Haven’t smokers suffered enough already? You can’t help but wonder when you talk with someone like Efrin Knight, a French professor from Miami who enjoys an occasional cigar. “It’s more and more difficult to get out of my home because of the tyranny of nonsmokers,” he says.
Knight doesn’t want to light up a Cuban on a plane or bus, or even in a hotel room. He’d settle for outdoors. “I find it extremely difficult to have an espresso once I’ve turned on my cigar, except in places like Miami’s Little Havana,” he says.
It’s more than a little ironic that the persecution of smokers is a legitimate issue in 2009. Just two short decades ago, the travel industry was more than accommodating to visitors who wanted to have a cigarette. You could puff away in rental cars, hotel rooms, restaurants — even on flights.
Not today.
· Smoking isn’t allowed on scheduled commercial flights within the United States and on a vast majority of international flights. A partial ban went into effect in 1990 and a complete ban was announced in 1998. Not content to leave well enough alone, the latest FAA Reauthorization Bill will end smoking even on nonscheduled flights.
· Most hotel rooms are designated nonsmoking, according to the American Hotel & Lodging Association. The industry-wide number rose to 86 percent of rooms last year, up from 74 percent in 2006.
· Some rental car companies, including Enterprise and Alamo, forbid smoking in their cars, while others divide their fleet between smoking and non-smoking vehicles. If there’s a trend, it’s toward banning smoking in all rental cars.
· Statewide smoking bans are now common. This spring, North Carolina — yes, America’s premier tobacco-producing state — instituted an indoor smoking ban, following more than 30 other states, including Virginia. Smoking will not be permitted in restaurants and bars in the Tar Heel State.
Have we gone too far? Do smokers have to start their own airline in order to escape from our collective tyranny? First, a confession: I’m heavily biased toward non-smokers. I grew up in Europe in the 1970s, where travelers could light up everywhere and anywhere they pleased. One of the happiest days of my life was June 30, 2003, when an indoor smoking ban went into effect in my home state of Florida, and I could finally savor a restaurant meal without gagging on secondhand smoke.
Still, are we being a little overzealous here?
Before I offer a few reasons for declaring a truce on the tourism industry’s war on smokers, allow me to draw one more distinction: I’m not necessarily talking about the global travel business, only the U.S. industry. In other parts of the world, smokers still rule — for better or worse. Lanny Grossman just returned from Eastern Europe, where he experienced a kind of reverse discrimination. “I had to leave a nightclub in Sarajevo because I couldn’t breathe,” he says. “In Budapest, my dinner table at one of the sidewalk cafes was surrounded by smoke in every direction. There was nowhere to escape.”
Here’s why we need to lighten up when it comes to smoking.
1. There are lots of smokers.
About 1 in 4 adults — roughly 47 million people — smoke in the United States, according to the American Council for Drug Education. The number of adolescents is even higher — about one-third of young people smoke. At the beginning of the antismoking crackdown in the United States, smokers were said to command $1 trillion in annual purchasing power, but today they are treated as if they are invisible and impecunious.
2. They feel unwelcome.
Smokers are treated like second-class citizens when they travel, says Jacob Grier, a bartender who lives in Portland, Ore. Local antismoking ordinances are so strict that he can’t even light up in his own apartment. “Guests have to take an elevator down four stories and walk outside to a sidewalk on a busy street to light up, even though I have an outdoor balcony,” he says. “I can understand forbidding smoking inside the apartment, but this is just bad hospitality.” Grier’s experience is not uncommon for travelers. Whether it’s a smoke-free hotel or restaurant, the needs of smokers are rarely taken into consideration these days.
3. They have nowhere to go.
Communities are moving beyond reasonable indoor smoking bans, and trying to stamp out smoking altogether. Some of the most restrictive laws forbid smoking just about everywhere. Lighting up on the verandah or by the pool is no longer possible. Zak McCune has a front-row seat to the aftershocks of such restrictive nonsmoking laws in Japan. “It used to be a smoker’s paradise,” he says. “Now they’ve enacted laws that take away the smoker’s safe zones.” Those include fewer smoking cars on the bullet train and the elimination of smoking areas on train platforms. McCune, who teaches English, says Japanese reaction to the new laws is disbelief.
