Posted on 07/19/2006 4:47:01 AM PDT by 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.
Exactly right...peaceful co-existence went by the wayside after YEARS of in-your-face PC'ers and band-wagon hoppers...
If you're going to promote hysterical nanny-state do-gooderism via government guns, don't cry when you encounter resistance or backlash.
"You people?"
Hilarious. If you had actually bothered to read my posts, you would know that I am a far cry from the "you people" you reflexively see whenever someone dislikes inhaling other peoples' smoke.
I specifically stated in my post that I don't care if you smoke, how often, or how much. Just as long as you don't force me to smoke, as well.
Your paranoia borders on psychosis.
Deal.
Well, at least I don't have contro-freak tendencies.
I'm secure enough in my own skin to avoid that, and I'm resourceful enough to avoid situations I don't like without crying to the government for protection from imaginary hazards.
contro = control
I'm resourceful enough to avoid situations I don't like without crying to the government for protection from imaginary hazards.
And you display your paranoia for all to see. Kindly show me a post, on this or any other thread, where I advocated any government "protection from imaginary hazards."
I would like to know how that happens, exactly.
Kindly show me a post, on this or any other thread, where I advocated any government "protection
Point taken, I was just reflexively lumping you in with all the other anti-smoking control freaks.
Please don't. I oppose government mandated anti-smoking laws. They are an abridgement of freedom and open the door for all kinds of nanny state intervention on behalf of the "common good."
This is, however, a private company deciding on a policy it believes to be in its best interest. Whether it is or not, at least this is not government mandated.
It is about PERSONAL RIGHTS, and that was the purpose of my post in the first place. YOU GET ONE LIFE. I GET ONE LIFE. WE ALL GET ONE LIFE! We all get personal rights, in the Constitution, and by God! Pardon me, but I guess I have to shout my points for them to be understood!
You might want to dust off that Constitution, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about a right to an indoor smoking area.
Many building owners ask that smokers not smoke right outside the doors, but this rule is often difficult to enforce. If, in that situation, someone chooses to violate the rule, he is effectively guilty of trespass. These people are the ones I condemn. Worst are the people who toss their butts on the ground just outside the door, demonstrating to the world what trash they really are.
I really have no problem with smokers who comply with property rules when smoking, and if I dislike those rules my only issue is with the owner.
It's not a food allergy, but it can produce headaches and sometimes sickness (as can chemicals in some perfumes, which aren't proteins either). I am not allergic to small amounts of smoke, but I do have a problem with some perfumes, and with smoke in large quantities (e.g., if I spend a few hours around a camp fire), so I know it can happen.
By and large, they probably are, but there is a sizable minority that insists on ignoring smoking rules (set by the property/building owner), tossing butts on the ground, and going into close public places (such as meetings) smelling like an ashtray. Unfortunately, it is difficult to crack down on only this group, so all smokers tend to feel the consequenses when harsher rules are made.
I do find this to be a bit over-stated. While smoke DOES tend to pentrate and remain in clothing, even after laundering, the idea that this somehow entitles LAWS and SCORN to be applied ONLY to a certain class of people is to be total over-kill, for the sake of inconvienience/tastes of others.
As far as meetings go, I have tolerated the smells of various non-smokers and tolerated the disgusting (to me) stuff that some health-nuts and enviro/health/fitness whacko's insist on eating/drinking, and while I find it OFFENSIVE TO ME, I have yet to see masses of them attacked by smokers/others for their tastes.
One man's junk is another man's treasure. Let them be, and be a bit more tolerant, can you?
Most if not all rental companies offer smoking and non-smoking cars, similar to the way restaurants used to do. So this isn't about giving non-smokers more choices, but about giving smokers less. Even so, the cars and hotel rooms are their property, so I have no right to gripe, even though I think it's a bad decision. Private property is private property.
Oh, I don't think that in any way calls for government involvement; it's more on the level of someone who doesn't shower or use deodorant for a couple day--a social faux pas, but not a crime.
As far as meetings go, I have tolerated the smells of various non-smokers and tolerated the disgusting (to me) stuff that some health-nuts and enviro/health/fitness whacko's insist on eating/drinking, and while I find it OFFENSIVE TO ME, I have yet to see masses of them attacked by smokers/others for their tastes.
No, but normal people do snicker about them behind their backs. :-)
Snickering behind their back would be GREAT for smokers, if that's what was going on today in reality.
It's the PC/Bandwagon-hoppers with the "in your face" attacks that have caused smokers to confront the accusers now, and that's too bad. Peaceful co-existence between smokers and non-smokers is sadly gone, as the assault on rights of individuals has been taken way out of bounds to the extent that LAWS against freedoms are being enacted, to the cheers of the anti-smoker fanatics.
BTW, does your login mean that you're a southroner in Yooperland, or vice versa?
Geez, I've rented a lot of cars, and never thought they rented "smoking vehicles" at all...every one I've rented seemed to have a visor-label with the NO SMOKING sign on it.....
That's why I don't rent them unless I have to, anymore. And, that's what I told their Rental Agents when I returned them.
Well, personally, I hate it when my vehicle starts smoking, but it seems to me if my Alzheimer's fogged brain is remembering correctly, that every time I rent, they ask, "smoking or non-smoking?". Maybe I'm remembering from longer ago.
BTW, remember the hilarious British Air commercial where the two astronauts stranded on the moon or on some planet walk into a BA terminal to catch a commercial flight home, and the pretty (human) ticket agent asks "Smoking or Non-Smoking?". The astronauts look around the room at the other fliers (non-human), some of them emitting unknown vapors, turn back to the girl and say emphatically "Non-Smoking"! I loved it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.