Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Marriott goes 100% smoke free as of September

And just how the hell did you infer that from this:

We recognize the rising awareness as pointed out in a recent report is bowing and scraping? That's the equivalent of me claiming Vee must work for a tobacco company because of his stance on Marriott's decision. We have only said that we recognize the increased awareness in the issue of second hand smoke due to the report.

As does it seems, every other poster on this thread. "Right to smoke" isn't even on the radar screen of the debate. Where smoking can take place is the point of the discussion.


As you mentioned, smoking, though habit forming, is considered a "choice." This debate isn't even in the same ballpark as other debates illigitimately (my opinion) framed around "choice" and privacy issues play differently when it's not possible to keep the action behind closed doors, as is the case with smoking.

It's also IMO a personal reflection on what would be considered "enabling?" Would we give another drink to a drunk that "chooses" to have another. Would we give them the car keys? Where is the line here? Its worth personal reflection. Its worth hearing viewpoints that might not support ones personal action.

Knowing what we know about the effects of cigarette smoke, why would we condone such a choice to smoke, let alone support the habit like Melanie Griffiths, recently caught on film helping her 16 year old to light up.

No ashtrays in my house and my friends that smoke, who understand what they do is bad for themselves and for me, tell me they respect me for caring (as they head to the driveway . )

Good for Melanie! I think smoking and drinking should be 'taught' in the home and discussed and educated about, rather then sneaked in a friend's basement or on the street somewhere. Kids get into more trouble by hiding and sneaking then they do from straightforward behavior.

When I was 16 I smoked. I was told how wrong it was by my parents, my church, my teachers, and part of soceity, but I still wanted the experience. I played 'spin the bottle' too, even though that and strip poker and skinny-dipping were also frowned upon. Most of the things I did when I was 16 I did in hopes my folks would eventually find out or catch me and be pissed. Like a lot of kids, I wanted to piss them off and dissappoint them and have them take an interest! At that time my mother was too interested in cleaning the house and cooking five course meals, and my father was never home. My grandfather had died from emphasema, and I totally knew the breath of life was scared, but peer pressure meant more then.

Maybe Melanie is modeling behavior or inviting experimentation to her child to open communication and let the kid make their own decision about smoking. They are sure old enough to watch mommy cough and hack, and they can hear the changes in her voice and smell the reek on her clothes. But still, to me, it's kind of cool to bond with your child so much that you trust them to be exposed to something and make their own decision.

There is, and if I have my way, will never be any smoking in our home out of respect for Scott and because of my mom's health issues. But if Julio visited Salt Lake City, we could take him to Brewvies and he could smoke all he wanted and we would still love him.

Because many of those who smoke feel that it enhances their quality of life. Who are we to dictate to others how to live their lives, even when they find enjoyment and meaning in doing something we find personally distasteful? Because it's not just smoking. Working in the restaraunt industry, I've been around a lot of smokers in my life. Very few of them do it because they just love smoking. For many, it's the convivial atmosphere, it's the conversation, it's even the old "smoke break" at work. And people are aware of the risks more now than ever.

If I were Mariott and I were absolutely intent on this policy, I would have smoking lounges on every other floor or something like that. But I'm not Mariott.

I understand that you feel obligated to help non-smokers to "see the light," but where you see good motivations, I see a pervasive culture of telling people what they can and can not do. You ask where the line in giving a drunk a drink is, but I have to ask you where the line the other way is. How far do we get to dictate to other people how they live their lives?

I say smoke 'em if you got 'em.

All agreeable, but isn't it possible to respect the child's decisions and experimentations, good or bad, without encouraging or facilitating those that are harmful?

Isn't telling a child it is okay and good to be honest about decisions to smoke different than actually lighting it up for the kid?

I respect a trend I'm seeing in my neighborhood, where parents with chidren do not even smoke in their own house. They head to the porch or steps out front.

I don't want to get into the business of government telling a parent how to raise kids but I still retain my right to think smoking in front of kids or encouraging/enabling kids to smoke is bad parenting.