Is the travel industry turning its back on a quarter of its customers? Some of it is, some isn’t.
Cruise lines may be the sole bright spot for smokers, even though their effort to accommodate smokers is often alienating the other three-quarters of customers. At least that’s how Barbara Hershberg sees it. She just returned from a cruise from Portugal to Italy, and reports they were overwhelmed by second-hand smoke. “Cigarette and cigar odors permeated so many areas, and for some reason, seemed to linger in the stairwells, even though there was no indoor smoking except at the casino,” she says.
Should the travel industry try to turn back the clock, pushing for laws that permit smoking in hotels, planes and restaurants?
No. The dangers of secondhand smoke are indisputable. But shouldn’t smokers be allowed to enjoy a cigarette, cigar or pipe when they aren’t exposing anyone else to the dangerous carcinogens to which they’re addicted? As long as smoking is legal in America, the answer to that question ought to be: “yes.”
Even ardent nonsmokers like Bill Armstrong, a consultant based in Calgary, concede that smokers should have a place in this world. “In my opinion, a smoking area in a hotel should be away from where guests normally go,” he says. “The smoke from the smoking area should not blow into the hotel, pool or rooms.”
I agree. I think just as we used to allow smokers to indiscriminately consume tobacco products anywhere, we’ve now gone too far in the other direction. Maybe it’s time for a little balance.
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
I respectfully disagree with the base premise that there is somehow a war against smokers. The reality of the situation which is ignored in the article is that smoking imposes a cost on the travel industry and the travel industry, like any other is about making money.
Consider a hotel.. Most, but not all, non-smokers will absolutely refuse a smoking room. Whereas the converse is obviously not true. Having two classes of smoking room is a logistical nightmare. Too few smokers and you have empty rooms. Similarly, if too many peoplebook smoking rooms, you have to either give them a non-smoking room or turn them away.
Moreover, the smoke doesn’t know its not allowed in the non-smoking area. It gets carried from room to room by housekeeping, guests, etc. Its always fun being in a non-smoking room and have linens and towels that smell of smoke.
I would argue that in the US at least, banning smoking by the travel industry is a pure dollars and sense play, nothing moral or idealogical about it.
I agree the non-smoking ban has gone too far. I loathe the smell of smokers and second hand smoke but married to a veteran smoker for 57 years I have learned to smoke a few (6 or 7) a day so I can stay married. In our local area we have a few restaurants/bars that do not permit anyone under 21 years old and we are allowed to smoke. That seems a reasonable solution as well as having outdoor smoking or a specified area for us.
I would only hope that a “second hand smoke health impact fee” is assessed on smokers using public areas and properly distributed to benefit the healthcare expenses of those of us who are able to read the health warnings and understand them enough to avoid the cancer-stick smoking.
I just finished spending the night in a cute motel in Chama NM with no AC, my only option was to open the window. My neighbors at the motel didn’t want smoke in their room floating through their window, so all night they smoked in front of my room. Plesant bunch those smokers, so considerate to the odor in their own space, they pollute mine. Dogs don’t mess where they sleep, smokers follow suit, they mess where non-smokers sleep.
With all due respect Elliott, I disagree. It’s unfortunate when the rights of individuals collide in such a manner, however in this case the rights of the non-smoker win. The right to be free from a disgusting and dangerous environment trumps the rights of those to create one. Now I do agree with you in that people should be allowed to smoke in their own homes and apartments, that’s they’re environment, not mine. But the moment you go out in public, you infringing on my right to breath; period. Furthermore, in this era of “find the fee” it’s simply more profitable to impose room cleaning fees or smoking room fees for those who chose to light up in a hotel or rental car. I observed recently on a trip to San Fransisco a $250 “Room Cleaning Fee” if they caught you smoking. Now if the travel industry wants to marry this new “Fees” concept and extract yet more money from the smoker market then more power to them. But until then for this adamant non-smoker I say, “Tough nugs.”
