Glad to be Home
Trudy W. Schuett
Texas was COLD!
I planned for it, and brought lots of warm clothes, so I wasn’t as miserable as some of the others from warmer climes. On top of that, it was a non-smoking facility due to some local nanny ordinance. Other Hiltons I’ve stayed at have smoking floors. The carpeting is filthy, don’t walk around barefoot if you don’t want black feet! But you can at least smoke.
People don’t stop smoking just because they’re attending an event, even if it’s a week long thing they have to be at for work. There’s no “out” as simple as going to another hotel, because often people don’t have a choice, especially if their company is paying the bill.
Trainings and conferences and etcetera are all stressful events to begin with. Then add in the factor of extra stress for somebody who smokes and cannot, and you may have a real problem on your hands. There’s something here that I’ve never seen addressed, and that is that people who smoke and are suddenly deprived of it get weird.
It doesn’t seem that those who are passing all these anti-smoking laws are thinking this through. On one hand, they’re trying to make things comfortable for non-smokers, but at the cost of making life miserable for smokers. As a frequent traveler exposed to all sorts of non-smoking situations, I’ve learned to deal with it, but there are always first-timers in any group, who have not experienced the really awful effects of not having a cigarette for x number of hours.
The kind of weirdness deprived smokers exhibit is often not even clear to themselves, because they think that if they really had to, they could go for a long time without a cigarette. Sometimes they do go without, thinking it’s only a bad habit like biting your nails you can just stop. Believe me, it’s not!
I really feel sorry for whomever had their job on the line to make this last training I attended work. It was a disaster from start to finish. Their software didn’t work; the training materials didn’t agree with the manual.
We had an incident of group hysteria early on. One lady got sick and swore it was the food. 15 or 20 others heard about it and dutifully got sick, too. One of the secondary sickees made her supervisor file an incident report. I’m willing to bet Patient One was a smoker unused to extended periods without a cigarette. Yep, you can get explosive diarrhea and even projectile vomiting during smoking withdrawal in a highly stressed situation.
I knew there was nothing wrong with the food; (169 people were eating the same things) it was just stress and/or nicotine withdrawal. Somebody always gets sick on these things. It’s the way it goes. Beyond local ordinances forcing them to run their business in a way they wouldn’t choose, I would think that hoteliers and those planning events really need to consider seriously the impact a non-smoking policy can have on a large group event. Those who smoke cannot simply choose not to smoke for the days of their stay. In cases of inclement weather, it is beyond rude to force these paying guests outside because they smoke. I’ve had to stand on a street corner in a large city at night without any support or security nearby just because I smoke.
As a frequent traveler, I do NOT choose non-smoking hotels when I have a choice, but I don’t always have a choice, if my employer is footing the bill.
Many thousands of other smokers have the same situation.
As a parting note, I did want to mention that on the last day of my six-day training session, one of the ladies fell – or was pushed – down an escalator. With the stress level as high as it was, it could have been anything, but if it was a freaked-out smoker looking around at the wrong time, startled by something...Geez.
What are these people making these stupid laws and policies thinking?
I can't say your description is any powerful argument in my mind to facilitate such a horrible anti-social habit.
And that's not even discussing the fact that when I stay in a hotel, the last thing I want to do is be forced to absorb the disgusting smell and ashes of the room's previous inhabitant, and so I tend to spend my money in places that guarantee that I won't have to come home smelling like smoke because other people insist upon participating in dangerous, unhealthy, disgusting habits.
And then there's that whole hotel fire scenario that I'd rather avoid if given the chance.
I'm sorry to say that if you were looking for sympathy, the only response you are going to get from me is that if your own post doesn't convince you to quit smoking, I don't know why you think I should sympathize with you.
No, that's the result of sudden and forced non-smoking.
I know very well how much anti-smokers hate smokers.
Thing is, it is still legal and socially acceptable. Every one of the hotels that ban smoking also sell cigarettes in their gift shops. Go figure! ;>)
N
I would be more than happy to support laws to outlaw tobacco in all it's forms. Of course, we'd have to probably double the taxes on alcohol, but so be it.
First things first is to eliminate subsidies for growers. Then eliminate all imported tobacco. Follow that with a ban on smoking in all public places, and in any venicle or residence where minors are present. Next, allow insurance agents to deny all forms of coverage to smokers. Then bring on the ban.
I make it a point when travelling to only stay in hotels and visit resturaunts that have a n0-smoking policy. In Maine, we were able to ban smoking in bars and resturaunts, and it has been wonderful to be able to go out and not come home smelling like an ashtray. Not only that, but businesses across the board have had a 30% increase in sales since the ban went into effect.
But I’m with Trudy on this one.
IMO, anti-smoking fascists have gone overboard in their efforts to control the choices of individuals and businesses. It’s un-American.
I don’t allow smoking in my home. But if I owned a business, I probably would allow it there. I know I would want to be free to make that choice on my own, and not have it forced upon me by government.
And a complete ban on smoking would likely be as successful as Prohibition in the 20’s, or the ban on heroin, cocaine, and marijuana is today. It would be the biggest gift we could ever give organized criminals.
And you know what? With a four- or five-hour layover between flights, that's just marginally do-able. But it is inhumane.
Yes, cigarettes are always to be found in the 'tax-free' shops, in the bookstores. The states enforcing non-smoking bans are more than happy to collect the sizeable taxes they charge on tobacco.
Hypocrisy is nothing new, nor is it limited to individuals.
1. If I advertise as a smoke-free facility, I am more likely to get folks who will pay a premium to avoid smelling like burnt tobacco when they travel.
