes: One of these resorts was a $600.00 a night suite. Multply that X 6 PLUS 3 meals a day X 4 and it's a lot of money they threw away. The woman tried to get me to take the suite and said I could always just go outside to smoke. SORRY...not my idea of a relaxing vacation. If I want to sit on the couch and smoke, I want to sit on the couch and smoke, not go down 10 flights to have a cig. Their loss because we ended up having a GREAT stay in Michigan in a hotel that allowed smoking. If restaurants, bars or hotels don't allow smoking...fine, they won't get our money, it's that simple. Some day this shit will come back to bite the anti-smoking fascists in the ass and I can't wait until it does. I hope Westin suffers for this. They just lost OUR business.

[XemaSab]

156. Apparently 95% of their rooms were smoking rooms

Sort of blows a hole in your argument, no?

[Bridget Burke]

47. Good for them.

The stench of old smoke is hard to eradicate.

From room furnishings & from smokers. (Nope, you're not fooling anyone.)

[Nevernose]

48. Why not just stay somewhere else? n/t

[Little Star]

55. Allergic to animals, Hellooooo

Millions are allergic to animals and they let dogs stay in hotel rooms now. My grandson can die from allergies to dogs and people sneak animals into hotel rooms! The dog dander lingers forever. People have no respect for others and for me I've never heard of anyone dying from stale smoke smell. People need to get real. Provide special rooms for all to enjoy a hotel stay and EVERYONE needs to respect the rules. I do not advocate absolute no smoking nor no animal rules. Space can be provided for all. To many are control freaks and feel holier than thou by their absolutisms. Maybe those should try religious fanaticism to feel that I'm holier than thou pat on the back. Animals also stink, are dirty and carry germs (lick butt and then drool & lick other things) (and I LOVE them) but I do not want to sleep with them (you may and that is your choice but not in my room.) Many have allergies or find perfumes and fragrances obnoxious, etc. where does it end? Anyone ever heard of compromise (re:smoking & non smoking rooms)? Sadly some need to control ALL to feel good about themselves. I do not support any place that chooses to totally discriminate against anyone. There, I feel better about myself now, I am tolerant and inclusive.

[Samurai_Writer]

86. Pets staying in hotels

I am a pet owner and when I have had to travel with my pets. There are hotels that are 'pet friendly'. However, most hotels use the same rooms for smokers as for pets. I have asthma and cannot be around smoke at all (see my other post). I wish hotels would have nonsmoking rooms that allowed pets, and nonsmoking rooms where pets were not allowed. Most of the time, if I have my pets with me, I end up either having to sleep in my car (dangerous), pitch my tent in a campground (exhausting after a full day's driving, and cold/wet sometimes to boot), or seeing if I know any one in the area who will let me spend the night (inconvenient for them).

[sandnsea]

94. I'm allergic to perfume

If I had to choose between smoke smell and perfume, I'd take the smoke. Funny how nobody considers some of these other issues, probably because nobody would ever support a special perfume or dog tax.

[Cats Against Frist]

168. I could get on board with a hotel that bans stinky animals

Like smokers, pet owners aren't fooling anyone. I can smell a cat a mile away -- and I'm not stupid enough to say that I'm "allergic" to it -- I just don't like it. I applaud hotels that don't let pets into rooms.

I also don't like dogs on the sidewalk. I don't like stepping in careless dog owners' "leftovers" at the park, I hate it when people bring their stupid dogs to street fairs, and I hate it when peoples' dogs bark at me when I'm walking by. But, would I petition the government to stop any of those things? No. Why? Because I'm not a fascist, or a crybaby.

[Cats Against Frist]

169. Oh, and when I see a person who smells like cat, or has a ton

of nasty pet hair all over them, I think: "how can they live like that? How damn disgusting."

[Mizmoon]

58. Ten bucks says it doesn't last a year

I'll betcha.

[LostinVA]

69. One hundred bucks says other chains are doing it within a year

[VegasWolf]

71. I'll take that bet and give you 2-1 odds!

:)

[Tikki]

72. I'm with the person who says other chains will be doing this.....

....and sooner than later.