And two short decades ago, I had a mom and dad who were on their way to dying agonizing deaths from emphysema and lung cancer respectively. Their smoking gave me lung problems while growing up and resulted in my lungs being over-radiated from tests. I have no sympathy for the smoker, but I do for the person that is ernestly trying to quit.
“Maybe it’s time for a little balance.”
I disagree. Smoking is not required to live, like breathing, eating, or sleeping. It’s a choice people make that is offensive to almost every non smoker in the world. Smokers are the only ones who don’t seem to realize what a dirty, smelly, dangerous, and expensive habit it is. And why should airlines, hotels, restaurants and car rental companies be required to pay for the damage and mess that smokers cause to their property?
Smoking offers few, if any, benefits to our society. Tobacco smoke kills smokers and nonsmokers alike. Smoking drives up health-care costs, shortens lives, and ruins families.
When I travel, smoking similarly offers me no benefits. Sometimes my rental car smells of smoke. Sometimes I can smell smoke in my hotel room.
Smokers do have rights, but their right ends where a nonsmoker’s right to breathe clean air begins. Little value to society exists in protecting the rights of smokers.
As for whether we have gone too far in banning smoking, I am not aware of any anti-smoking initiatives that have not protected the rights of nonsmokers. Practically speaking, “balance” means more places for smokers to spoil the lives of nonsmokers–smoke in hotel rooms, smoke in rental cars, smoke in restaurants, etc.
I continue to be amazed that so many people take up a habit that kills them and others. I cannot understand why we should be concerned about enabling smoking or protecting people who smoke. The “needs of smokers are rarely taken into consideration these days” because their needs are of low value to society and are inconsistent with the rights of people who have made a better and healthier choice.
Hey Chris… at the same point don’t you think we should also give the same balance to alcoholics… obviously they should be allowed to drink and drive all they want without restrictions imposed on them by non-drinkers!
It’s not that anybody has problems with smoking, per se, it’s a problem with the act of burning leaves, and poisonous ones, at that, in places used by other people.
I was going to write a long comment, but I can’t put it any better than my fellow readers. Bottom line: Breathing and smelling clean air doesn’t harm or annoy smokers, but breathing and smelling smokey air does annoy non-smokers. Therefore, we should always err in favor of the non-smokers.
The sad part is that most smokers don’t realize just how smelly their smoking is. Tobacco kills their sense of smell — and taste — and many honestly don’t understand that the stench travels far beyond the smoke. Even one cigarette in a car is enough to make it stink for weeks. Sadly, quitting and allowing the body to repair itself is the only way they’ll realize this.
Oh, and to Irene — with all due respect, if your husband had a habit of cutting himself with a knife, would you grab one and slice yourself once or twice a day just to get used to it? Congrats on 57 years of marriage — that’s quite an accomplishment. Maybe as a 58th anniversary present you could both quit smoking, and enjoy even more time together.
As a person who dislikes Second Hand Smoke (So far as it bothers me tremendously), I can’t say I feel too much remorse for removing smoking from public places. On one hand, I do disagree about banning it in Bars. Ohio did away with it in ALL business environments. Short of the bar issue, I pay to be at a restaurant, hotel, etc the same as anyone. Why should I be afflicted by someone else’s habit? I don’t recall it being my choice to smoke in a hotel room, rent a car that wreaks like an ashtray, or so on. One must consider that companies invest a GREAT deal of money into their products. When smokers coming along, those products are devalued.
For instance, a car that has been smoked in is only good for smokers. Most people don’t want to drive around in an ash tray. So a rental car firm has to have two fleets. Very expensive. To make matters worse, a smoker car can’t be sold for nearly as much as one that has never had a person light up.