Marriott's decision delights me. Whether it is callous marketing, cowardly submission to pressure from insurers, or threats of worker litigation, I do not care. I support most any effort to remove the smell of lighted tobacco from public spaces. It is, in my opinion, as obsolete today as hitching posts and the smell of horse$#!+.

There is no right to smoke, therefore property owners have the right to restrict at will smoking on their property; and legislative entities have few limits on their ability to restrict smoking within their jurisdictions.

If corporations see profit potential and elected officials see public health or political advantage in promoting smoke-free environments, then let them pursue it. They will get credit for their actions when I make my purchases and my election choices.

Kid Prime, apologies but you seem to me to be struggling with the difference between "dictating" and "opinion."

No one (on this thread) has proposed legislation making smoking illegal and neither has the hotel. The hotel certainly has a right to do with their property as they wish, as it pertains to "choice."

When you wrote refering to me "that you feel obligated to help non-smokers to "see the light," " well you show that you don't understand at all. I agree, there are some that way. I and others are simpley expressing personnel experiences and opinions on both sides of the topic, mostly without getting defensive. If that provides new insight for someone, then so be it.

That's a good thing isn't it?

Even if the opinions do cross our personal imaginary line into prostelizing, so what? No harm.

Well, I apologize for assuming something and for referring to you in a manner that you felt beneath you. Regardless of what I meant to say in my internal dialogue, if you feel that I am demeaning you in anything I say, well, it's not worth saying. So I'm sorry 'bout that.

As far as the rest, I do respect your right to your opinions. Please grant me the same courtesy. I also think that society's feelings toward smoking are germane to this conversation and should be explored. It is my opinion that smokers are generally a demeaned and humiliated group of people in our current society. I think the way this conversation has been going could be seen to support that opinion, as posters have been talking about modern-day lepers, hitching posts, and horse feces.

As "dictate" was a word I used in a rhetorical question in support of my own opinion, I feel entirely comfortable in saying, no, I'm not struggling with the difference with "opinion" and "dictating" at all. But perhaps I could tone down the hyperbole a bit, so thanks for reminding me of my own regrettable tendency toward it.

I didn't think you were attempting to "demean."

Maybe you were and I stupidly missed it but I did think you were misinterpreting MY intent anyhow. That's all.

As I wrote, opinions can provide new insight and I'd have to say I'm forced to agree with yours, that many in society seem to be going overboard in their demonization of "smokers." They do seem intent on making smokers to be the new stereotype.

However, the "lepers" reference when originally used I don't think was meant to convey that smokers WERE lepers, but was used to introduce the point you just made and I agreed with, smokers are being TREATED as if the were lepers and that the treatment of lepers came to be seen as wrong as should the currect treatment of smokers.

I'm beyond the stage of nagging smokers to quit. They can do what they want as long as its far from me.

Since they haven't reached it they are looked down upon b/c when society asks a rhetorical question of "why should we respect smokers when they obviously don't respect their own health".

I think society is moving past the point of nagging smokers to quit as as well. We've tried everything, hitting them with taxes, giving them insurance coverage for quitting regimens, hitting them with warnings and commericals, restricting where they can light up. The only thing we havent tried is to ban health insurance plans from covering self-inflicted medical expenses caused by lifetimes of smoking.

At this point folks just want to put them out of sight and out of smelling range.

"I was initially appalled when NY state banned smoking from bars; but a coupel of years later, the bars are doing fine, and I don't come home smelling like an ash-tray."

A friend of mine has a rock & roll band. She doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, doesn't do drugs, doesn't sleep around (yeah, I know, some have joked, "Sounds like she's in the wrong business")... but I think ever since they banned smoking in NY bars, she doesn't wanna come down to Philly to play music anymore. Over the years, smoke in Philly bars seems to have gotten progressively WORSE. Or could it be that, since my Mom (a chain-smoker) passed away (from LUNG CANCER), I just NOTICE it more now??? (6 MONTHS after she died, my best friend, visiting, said he noticed a big difference in the smell of the house.)

