Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has been one of my pet-peeves for years. Shouldn't the owner of an establishment get to decide whether it wants to be smoking or non-smoking? Then each customer could choose whether or not to patronize the business...
You know, I swore I'd never get involved in another smoking thread again in my life, and I've only read to post #3. I apologize if someone else has already said this. Businesses do not have an unfettered right to make their own rules now. They have to pay their employees minimum wage, they have to provide safe working conditions. I am not familiar with the hotel/motel industry, but if I know anything, I know there are regualtions for them. It is not that much of a hardship for smokers to smoke outside! This "choice" thing is nonsense. What if there are no non-smoking rooms available for 100 miles?
It is not that much of a hardship for smokers to smoke outside!
It kind of is when you're at the far end of a giant hotel, and/or if it's the dead of winter! Not impossible, sure, but definitely a major inconvenience for some - and if I'm paying good money to stay there, I should at least be given the option of a smoking room. You have the option of non-smoking rooms, and most hotels are pretty good about keeping those 100% smoke free. So why should you get options if we don't? That doesn't seem very fair to me, when we're both paying the same fee to stay there.
Quote:
This "choice" thing is nonsense. What if there are no non-smoking rooms available for 100 miles?
That's more an argument FOR smoking rooms, since that at least gives both sides an option. But to answer your question, that's why it's always good to research a hotel & region before traveling there. I often travel with my dog, and I'd never just show up and get mad if they were a "no pets allowed" hotel.
the industry is responding to what the majority of their guests want, non smoking rooms.
This is not the industry responding, its the government making laws curtailing the choices of private industry. If the industry wants to respond to market demand they do you really think they need the government telling them how to make a buck. LOL
Btw, I think it's fine for hotels with patios or balconies to be fully non-smoking. That's a fair compromise, since many prefer smoking outside anyway - just not when it requires trekking across a giant hotel in our pajamas.
Of course, the way some people are these days, they'd probably still whine that it was wafting past their windows. Oy.
Yes I know but one of these days perhaps it will be something you do that is being legislated for no reason and you'll realize the errors of your ways.
What else causes a slow death like smoking that would be able to be legislated in this way?
It kind of is when you're at the far end of a giant hotel, and/or if it's the dead of winter! Not impossible, sure, but definitely a major inconvenience for some - and if I'm paying good money to stay there, I should at least be given the option of a smoking room. You have the option of non-smoking rooms, and most hotels are pretty good about keeping those 100% smoke free. So why should you get options if we don't? That doesn't seem very fair to me, when we're both paying the same fee to stay there.
That's more an argument FOR smoking rooms, since that at least gives both sides an option. But to answer your question, that's why it's always good to research a hotel & region before traveling there. I often travel with my dog, and I'd never just show up and get mad if they were a "no pets allowed" hotel.
This is why I vowed never to get involved in another smoking thread. The smokers have all the answers. I like your posts for the most part,gizmo980, but I cannot conjure up any sympathy for someone complaining about the "major inconvenience" of having to smoke outside. So don't smoke for one night; it's better for your health, or go smoke in your car.
I'm not swayed by your "fairness" argument, either. Smoking is a health hazard, and as has been pointed out, an extra cost to the hotel/motel owners. Smoking rooms should cost more!
As far as planning, if I were traveling with a dog; I'd plan ahead. Ditto if I were traveling with an infant who would need a crib. But sometimes, you know, plans change. We don't travel with pets or small children, and sometimes we just want to see how far we can get. The onus of the burden should not be on the non-smokers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