Tikki

[Nye Bevan]

75. Did you offer that bet when the first airline banned smoking? (nt)

[AngryAmish]

60. This is a good thing

Let me say I think most anti-smoking people are totalitarians who would gladly live in a police state and want to subjugate their fellow Americans. They are the worst sort of people.

That said, Westin is a private business. If they think they can do better and make their customers happier by going non-smoking then it is their choice.

[KitchenWitch]

127. Excuse me

I am militantly anti-smoking (second hand smoke can kill me), but I do not want a totalitarian or police state...I bet if you polled all the anti-smoking people here at DU, you would also find that they do not want a totalitarian regime at all. Please do not paint me with your broad brush.

[LostinVA]

131. Whatever, Angry Amish

What KitchWitch said...

[oregonindy]

62. AWESOME!!!! soon we can charge em with assault with a deadly weapon!!!

[Mizmoon]

73. Now people who can afford $200 can smoke in their hotel

and people who can't afford the $200 can't.

[Nye Bevan]

74. Question for smokers - I am curious

When you check into a hotel and arrive at your smoking room, do you not mind the stale cigarette smoke odor? Do you find it unobjectionable or actually pleasant? Is breathing it in like having a free cigarette?

[jjanpundt]

79. The last Hotel I stayed at - Hampton Inn

had used so much Febreze on everything that it nearly gagged me. Far worse than stale cigarette smoke. Fortunately they had windows that opened so was able to air the room out.

I have mixed feelings about Westin's decision. They have the right to make the rules that they think will attract customers and I'm sure other hotel chains are considering doing the same thing. Personally, I don't stay at Westin's as they're a little pricey for me.

What's a little annoying was that the last time I went traveling I had to call 5 different hotels before I found one that had a smoking room available. They only leave a small percentage 5% I think for smoking and all were booked.

[Mizmoon]

80. As a former smoker and current non-smoker

I've never been bothered by these "stale smoke smells" that so plague the primadonnas of the world.

[Isere]

89. These "primadonnas" that you blithely dismiss

may have allergies or asthma and may be very uncomfortable around these odors.
Although I am fortunate enough to have neither asthma nor allergies, I prefer not to pay hard cash to stay in a room where the bed covers and linens and curtains stink.

So I say "bravo" to Westin, primadonna that I am.

[sandnsea]

96. They aren't being cleaned properly

If they stink. Does that ever occur to anybody? Properly cleaned facilities and properly ventilated buildings should not stink of cigarette smoke.

[Imalittleteapot]

102. Amen.

The ventillation is the biggest problem. Simply sprinkling baking soda before vacuuming would work. Hotels don't launder blankets and bedspreads often enough - if ever.

[LostinVA]

109. Absolutely not true

curtains, etc. aren't cleaned after every guest, and a simple vacuuming (even with baking soda) won't get the carpet clean. Or the matters, or the furniture. Even the WALLS will smell after a while, because it leaves a film on the walls and ceiling. The last apartment I had while I still smoked I didn't even smoke in, because I had ruined so many clothes and so much furniture. It is insidious.

I never criticize the addiction a smoker has. EVER. I know what it's like, but I can no longer justify smoking in any enclosed space unless you are the only person who will ever be in that space. It's just too unhealthy and icky.

[sandnsea]

115. ventilation and cleaning WILL

My mother's house never smelled of smoke, not ever. Neither did any of our clothes as kids. That's because she ran a good air filtrator and was a cleaning maniac. Buildings do not have to smell, of ANYTHING, or have ANY unhealthy icky particles in the air. We're just stupid stupid stupid to pretend there is good air quality in buildings just because we can't smell smoke.

