Marriott to make all US, Canada hotels non-smoking

Reuters ^ | 7/19/2006 | Reuters

[xrp]

Marriott to make all US, Canada hotels non-smoking
Wednesday July 19, 6:34 am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Marriott International Inc. (NYSE:MAR - News) on Wednesday said it will make all of its hotels in the United States and Canada entirely non-smoking, beginning in September.

The company said the policy change, which it called the largest in its industry, covers more than 2,300 hotels and corporate apartments with nearly 400,000 rooms.

Marriott, based in Bethesda, Maryland, said more than 90 percent of its guest rooms are already non-smoking. It said more customers have been demanding non-smoking rooms.

The change covers such brands as Marriott, Ritz-Carlton, Renaissance, Courtyard, Residence Inn and Fairfield Inn. Marriott has nearly 2,800 lodging properties in the United States and 67 other countries.

[eXe]

"EXCUSE ME??? You know, I'm a little sick and tired of fellow FReepers telling us that we are "LOW CLASS" and not the "brightest of the lot!"


They cant help it, its from years and years of anti tobacco brainwashing.. this is how the antis attack smokers now.. if you smoke you must either be "dumb" or "low class". I tend to think its aimed at the younger people in an attempt to make smoking "uncool"

Sorry.. but it wont float with me.. I know plenty of people who smoke and are NOT low class or stupid.

Some of us who still smoke.. could care less what the latest anti "propaganda du jour" says about our lifestyle. :) We will keep smoking and ENJOY the fact that our smoking ticks off the antis.. lol

Thanks for the ping btw.. looks like I wont be spending any money with Marriot

[SheLion]

We all know smoking can cause health concerns, but we also know the propaganda about second hand smoke is a bunch of hooey!

Thank you! I'm glad the word is finally getting out! :)

[microgood]

But the nanosecond the first microbe of your smoke touches my airspace, you are out of bounds. It's that simple.

LOL..If someone is sitting in a park smoking, are you saying that they should have to put out the cigarette because you are approaching them, or is it your obligation to steer clear if you do not want one nanonsecond of their microbe (I thought microbes were living things, by the way)?

I think Rush Limbaugh described the anti-smokers perfectly: He said they think they have a God given right to go anywhere on the planet and be from smoke. And every place needs to be smoke free just in case one of these antis gets the notion in their head to go there. Narcissm in its most advanced form.

[Skooz]

I suppose you insist on the "right" to force me and others to inhale your vile smokey excrement just so you can indulge your habit of choice?

You militant smokers assume you should just be able to blow your smoke in everyone's faces and and no one should be allowed to complain about it. Narcissm in its most advanced form.

[microgood]

I suppose you insist on the "right" to force me and others to inhale your vile smokey excrement just so you can indulge your habit of choice?

Not at all. I just believe in reasonable accomodation. If you are saying you should not have to breath one molecule of smoke anywhere you choose to go, you are being unreasonable and realistic. Your microbe comment sounded like you were saying that.

Besides, you did not answer my question. If someone is smoking in a park, do you demand they put it out or do you walk around them? Your answer will say alot about how narcissistic you are.

BTW, I do not smoke. Or wear perfume. Or drive a diesel vehicle. Diesel smoke irritates me more than anything, but since they are building a new structure next to our building, I will have to inhale it everyday for the next two years, at least.

[Skooz]

You obviously did not read, or choose to ignore, what I posted earlier.

I specifically said that I don't care who smokes or how much. If they smoke a carton a day, every day, I don't care. They can smoke until they turn gray, for all I care.

But, their "right" to smoke ends the instant their smoke touches me. Period. Any "reasonable accommodation" must be reached by people acting like adults who understand that in the end, it really isn't that big a deal. Just an annoyance. "Reasonable accommodation" must begin with smokers understanding (and most of them do) that not everyone else wants to inhale their smoke.

The park scenario is beside the point. If people are smoking, and I am walking toward them, I assume all responsibility for any smoke I inhale. But, if I am sitting on a bench, and someone sits down next to me while they are smoking, they are out of line and rude.

It's called simple human courtesy, and the smokers would not be suffering these defeats if more of them exercised it consistently.

[Ignatz]

Unfortunately, smokers either don't know how they are affecting others or their addiction blinds them. It is unfortunate because until they do, the behavior of nonsmokers seeking a ban to all contact with smoke will continue.

So, it's appeasement that yer calling for, eh? That's likely to win over the anti-smoking terrorists?
So, when smoking was outlawed in Government buildings and smokers complied, that was the end of the anti-smoking terrorism campaign? Not by a longshot!

[Bogey]

At least the government didn't get involved!

But you need to understand how the world works. Now that they made the change, they will put pressure on federal and local governments to enact smoking bans in every area they have a hotel or restaurant.

======

What planet do you live on? Don't you understand P.C corporate speak, when you hear it. I know many, many people in the hotel business. As long as you and the rest of the ilk bought the speel, good for them. They're having a good chuckle at your expense. They are going to throw out every pipe, cigar, doobie, and cigarette smoker who are paying top dollar to appease a single sniveler like you ? Puleeeeeze. These are private rooms. If you don't like the smell of Rush's cigar coming out of his 1500.00 a night suite, or some rock stars cigarette or doobie, they'll be happy to escort you someplace else. Bank on it. Hotels hate busybodies.