Whenever I go to see live music in Philly, I wind up having to hang up all my clothes to air out afterwards... sometimes, that's not enough, and I have to toss them in the wash in order to wear them again at all.

TLad's as reasonable description of the path we've taken as any I'd think and probably also as to where it's headed, loss of insurance "rights."

Still I think a valid point was made, there's a problem is this use of the word "they" when refering to smokers as it is to any collective of people.

I mentioned before, my neighbors who have children smoke outside instead of inside where the kids could be affected. To me, that's progress. Many listen, many quit. Recent polls have shown the rate of increase of teens smoking has declined, though maybe not yet the actually numbers. That's progress.

"Actually murder on your property is becoming more and more legal. At least 17 states now have a law on the books that allow excessive force in protecting your private property. And gone are the days of having to prove the "intruder" meant you bodily harm. You only have to claim self defense in most of these places. Texas, of course, leads the way with the new revision."


Sounds like a return to sanity to me.

If someone breaks into your house, they DON'T BELONG THERE. You should never have to justify SELF-DEFENSE.

"Good for Melanie! I think smoking and drinking should be 'taught' in the home and discussed and educated about, rather then sneaked in a friend's basement or on the street somewhere. Kids get into more trouble by hiding and sneaking then they do from straightforward behavior."


Ever see THEY CALL ME MISTER TIBBS! ? Great film. Sidney Poitier finds his son drinking or smoking (or both) and decides the "teach" him the RIGHT way to do it. With a bottle of booze and a BIG cigar. Within 5 minutes, the kid got SO sick, you figure he never touched either again for years (if ever).

Another great film to check out is COLD TURKEY. As a publicity stunt, a cigarette company makes a bet that they'll pay a huge sum of money if an entire town can quit smoking for a month. What they didn't expect was that one small town would actually go for it...

I must say I'm appalled by some of the comments that have been made on this thread. It just goes to show you how nasty the virulent anti smoking campaigning has become.

I've been called a modern day leper; had posters express delight at something that will cause me physical discomfort; read that perhaps I need to lose my "insurance rights" and for the first time ever have been made to feel somewhat unwelcome on Legion World.

To those of you that are rejoicing or going in orgasmic throes over this move, I provide a warning. It will soon be time for "controllers" in our society to shift their attention elsewhere. And it may well get focused on you next.

When did it become okay for you to rejoice or delight in something that will cause someone else physical discomfort and anxiety?

You argue that "we" are infringing on your rights to not be subjected to second hand smoke. Fair enough, I completely agree but I would argue that "you" (society) long ago crossed the line and began infringing on my rights.

Do you drive a car? You are poisoning me with the fumes it emits. Do you wear a fragrance or perfume? Use scented deodorant or laundry detergent? You are inflicting physically harmful odors on thousands of asthmatics that are sensitive to them. Do you own cats or dogs? Have well tended flower gardens and shrubs? What gives you the right to inflict those allergens on neighbors that suffer from all sorts of allergies?

Do you ever drink and drive? Have you ever? You are more dangerous to my well being than I am to yours. It would take me years and years to kill you with my second hand smoke, you can kill me in less than 1 second by the choice you make.

Do you really think I should lose my "insurance rights?" I already pay higher premiums because I'm a smoker, plus more than 2/3 the cost of a pack of cigarettes in taxes to cover the "medical cost to society" What's next? Should we begin charging overweight people more for a Big Mac? How asinine would that be? ("Step right up on this platform so as to weigh you and measure your height please. The cost of your meal is dependent on how closely you match the Surgeon General's guidelines for a healthy weight.") What about coffee and soda drinkers?

My apologies if my diatribe is disjointed. I'm not very rational at the moment having just read some of the most discourteous and insensitive comments ever expressed in this thread.

<strike>I think everyone has said whatever they need to say about this subject.</strike>


[Re-opened since some believe they need to discuss this topic further. This thread will be subject to another time out should the debate get heated again. Please be aware that others may not share you're POV and be respectful to everyone.]