2. If I don't allow smoking in my facility, I might well reduce several costs of doing business, such as replacing or refinishing countertops where smokers have left burning cigarettes, expensive treatments to reduce the smell of the rooms, reduced insurance premiums since smokers are far more likely to cause a hotel room fire than a non-smoker, etc.
3. Besides the reduced insurance rates, perhaps I just like the idea that my employees are less likely to get caught in a deadly fire if I run a hotel where guests are not allowed to walk, sit or lay around with an open flame dangling from their lips.
If businesses then book conventions, training classes, whatever, in my hotel because it is the overwhelming preference of THEIR employees, and THEIR insurance companies that they do their business in such facilities, then that's only more free-market bonus for me.
So what does that mean for smokers?
I frankly don't care.
Perhaps I would not have such an attitude about the tribulations of smokers if the following things were not true:
1. Where I live, the greatest threat to my own life and property is wildfires. And the great majority of wildfires started in my state are started by careless smokers who flip cigarettes out their windows where it catches the dry weeds beside the roads on fire.
2. In the city the most common litter I see on the street is discarded cigarette butts. Why smokers think it is completely acceptable for them to flip their still-smoking butts randomly into city streets is a mystery to me, but that's what they do. Most of them would never consider throwing a candy wrapper out their car window, but a cigarette butt is tossed without a second thought. I've had careless smokers flip lit cigarettes INTO my car as they drive by, one almost landed in my daughters car seat where it would certainly have burned her badly.
3. I am sick and tired of pulling into driveways all over the country, getting out of my car and finding my foot planted in the soggy, nasty remains of someone's ashtray.
When smokers stop treating the world as their ashtray, you might find non-smokers far more tolerant of your disgusting habit.
What's this crap about the horrors you supposedly go through when you quit smoking?
I took one last lungfull of tobacco smoke on sunny Chicago day in June 1972, looked at it, said "so long, sucker!", and flung it out the window of my car while driving along north Western Avenue.
The lack of nicotine, or whatever the hell it is that gives you nice cuddly feeling, bothered me only for about three days. Stefi knew enough to keep away from me and not make any demands during those few days.
And that was all it amounted to.
Lately, we got our oldest son to quit. How did we do that? It was easy. We just reminded him that as a smoker, he'd have to pay more out of his hard earned spending money to buy health insurance, unless he quit. Also, potential girlfriends -- and everybody else -- could smell tobacco smoke all over his clothes from 10 feet away. A real turn-off for a guy on the prowl for nooky and high-paying employment.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
No, its not. Let me repeat. It is legal to smoke, but it is not socially acceptable to smoke. That is why most people under 50 won't let you smoke in their house, or their car. That is why many new cars don't even have ashtrays, unless you ask for them. That is why the 'lighter' is now a full-time electrical outlet.
I am as libertarian as the next guy on these issues - I think the laws banning smoking in offices/restaurants/hotels are simply wrong, and shouldn't exist. I do, however, applaud any hotel/restaurant/office which outright bans smoking on the premises. People are sensitive to smoke. Some have cigarette smoke on their list of migraine triggers. Others can die if it triggers their asthma and their inhaler isn't around. If you want to feed your addiction, go outside.
1) longjohns;
2) two pairs of socks (one cotton, one wool);
3) cotton workpants or military surplus wool pants;
4) heavy cotton long sleeve shirt;
5) my 30-year-old lace up Red Wing Irish Setter Sport Boots, with the original Vibram soles, one width larger to accommodate the extra wool socks;
6) one of my heavy wool sweaters;
7) my 43-year olf M-65 army surplus green field jacket with stuffaway hood;
8) lined gloves;
9) tight-woven wool cap long enough to cover my ears; one of these days, I may invest in one of those fine russian ushankas with real siberian fur. (No, PETA, it's too cold around here for me to care about the animal whose pelt I'm wearing on my head.)
Many a day, Stefi and I must hike down the bluffside to get to our car, when the steep-slope driveway has been iced up by the most recent snow if we left enough of it to freeze.
(We are all the way up here; the highway is all the way down there. How the fellow we bought this place from back in '76 got a driveway permit from the township, I'll never know.)
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Well, if that is your concern, let's ban the hotel kitchen, shut off the electricity and ban laptop batteries.
While we're at it, why don't we just ban cars and guns and chicklets that get stuck in the throat?
Because those are not RELEVANT ISSUES to the discussion at hand.
But just for the sake of argument, in case someone erroneously thinks your comment has merit, for hotels to have restaurants they have to meet fire safety rules. Guests smoking in bed are not covered by those rules. Secondly, I accept some risk in my life. But those risks I can REASONABLY control, I am willing to control. And since smoking presents not only a GREATER risk than a kitchen in a hotel, but a less CONTROLLABLE risk, I am more than willing to frequent hotels that decide to ban smoking based on that risk analysis.
In other words, I trust the kitchen help with a controlled fire in a place with defined fire prevention rules (and fire extinguishers) more than I trust the drunken convention reveler next door who falls asleep with a lit cigarette in their mouth.
Different risks, different approaches. See?
Also, I don't mind the smell of steak and potatoes. I sorta like it.
However, these nanny-state laws are not smoking issues to me, they are freedom issues.
If the government wants to ban smoking in any government or public building, then I am all for it. However, to dictate to any privately owned business or establishment, that they must ban a *legal* activity - is tyranny. And I am four-square against it.
You, as an individual, do not have the right to even enter any privately owned establishment such as a hotel or restaurant, much less to dictate their business policies.
Trust me on this one... Today it's smokers, tomorrow it will be overweight people, after that the nanny's will be dictating what we can eat. Then they will be limiting what risky leisure activities we can engage in. All for the children and the public health of course.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.