[microgood]

You obviously did not read, or choose to ignore, what I posted earlier.

I admit I have not read everything you posted.

But, their "right" to smoke ends the instant their smoke touches me. Period. Any "reasonable accommodation" must be reached by people acting like adults who understand that in the end, it really isn't that big a deal.

That depends. If you go into a casino in Vegas where smoking is allowed (which is all of them), people may smoke nearby you. Does that mean all smoking should be banned in Vegas casinos just in case you might show up there?

The reason I say Vegas is because it is kind of the last resort outpost of smokers in the nation. The only way that smoking will be banned in casinos there is if the Feds do it since they make all their money off gambling and most gamblers smoke. If the Feds end up doing it, that will be the end of Vegas in Nevada (it will move to Mexico).

Even though I do not smoke, my wife does and that is why we only vacation in Vegas and Mexico. The rest of the country is getting hostile to smoking and who wants to go somewhere like that while on vacation. But I am cool spending all my vacation money if Mexico if that is what it comes to, and I hope the 23% of adults who smoke will join us all down there. Because in Mexico, capitalism always triumphs when it comes to the tourist industry.

[Skooz]

People should be allowed to smoke, if they so choose.

People should be allowed to smoke in public, if they so choose.

People who go into casinos, bars, poll halls, strip joints, juke joints, etc. know they will encounter smoking there and just have to deal with it, like grown ups do. It would be ludicrous for a non-smoker to go into such places and demand to be accomodated by everyone else.

But, smokers who willfully light up in confined spaces (or in other public places where they know their smoke is unwelcome) because they are under the bizarre delusion that their "right" to smoke trumps everyone else's right to breath are rude a-holes and deserve to be called on it.

Like I said: Simple human courtesy. Funny that should be so controversial.

[Old Professer]

People smoke in no smoking rooms all the time.

[Old Professer]

I'm waiting for no-poking rooms.

[microgood]

Like I said: Simple human courtesy. Funny that should be so controversial.

As your position is stated in this post, I cannot disagree with your position. It is plain common courtesy as you say.

[Heartofsong83]

80% of the adult population does not smoke though...so I don't understand the money argument...

[Raycpa]

So, when smoking was outlawed in Government buildings and smokers complied, that was the end of the anti-smoking terrorism campaign? Not by a longshot!

Smokers have yet to adopt behavior that considers the nonsmoker. They simply smoke wherever and whenever they can. That is the attitude that is their downfall.

[bluefish]

Yawn. As all the anti-smoke zealots, you are all hat and no cattle.

Keep digging. Your laughable responses only paint you further into a corner.

Your response to which I'm replying demonstrates that you have nothing left. It may be funny sounding, sort of like a Dan Ratherism, but it is meaningless. Simply stating something doesn't make it so, however much you may wish it to be.

Once again, I'm not an anti-smoker, which should be clear from the fact that I admitted to smoking. Perhaps you can't read.

Look and you will find posts where I rail against the government passing laws against smoking and Internet tobacco sales or passing laws establishing "sin" taxes. I tend to be quite libertarian in my views.

I may not be anti-smoking, but I AM anti-rude jerk. Why? Because people like you are the ones who ultimately cause our freedoms to be restricted. Your initial reply to which I responded qualified for a calling out.

Now, your label no longer works, so let's dispense with your cute Dan Ratherism next:

I demonstrated that you were generally an anti-social jerk in my initial reply to your ridiculous, overly defensive tirade towards a poster who merely stated that smoke enters non-smoking rooms via ventilation systems.

Your response proved you to be a liar with your silly attempt to back pedal on your statemsnts. I pointed out that your own citation in the initial post contradicted your statements in a follow-up reply.

Next, I demonstrated how you were a hypocrite in your accusations concerning victimhood, since your inital post was nothing more than your own whining and crying about being a victim.

You now know that you can't lie or make blatantly hypocrtical statements in your own defensive victimhood.

Your last resort is to lie, and issue a cute one-liner with no meaning or demonstrable basis in truth.

Given your final non-response and general retreat, who now is actually the one that is "all hat and no cattle" in this exchange? Who is backing away, beaten down, unable to put together a logical argument at this point?

I really do not expect to educate you or win you over. I'm merely demonstrating for others what you are. Pure bluster, with no basis for it.

[bluefish]

Who told you it was "pollution"?

If it stinks and ruins my clothes, it is pollution to me. Just move away, keep it outside and don't blow it in my face, and we will get along. I might even join you outside for smoke.

The anti-cigarette campaign is a movement by the lawyers, of the lawyers, for the lawyers.

Yes, I'm well aware of this. I'm an advocate of tort reform and believe the lawyers who get rich off suing companies on behalf of "victims" who are merely victims of their own choice, should be strung up and tortured.

I'm not asking for laws, lawsuits or even general shunning of smokers. I'm merely asking for a little decency. I can do it, so can you.

Now go back and read my posts and be more careful with your assumptions.

[bluefish]

If I can't watch TV in my room, order food in and smoke, then I won't be spending $65 and up for the damn room.

That is your right and I support you, as I do others who won't spend $65 for a room that smells. We all vote with our wallets and each niche can be filled. No politicians or lawyers are needed.

[elkfersupper]

Hotels, bars, and restaurants.

Formerly known as the hospitality industry.

[Centurion2000]

They are free to make their choice ... and so am I. No Marriot rooms for me anymore.