Hotels are a similar beat. People do not want a room that smells like a bar. So smoking rooms are only good for those that smoke. This limits who they can rent to and costs money. I know I have been to hotels where their only availabilities have been such smoking rooms. Ever wonder why? I’ll look elsewhere when this happens. Hence, they are losing money when people turn their backs. On the other hand, a non smoking room can go to ANYONE. Smokers can step outside and light up.
As for restaurants (excluding bars), I pay to have a dinner and not choke on smoke. I would rather enjoy my food without smelling smoke. I do not care HOW MUCH a restaurant invests in separating the two sides. It wafes and carries. Long story short, want to smoke, step outside.
So sorry for NOT feeling remorseful. People’s bad habit should not be my problem. Now should we excommunicate smokers. No. Should they be allowed to smoke in Bars (contrary to laws banning). Yes. One goes to a bar EXPECTING it to be smoky and filled with drinkers. Going to one is at one’s own peril. Short of that, take it outside or wait until later. Simple as that.
Justin
Hooray and agreement to nearly everyone who has weighed in. Not much to add except this: if you recall, one of the reasons that smoking was banned on US domestic flights was the lawsuit filed by flight attendants who were, along w/ the rest of us, suffering from an enclosed cabin w/ second-hand smoke that felt and smelled more first hand. A quick search yielded this where you can read more.
http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=Flight+Attendants+lawsuit+smoking
In hotels where smoking may still be allowed in lobby bars, front desk personnel have complained bitterly about the smell and the health issues.
My parents were both life-long smokers. Their smoking contributed to their deaths. Both my brother and I are life-long adamant non-smokers who abhor being around anyone who smokes or in a place where there has been smoking. Smokers can stay at home or join a private club that allows them to indulge.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. It appears that some of you haven’t read the whole story.
Here’s a paragraph that you might want to re-read:
The dangers of secondhand smoke are indisputable. But shouldn’t smokers be allowed to enjoy a cigarette, cigar or pipe when they aren’t exposing anyone else to the dangerous carcinogens to which they’re addicted? As long as smoking is legal in America, the answer to that question ought to be: “yes.”
In fact, I am a committed nonsmoker, and even a whiff of cigarette smoke in my hotel room or restaurant makes me nauseous. I sympathize with the commenters whose family members are or were smokers, and had to live with it.
Personally, I think smoking should be completely banned — everywhere.
But until it is, the folks who are addicted to tobacco products have a right to use. And they should be allowed to do so, as long as we don’t have to breathe the same air.
Hi Chris
I read the entire article. Here’s the problem. Where exactly is the mythic public place where a smoker can light up where they are not “exposing anyone else to the dangerous carcinogens”? That would be your own home. Nowhere else. The fundamentals of travel is that it’s always a shared spaced, unless you own your own plane. Therefore by definition smoking is exposing the others who share the space, whether travelers or employees, to the ills of smoking including dangerous chemicals and foul odors.
Its the shared nature of travel which is why smoking is particularly onerous and has been banned in most travel circumstances in the US.
The biggest problem with creating “areas” for smokers is that they frequently refuse to stick to them. I see “designated smoking areas” outside at airports, and many will smoke there, but some light up anywhere outside and don’t care.
Furthermore, most of these people are so addicted that they light up in places they are not supposed to.
Mr. Elliott,
I think this article hit the nail on the head. However, I think you failed to touch base something important, that I mentioned in my reply. Short term Cost versus Long term Cost.
You did mention that nonsmoking cars and rooms are easier to rent. That’s very true. However, here’s something to consider for industries turning back the hands of time on smoking.
Is the short term profits worth the long term cost? As previously stated, a room that’s been smoked in is only good for smokers. People don’t want those rooms and they are more likely to be vacant. Also, a big one is the rental car industry. Short term, they can allow smoking in all. Long term, does the cost really equal out. Even if they maintain two expensive fleets, they are still left holding the bag on a vehicle worth far less.
In the end, the industry COULD be more accommodating but their long term bottom lines will suffer. Anything that is smoked in becomes devalued. So while it might be a quick way to generate cash. The overall profits might not be sustained by the one’s lost due to value and “sanitizing”.