[in_cog_ni_to]

174. OZONE machines kill smoke smell.

They used Ozone machines after 911 to rid the Pentagon building of the smells. The Gulf Coast/FEMA uses Ozone machines to kill smoke, mold and mildew odors. Ozone permeates fabrics too. I had a flooded basement a few years ago and found mold on the walls and a horrible musty mildew smell. My friend loaned me her ozone machine which we ran for a week at full blast and it disintigrated the mold and killed mildew odor...GONE. The rooms CAN be odor free and easily too. Turn on a damn ozone machine...how hard is that? (Never, ever use an ozone machine with people or pets around)

I'm sure SOMEONE will be along to tell you your clothes DID smell as a kid, but you just didn't know it. :eyes:

[GoldenOldie]

97. As a "primmadonna," and an ex-smoker and NOW

an 19-year cancer survivor who lost my vocal cords....laryngectomee...from my drug of choice,smoking.

Laryngectomee's not only lose their normal ability to voice, approximately 98% of them lose all ability to taste and SMELL. I have been fortunate enough to have retained a limited sense of smell. One of those things that I vividly smell is tobacco odors. I am able to smell it from peoples clothing, if someone has lit up within 10-fee of me and I can smell all the horrible odors of hotel rooms that retain the previous roomers smoking along with the Hotels attempts to clean or disguise it. Although I have spent 15-years educating highschool, elementary school children and also adult groups on what I have learned...the hard way...about the tobacco industry and the dangers of all tobacco products, I have never, ever preached hell and damnation. I understand the addictiveness of tobacco. I understand that there is no one way to break the habit. I understand that some users want to quit and others do not want to. That is their choice.

For those that choose to continue be willing to accept the consequences. You would not place your child's face in front of a running vehicles exhaust pipe, yet tobacco products contain even more poisonous chemicals than that smoke spewing from tail pipe.

How much does the hotel industry spend in tobacco clean-up ie., Carpets, drapes, bedding, painting, venting systems, etc., etc., etc.
I too have been relegated to these smoking rooms when traveling with my 10lb dog. It stinks to high-heaven and no amount of coverup cleaners get rid of the stink.

[Cats Against Frist]

170. When will someone ban the dogs from the smoking rooms?

For my pleasure?

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

95. Me either

I quit smoking several months ago and I'm now beginning to wonder what all the fuss is about. I've been to states where smoking isn't regulated and gone into restaurants with separate smoking and non-smoking sections, I didn't even realize smoking was going on for several days because I'm so used to non-smoking restaurants here in Oregon. There was no difference at all. I have been in one or two smoky restaurants in the past, it seems to me to be a ventilation problem. And if the smoke isn't being ventilated out of a building, neither is other yukky crap in the air.

[Samurai_Writer]

100. You are obviously not sensitive or allergic to smoke then

Because if you were, you would smell it, even in 'well-ventilated' buildings. Your eyes would water and burn, you would start wheezing, you might even get welts. Or have an asthma attack.

THAT is what all the fuss is about. It's about one group of people (smokers) making another group of people (people allergic to smoke) become ill because of 'smokers' rights' to smoke wherever they want without regard to anyone else.

[LostinVA]

108. I smoked for ten years (two packs a day), and I hate the smell

It makes me sick. I first noticed it about two months after I quit smoking. It gives me sick headaches. I suddenly what my mom meant when she told me to hang my jacket up outside because it was making her sick.

[sandnsea]

112. I'm sensitive to PERFUME

But nobody gives a shit about that. I've been completely overcome by the crap, to the point of not being able to breathe and having to leave the area. My father couldn't take either one, but perfumes and potpourris bothered him alot more than smoke ever did. What's in that crap anyway? Does breathing in those chemicals cause cander? Do we know? What about cleaning chemicals? Sorry, smoking is a scapegoat because taxes can be raised and it takes people's attention away from all the rest of the crap in the air that is causing cancer too, maybe even more than the smoke.

[Samurai_Writer]

114. I'm allergic to perfumes as well

So I know what you're talking about. But smoking is not a scapegoat. It's a real problem for a lot of us.

[sandnsea]

116. The smoke isn't the problem

If the smoke is in the air, so are the perfume particles and god knows whatever other particles. If this is all about allegies and asthma and health, then why isn't clean air the focus instead of smoke???

[Samurai_Writer]

119. The smoke isn't the problem???

OK, obviously you have a high pro-smoking bias to even make that kind of statement.

