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.
He already said (more or less) "except in cases like hospitals, police stations, etc, where people have no choice but to be inside & exposed to the smoke." So I imagine airplanes fall under than category, given that you can't open a window or request a "non-smoking room" on a plane.
You should have waited until he answered himself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
I would say that is up to the actual airline carrier as to how they regulate it or not. This is also one of those areas where people have freedom of choice. But I can see this one has a lot of variable about it. Good question.
Freedom of choice, my foot. Especially flying to some smaller airports, there's no choice at all. Of course, people should be exposed to cigarette smoke, say, all the way from Cali to NY. It's only a carcinogen.
If a hotel allows smoking and overbooks in the non-smoking rooms, they should pay punitive damages to the customer who ends up in a smoking room.
I have never heard of a person asking for a non-smoking room being given a smoking room instead without the person being informed beforehand there were none of the former available. As it is today, the liklihood of non-smoking rooms vis a vis smoking room available are almost non-existant.
Can you furnish anything from personal experience on this? As it is, I was on a business trip some years back and I had no problem with a non-smoking room since I had quit smoking, however my travelling companion had asked for a smoking room. They had none available, but gave the guy a free room for the trouble. So, really, it worked out that the smoker got the better end of the deal! LOL
But why should "punative damages" be paid anyway even if a non-smoker, on the most unlikely instance s/he would have to stay in a smoking room? A free room oughta be enough, I would think. But again, that is a most unlikely scenario.
Airplanes overbook all the time, and only offer "punitive damages" (usually a travel certificate) to select people... everyone else is SOL for not checking in early enough to secure a seat, and waits for the next flight.
Should they also offer punitive damages to a smoker who requests a smoking room and doesn't get one? That's happened to me MANY times, and I just took the room and dealt with it. People are so whiny and demanding these days, I swear!
Any hotel that requires a deposit of the first night, has a contract to provide that requested room. Either the hotel fulfills this contract or pays punitive charges.
if no non smoking rooms are available, but there are rooms available, then you will only deny yourself a room.
the problem is that you requested a non smoking room. unless the hotel had a specific code for non smoking rooms, and none that i have worked at in 25 years did, they can only give you what they have. for instance if the property in question had 75 non smoking rooms available, and 80 reservations had a non smoking room request, unless you got there before all the non smoking rooms were sold, you are SOL, unless you want to go to another hotel. it happens, get over it.
No...you smokers who don't want to respect other people's health need to get over it.
Get used to it. Bars, restaurants, clubs, hotels, cruises, even PARKS are banning smoking. So make sure you puff, puff, puff before arriving.
Sorry, but nobody gives a damn about smokers anymore. You pollute the environment and raise healthcare costs for all.
You have gone the way of the horse and buggy. Get over yourself. It's not a liberal or conservative issue. It's a "the country has evolved and you refuse to" issue.
Freedom of choice, my foot. Especially flying to some smaller airports, there's no choice at all. Of course, people should be exposed to cigarette smoke, say, all the way from Cali to NY. It's only a carcinogen.
Huh? Neither Cali nor New York are small airports. Cali is the 3rd largest city in Colombia.
As it is, his position is pretty much the same as mine.
Quote:
Freedom of choice, my foot. Especially flying to some smaller airports, there's no choice at all. Of course, people should be exposed to cigarette smoke, say, all the way from Cali to NY. It's only a carcinogen.
LOL Another of your condecending attempts at irony, huh, Katiana? Oh my gosh, none of the rest of us know it is only a carcinogen...
Uhhh, how is there no choice? You can drive, take a train, a bus, or find another airline service.
But the really relevent point is this one: Can you name just one airline carrier that permits smoking anymore, without looking it up on Google? In fact, by all means look it up on Google and see how many carriers allow smoking these days. If they exist, please tell me what they are.
No...you smokers who don't want to respect other people's health need to get over it.
Get used to it. Bars, restaurants, clubs, hotels, cruises, even PARKS are banning smoking. So make sure you puff, puff, puff before arriving.
It would be better if those who respect their own health do so by not going into places where smoking is allowed. Of course, I realize this demands that people be responsible for their own choices and behavior...which is becoming an increasingly foriegn concept these days.
Besides, be honest, NYer. It is really all about incremental control and restricting private property rights for you, anyway, isn't it? The anti-smoking crusade is just a stalking horse for your larger ideology. Now ain't that right?
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.