Justin
Having been on a couple of cruises, I can’t say I agree with the assessment that smoking on cruises ruins it for everyone. Only the casino and an occasional bar are problematic, but it’s possible to remain on one side of the ship and stay away from the smoke. I’ve been quite successful at that. On the other hand, I can see where cruises originating in Europe might be more problematic.
And I’m with Carver – if he hadn’t asked the question, I would have: where exactly is the mythical place where one can light up without exposing anyone to your fumes and hazardous poisons? Banning smoking on college campuses is starting to become all the rage, and I wonder about the students who live in the dorms. Do they have to leave the dorm and walk to the edge of campus and across the street (however far that might be) just to take care of the urge to smoke during those all-nighters? So I get what you’re saying about having a balance, but since so many smokers can’t be bothered to respect the guidelines that have been set up to protect the non smokers (such as standing away from the doorways and not lighting up just *before* stepping outside – what is that anyway?), I have lost sympathy for them.
Ed Greenberg made the best the point for me – “it’s a problem with the act of burning leaves, and poisonous ones, at that, in places used by other people.”
I read earlier today that even the Army is considering going smoke free in all areas over the next five to ten years. Even in battle! Most base builidngs are already smoke free. What does this say for the health consequences of smoking – it is too dangerous for people to smoke and subject others to the smoke at the same time one is being sent into “harm’s way”. It is time for smokers to stop burning those “poisonous leaves”.
While I agree that both sides have points, let’s not miss the big picture, WHY are we so against smokers? Advertising, Politics and the almighty dollar.
It’s the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. There always has to be one scape goat. Face it, if the advertised that 25% of ALL alcohol consumed was by under-aged drinkers (it is), we would revolt. There is too much money involved in Alcohol, much more than cigarettes. As Americans we will never give up our guns no matter how much it hurts us.
Smoke free air? Don’t make me laugh. I could smoke 20 packs a day and still not put as much “second hand smoke” into the air as one SUV does in a month. And what about all of those Coal Burning Power Plants. You may argue that we “need” coal for power, but we don’t. There are plenty of alternative sources, but they cost more. It is all to American to say “sure, but not in my back yard, not out of my wallet”. Americans need an evil and smokers are them.
So gather your pitch forks and torches non-smokers. Smokers quit your whining, you are the “fashionable” minority for persecution now.
“you can lie to anyone you want, as long as you don’t lie to your self”-me
Smokers can smoke in the room if they want to, as long as it is in the hotel across the street.
Since undergoing a specific type of chemotherapy that is extremely dangerous when mixed with even outside second-hand smoke, I no longer have any tolerance for smoking, smoking residue, etc. It can, literally, kill me. I’d really like to eat outside at a restaurant on one of these nice summer nights, but since that is where all the smokers go now, I usually don’t have that option.
Wow, I love all the Anti-Smokers here. I am a smoker. Have been for 7 years now. Most of the people who post here are a bunch of Non-Smoking idiots if they truely believe that all smokers don’t understand the smell and such that goes with the habit.
I am very considerate of where I am, who’s around me, and how many people are around me when I light up. Suprisingly, a lot of smokers are. You always get the occasionaly a$$hole that put s a bad name out there for the rest of us, but the same can be said about Drivers, Airline Employees, etc…
As a smoker, I am all for banning smoking in public buildings, airplanes, hotel rooms, rental cars, and restaurants. I’m OK with these because I agree with them. When I’m eating dinner, I don’t want the table cover in ashes and smog. Nor do I want a cloud of smoke hanging over me either.
BUT, the true point of this article is has the “War Against Tobacco” gone too far? I say YES. Once they crossed the line of banning smoking in Bars, they went too far.
While smokers may be the minority in MOST places in the travel industry, they are the MAJORITY in bars. If you go into a bar, you are going in for a drink (unless you are the DD). Therefore, you probably aren’t truely concerned THAT much with your body because so few people go to a bar for the daily single drink. Most people go to a bar for several drinks that utimately do harm your body.
