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.
If something is good for business, then why does a law need to exist to require the business to do it?
Why can't a business that isn't making good business decisions simply suffer the natural consequences and change its policies on its own?
I bet the majority of hotels already ban it because it's a good business decision for them. I stay at high-end hotels for business and no matter the state, they don't allow smoking. The law probably only bothers the "crack motel" variety of lodging and motels in backwater areas of the country where people still think smoking is ok.
Again, smokers are on the losing end of this battle. Smoking rates are going down, down, down. Where I live, it's almost exclusively very low class people who I see smoking, and even that's not very common.
The battle isn't about whether smoking or second-hand smoke is good for you or not. We all know it's not. It's about whether adults are capable of making their own decision about whether to smoke or be around second-hand smoke and whether businesses should be allowed to CHOOSE whether it will be allowed on their PRIVATE property.
The battle isn't about whether smoking or second-hand smoke is good for you or not. We all know it's not. It's about whether adults are capable of making their own decision about whether to smoke or be around second-hand smoke and whether businesses should be allowed to CHOOSE whether it will be allowed on their PRIVATE property.
I would use the typical right wing response here... if the privateer doesn't like it... they can move.
I bet the majority of hotels already ban it because it's a good business decision for them. I stay at high-end hotels for business and no matter the state, they don't allow smoking. The law probably only bothers the "crack motel" variety of lodging and motels in backwater areas of the country where people still think smoking is ok.
Most of the major chains have prohibited it by choice, you are correct. So why do we need a law against it?
BTW, I know a lot of non-"low class" people who smoke (myself included) and I live in an urban area. I don't think smoking is "OK," I just think it's no one's business but my own whether I smoke or not.
I've seen non-"low class" people smoking pretty much everywhere I've traveled to around the country, including *gasp" Denver.
If someone smokes in a hotel room -- IT WILL NOT KILL THE FAMILY IN THE NEXT ROOM. Get it Democrats?
I think the main reason for the ban is more to do with hotel's bottom line than the reason you mentioned above. You may blame it on democrats and democrats may be too eager to claim victory, but I have yet to see a for-profit institution that doesn't put their profit above all else. Smoke permeates all surfaces and it lingers, it's also extremely hard to get rid of the smell completely. So the hotels are left with stinky rooms that are harder to sell to customers. That means less profit for the hotels. So there you go.
That's a false argument. No restaurant or food provider is going to advertise that they're selling food contaminated with salmonella .....
It's not a false argument at all because you're trying to compare this to smoking in which case it's fully known to you that the establishment allows smoking......
Quote:
since no one would buy it.
So what you're saying is you could make this decision where food is concerned but need government assistance to make this decision for you where smoking is concerned? Why is that?
I think the main reason for the ban is more to do with hotel's bottom line than the reason you mentioned above. You may blame it on democrats and democrats may be too eager to claim victory, but I have yet to see a for-profit institution that doesn't put their profit above all else. Smoke permeates all surfaces and it lingers, it's also extremely hard to get rid of the smell completely. So the hotels are left with stinky rooms that are harder to sell to customers. That means less profit for the hotels. So there you go.
Raise the price of the room. Very few hotels charge what is allowed by law. And as far as what is allowed by law, well I think that should end too.
The battle isn't about whether smoking or second-hand smoke is good for you or not. We all know it's not. It's about whether adults are capable of making their own decision about whether to smoke or be around second-hand smoke and whether businesses should be allowed to CHOOSE whether it will be allowed on their PRIVATE property.
I don't see it that way. We regulate businesses in many ways. Society doesn't care to be around cigarette smoke in buildings, so we regulate it.
No one is trying to outlaw smoking, just get it out of public.
I don't see it that way. We regulate businesses in many ways. Society doesn't care to be around cigarette smoke in buildings, so we regulate it.
No one is trying to outlaw smoking, just get it out of public.
I'm against a lot of other regulations as well...
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.