Smoke gets into EVERYTHING, in much greater quantities than someone's perfume. In the drapes, linens, carpets, on the walls and ceilings. And stays there, no matter how well it is 'cleaned'. The same thing cannot be said about perfume, which dissipates rather quickly after someone walks by. Smoke hangs around forever, it seems.

[sandnsea]

121. You didn't read a word I said

Your anti-smoking bias is obvious. I've been in houses with all kinds of odors, including perfumey odors, and houses with absolutely none. It is dependent on filtration and cleaning, period. You obviously don't care about clean air and your health, or you'd recognize that you don't know what's in your air and you'd care about it. All you care about is the very few instances of catching a whiff of smoke. Self-righteousness is pretty easy to fuel these days.

[Cats Against Frist]

171. No one is allergic to cigarette smoke. It's not an allergen. n/t

[Samurai_Writer]

175. Didn't know you were an allergy specialist

Perhaps you should speak to every allergy and asthma specialist I've ever gone to, because they all must be mistaken. :sarcasm:

[Cats Against Frist]

176. You should get new doctors

Cigarette is an irritant. It can irritate asthma and other respiratory conditions. It is not an allergen, and one cannot be allergic to it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22cigarette+smoke%22+%2B%22not+an+allergen%22&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&start=10&sa=N

[Samurai_Writer]

177. Gee look, from one of those links...

"Cigarette smoke is not an allergen but it does aggravate asthma and can promote the development of allergies."

When people's eyes water and burn, they get hives, and have respiratory problems, it's because they are having a reaction to something. Or are you denying that cigarette smoke causes burning, watery eyes, rashes, and respiratory problems?

[Cats Against Frist]

178. No, as a matter of fact, I never said that

I simply stated that tobacco smoke is not an allergen, and, hence that it is impossible to be allergic to tobacco smoke. I do believe that, for some people, ETS is an irritant, and can exacerbate certain conditions. I would be willing to bet, though, that at least half of the people who claim they're "allergic" to cigarette smoke are full of crap. I'm NOT saying that YOU are one of them, however.

[LostinVA]

182. Of course one can, the definition of "allergy":

al·ler·gies

1. An abnormally high sensitivity to certain substances, such as pollens, foods, or microorganisms. Common indications of allergy may include sneezing, itching, and skin rashes.


I also asked my mom the pediatric allergy nurse, and she agreed, and said many people (my sister included) are indeed allergic to cigarette smoke. I myself am violently allergic to mustard.

[LostinVA]

183. Wrongo again

From Medlin Plus Medical Dictionary:

Definition

An allergen is a substance that can cause an allergic reaction. Allergens are substances that, in some people, the immune system recognizes as "foreign" or "dangerous" but cause no response for most people.

Information

Common allergens include:

* chemicals and plants
* drugs (such as antibiotics, serums)
* foods (such as milk, chocolate, strawberries, wheat)
* infectious bacteria, viruses, and animal parasites
* inhalants (such as dust, pollen, perfumes, smoke)
* physical agents (such as heat, light, friction, radiation)


Gosh, I see SMOKE on there, and such "non allergens" as friction and light.

[Cats Against Frist]

184. An allegen has to involve the auto-immune system

Tobacco smoke does not produce auto-immune reactions.

Current research has shown that patients who react to cigarette, cigar or pipe smoke do not demonstrate reactivity to tobacco when skin tested. It is, therefore, felt that these smoke particles do not act as an allergen but as a physical irritant, setting off the reactivity of the airway. Therefore, current thinking supports the impression that people who react to tobacco smoke are not truly allergic to tobacco.

by John H. Samson, M.D., F.A.A.P.

http://www.informedparent.com/articles/template.php?article=allergicac

From the American Lung Association

Irritants

Cigarette smoke, air pollution, strong odors, aerosol sprays and paint fumes are some of the substances which irritate the tissues of the lungs and upper airways. The reaction (cough, wheeze, runny nose, watery eyes) produced by these irritants can be identical to those produced by allergens.

Cigarette smoke is a good example, because it is highly irritating and can trigger asthma. Most people are not allergic to cigarette smoke; that is, there is no known immunologic reaction. Nevertheless, this irritant can be more significant than any allergen.