For CARVER – It really doesn’t make sense to alienate the Majority of your customers in Bars for the sake of the Minority does it?
Like I said, as a smoker, I am still all for banning it in all Public Buildings EXCEPT bars….
@Clay
I think there is some truth to smokers being the fashionable minority. But I think you are confusing environmental damages with health concerns. SUV and coal burning plants may cause environmental damage, but the issue with smokers is not about environmental damage but rather the offensive, cancerous particles in an enclosed space.
Additionally, both SUVs and coal burning plants have social utility. Smoking does not. To digress. Personally, I think nuclear is the only real option. Solar and wind are currently BS technologies existing only due to governmental subsidies.
Hey Chris,
The language is wrong. The concept of a ‘war on smoking’ (or anything else) is bogus. It is language designed to put smokers in a ‘victim’ role. They are no victims. There are plenty of places where smokers can do their thing.
They just can’t do it in public places. Is that so bad? You can’t have sex in public. You can’t drop your pants and empty your bowel in public. You can’t eat everywhere in public. You can’t consume alcohol in many public settings. And all of those are way more human and necessary than smoking. Do we complain about a ‘war on sex’, a ‘war against having to go’, a ‘war against eating and drinking’? No. We have special places for all of those. Bedrooms, toilets, restaurants and bars. Just like we have smoking rooms for smokers.
QED.
@ Carver
I use this fact just to say that there are many forms of second hand smoke. Lung Disease has much higher concentration rates in cities near Coal Burning Power Plants. The average number of life-years lost by individuals dying prematurely from exposure to particulate matter is 14 years. A smokers life, just 10. Therefore if I smoke I live an extra 4 years.
OK so that last part was an attempt at humor, but you get the point.
Interesting article on smoking and traveling. I guess I never thought about the impact that “smoking laws” would have on travel and travelers. I think there could be accommodations for smokers. Hotels and resorts make accommodations for other people, why not smokers?
Yes, smoking and smokers are becoming somewhat “extinct” but a person has the right to smoke. We tried to get rid of alcohol back in the Roaring 20s and that didn’t work!
@Kevin
No one suggests that most smokers don’t understand the smell and other consequences of smoking. Calling people idiots hardly advances the conversation. The reason for banning smoking in bars isn’t about customers but rather the employees, many of which are women, and their health.
But in any event, we are mixing issues. One is the business decision of hotels banning hotels compared with the law banning smoking in a given place. With regards to the business decision, since I neither own a hotel, nor other travel enterprise, I will defer to the wisdom of the owners of those businesses. I don’t think that I am in a position to second guess their business decision
By the same token, here in California the legislature banned smoking in bars. At that point, any analysis of majority or minority customers is irrelevant. Its the law, follow it.
A couple points,
I have to disagree with the notion that smokers are the majority in bars. Simply not true. It just appears (or appeared) that way because it only takes a few cigarettes to completely pollute a room.
I also think there is a trend in adult smoking patterns. In states that have banned public smoking the longest, the percentage of adults who smoke dropped significantly.
Finally, its been well discussed in the media that smoking has increasingly become the purview of the poorer, less educated segment of the popuation. Whenever tax increases on tobacco are proposed, there are always loud complaints that such tax increases unfairly tax the poor and disadvantaged since they are more likely to smoke.
Since poor and less educated people are less likely to travel, the travel industry is more likely to be made up of nonsmoking customers. In other words, even if 1/4 of the adult population really does still smoke, a significant segment of that 1/4 are not on planes, in hotels/restaurants, or renting cars. They just can’t afford it. Most of their disposable income goes toward buying more cigarettes.
I’m not a smoker, and I don’t understand why anyone would want to be. However, after living for years in a country where smoking in public places is still the norm, it doesn’t bother me. If hotels, cruise ships, restaurants, etc. want to ban smoking outright because that’s more profitable, then fine – private companies can operate their businesses however they want. However, forcing them by law to do so seems to me to be going a step too far. The only argument to be made for it is the public healthcare cost of smoking-related illnesses, and the more logical solution would be for the government to simply stop paying for them.
@ Clay — You have an interesting point, but two wrongs don’t make a right. Smokers are also breathing in particulate matter and air pollution, by the way.
If I had my way, I’d live in a smoke-free apartment building. I’m sick of cigarette smell wafting into my apartment. Unfortunately, such buildings don’t exist in my area because no one wants to discriminate against others or tell them what they can or can’t do in their own home. of not wanting to discriminate against others that means I have to deal with mess until I can afford to buy.
I don’t think all apartment buildings should be smoke-free (that would be discriminatory), but I do think I should have the option of choosing to live in a smoke-free building.
Alas, cruise ships aren’t going to ban smoking because it’s far more profitable to allow it. Their alcohol and gambling revenue drops when they ban smoking. Frankly, I think the ships that leave from U.S. ports do a good job of containing the smoke – although some better than others.
The one thing I notice most folks don’t pay any attention to when they say smoking should absolutely be allowed in bars since bar patrons don’t care about what they put into their bodies anyway is what about the people who work in bars? Okay…a lot of folks who work as bartenders and waiters tend to smoke, but I’m guessing there are fewer of them than there used to be. And what about the live musicians? This really concerns me since I am one of them. I have never smoked a cigarette – not even to try one as a teenager. My parents smoked when I was a kid and I’ve always felt they’re gross and disgusting. But I have a Hobson’s choice: make money as a musician by going into smoky bars and subjecting myself every night to smelly, stinky smoke that makes me sick to my stomach (and wait for the lung cancer or heart disease to strike someday); or try to make a living doing something else I don’t care to do.
I understand bans in restaurants, bars, workplaces.
I think two places it has gone too far are hotels and airports.
First with airports, its a nightmare to (especially on a connecting flight) to have to go out past security and back in. Only a handful of airports (Atlanta for one) still provide smoking areas inside security. Is it too difficult to build an outside area at these locations? Sure it may be loud, but there is nothing worse checking in, waiting for your flight without the option of going to smoke. Go outside? Well if your up for the mile long walk and tram ride at airports like Las Vegas, Orlando or Dallas, i’d rather suffer.
Hotels are understandable, but seriously all these non-smoking hotels drive me out. If I cannot smoke in the room, I’m not staying there. Its pretty simple: Book a non-smoking room if you want one and make that floor non-smoking. I highly doubt people smell cigarette smoke on the next floor up. I especially despise Marriott and Disney’s “No smoking on the Balcony” rule, which is outright ridiculous. It’s an OUTSIDE area. If you cannot smoke OUTSIDE of your room, why go down 10 flights to smoke outside!?!?
@Joe
I suspect that there are two reasons why balcony smoking isn’t permitted.
1. If you fail to close your balcony door suffciently, your smoke may enter the room, rendering useless for the next person who expects a non-smoking room.
2. If you are smoking on your balcony, other guests who are on their balcony or who have their balconies’ open may have to deal with your smoke.
I am a smoker. I am addicted to a legal substance on which I pay taxes to the max. If everyone who is so self-righteous on this site spent time making this substance illegal, then we would have no problem (just a black-market). While many Americans are in a huff about smoke and the disgusting smell, it is also good to remember that we sell this stuff internationally and make a huge profit off of 3rd worlders who also stay in your hotels (maybe not much longer). The hypocrisy of it all is disgusting. Soldiers shouldn’t smoke in combat? Hello???
They are being killed by bullets so what is the problem with a cigarette??? Get a grip–look around at the homeless on the beaches of Hawaii and the grinding poverty in so many tourist spots and get upset about that and put your money where your dollar will count. If you don’t tolerate smokers, then stay at home and out of bars and hotels.
It will cost me more in manpower, cleaning supplies, and non-smoker refunds than it will in room revenue if I refuse a hotel room to someone who smokes in it.