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=22782

The distinction is important, because of this: I'm not saying that people do not have reactions, or are physically made ill by cigarette smoke. I'm simply saying that it is is UNLIKELY that people who do not have rhinitis, asthma, or other conditions are "allergic" to cigarette smoke. Meaning that people who have non-asthmatic reactions to smoke -- coughing, sinus problems, etc., are not allergic to cigarette smoke. Some people are irritated by it, and just can't handle it. There is no condition of being "allergic" to cigarette smoke.

We're all obviously irritated by smoke. If my house was on fire, and I couldn't get out, I'd die from smoke inhalation, and I'm a smoker. However, there are lots of non-smokers who maybe don't like cigarette smoke, or get kind of stuffy or coughy around it (like I would around a house fire), but don't need to feel that they have to announce that they're "allergic" to cigarette smoke. Only people with asthmatic conditions are harmed by short-term exposure to cigarette smoke.

I would also like to add, for the record, that I think a lot of auto-immune diseases are psychological, and are nothing that a daily walk through the park and some good sex won't cure. I think they're "diagnosed" to make money for drug companies and doctors.

[LostinVA]

187. Guess Medline and my sister's Allergist are wrong -- I'll let them know

I'll let them know

[Beausoir]

110. Former smoker/current non-smoker here too!

And I can smell the stench a mile away.

Smoking stinks and the smell makes me gag now.

[rinsd]

124. I know what I'm getting into....

...when I rent a smoking room. Its not that much different a scent from what a smokers house smells like. I'm more worried about the sheets and towels being clean than how the room smells.

I just think a total ban is a bit extreme. If non-smoking rooms are in demand, set aside 5% of the rooms for smokers.

Win-win.

[tammywammy]

126. But the problem is

that they were setting aside rooms for smokers. Some smokers were smoking in the non-smoking rooms.

To me it's like this: where I work you used to be able to make personal long distance phone calls for free. Well, too many people abused this, and now you have to pay for all personal long distance calls.

The hotel offered smoking rooms, but too many people were smoking in the non-smoking rooms, so they cut out smoking rooms.

[rinsd]

128. The article doesn't state that....

"The hotel offered smoking rooms, but too many people were smoking in the non-smoking rooms, so they cut out smoking rooms."

I understand the logic but that doesn't appear to be the issue.

From ther spokesperson for Westin, they seemed to be having trouble accomodating non-smokers because there were not enough non-smoking rooms.

Like I said, 5% and a fine for abuse takes care of this.

[snooper2]

104. They should ban Alcohol as well then.....

I don't want to see or hear the fucking drunks running down the halls.... :sarcasm:

[lindisfarne]

140. Westin will win economically if enough non-smokers decide to stay at

Westin because of the total non-smoking environment. I know it has definitely upped the likelihood of me choosing Westin.

Smokers have no idea how bad they reek, and how smoking makes their homes and cars reek. Would smokers decide to not bathe for 2 weeks? Would smokers be upset if surrounded by people who haven't bathed for a week or more? Smokers should realize they smell worse than someone who hasn't bathed for a week or more. Simply standing next to someone who is a smoker (but who isn't currently smoking) makes me nauseous - the stale smell of smoke has infiltrated all of their clothes and belongings (purses, bags, etc.).

(I'm in favor of banning perfumes (and pretty much all artificially scent products) as well! People should count the number of different scents in the products they use on a daily basis and then think about the fact they really smell like a perfume counter. Shampoo, conditioner, body lotion, deodorant, face moisturizer, skin toner, soap, laundry detergent, drier sheets ... and then on top of all this you put some expensive (or not-so-expensive) perfume???

At least, go unscented with all but one of your products so you only are only emitting one scent.)

[Cats Against Frist]

161. I have no problem with that

I don't have to stay at the Westin. It's not like the fascist statewide or citywide smoking bans, on behalf of the do-gooders and the nanny staters.

Westin gets to make their decision to not allow smoking, and I don't have to stay there.

This is freedom.

[VegasWolf]

186. Good for Westin! Hope more hotels follow their lead. nt

:bounce: