Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Letting people live their lives.

  1. #1
    God/dess Mastridonicus's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Paradigm City
    Posts
    6,784
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Letting people live their lives.

    In order to accommodate the preferences of the vast majority of our guests, all Marriott® hotels in the United States and Canada will become 100% smoke-free by October 15, 2006.

    This is the industry's largest move to a smoke-free environment and includes over 2,300 hotels and corporate apartments under the
    Marriott, JW Marriott®, Renaissance®, Courtyard®, Fairfield Inn®,
    SpringHill Suites®, Residence Inn®, TownePlace Suites® and
    Marriott ExecuStay® brands. The new policy includes all guest rooms, restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms, public spaces, and employee work areas.

    Currently more than 90 percent of Marriott guest rooms are already non-smoking, and smoking is prohibited in many public spaces due to local laws. Designated smoking areas will be made available outside of the hotel for our guests who smoke.

    This policy will enhance the level of service and care we can offer our guests. We hope to see you soon in our new smoke-free hotel environment.

    For more information, click here

    =====

    Received this in the mail today. As I do a lot of business at marriott. However, it concerns me. I don't smoke, nor do many of those I associate with, however, I respect people's right to do that which we have claimed legal.

    If "Smoking" is concidered legal... why are we outlawing everywhere but the actual law? I mean it's insulting to the people who spend 6.00 a pack to know they can't even enjoy them where they want. You have to smoke in your living room with all the lights on between 5 and 8 pm. 4 and 9 on weekends.

    *shrug* Just let people live their lives within the rights of the law.
    People are not ruled by their memories.

  2. #2
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    I completely agree with letting people live their lives. I don't allow smoking at my place. Why shouldn't Marriott have the right to decide whether to allow it on their private property as well?

  3. #3
    God/dess Mr Hyde's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    4,035
    Thanks
    278
    Thanked 586 Times in 346 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    No one is denying them their smokes...they can either smoke outside the hotel, or...hey...they can stay somewhere else. Marriott is making a business decision, probably a wise one. You ever stayed in a smoking room? Yellow ceilings, smells bad, cigarette burns...I'm sure they have to spend a lot of money making those rooms less beat up.

    Marriott is not banning smoking, they're banning it in their hotels. If a smoker doesn't like it, they can stay somewhere else.

  4. #4
    God/dess cinammonkisses's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Some Fat guys Lap!
    Posts
    9,647
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 90 Times in 67 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Hyde
    No one is denying them their smokes...they can either smoke outside the hotel, or...hey...they can stay somewhere else. Marriott is making a business decision, probably a wise one. You ever stayed in a smoking room? Yellow ceilings, smells bad, cigarette burns...I'm sure they have to spend a lot of money making those rooms less beat up.

    Marriott is not banning smoking, they're banning it in their hotels. If a smoker doesn't like it, they can stay somewhere else.
    Exactly! They're making a big wise business decision. Imagine how much per year they spend on replacing carpet (burns), comforters, odors in rooms all because of cigarette smoke. It will save them more money in the long run I think.







    Some Douchebag: "[Pimp C] 12:43 am: its true we got to stick together the black people on SW CK you is teh condoleeza of SW"


  5. #5
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    If Mariott has had to place a lot of non-smokers in smoking rooms, because all the N/S rooms were sold out, that tells you that they need more non-smoking rooms. Mind you only 10% of their rooms allowed smoking before this policy was enacted. If the new policy increases their bottom line, then its a smart decision on their behalf.

    Personally, I wish all smoking "bans" came about this way, instead of the government stepping in like a bunch of nannies and trying to tell a private entity what the smoking policy should be on their premises.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  6. #6
    God/dess Emily's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    11,302
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 143 Times in 72 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    except people still smoke in the non-smoking rooms

  7. #7
    madmaxine
    Guest

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    I don't mind people who smoke. However, heavy smokers do leave a "mark" with the activity- it stinks up upholstery & bedding, and irritates asthmatic people.
    If Marriot feels smoking hurts their profit margin in some way, I can see how they would ban it. This is America and there are other hotels to stay at.
    Again, free country, but businesses are free to set rules for property they pay to maintain.

  8. #8
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Well, the Marriot isn't making anything illegal. But I had this conversation with a customer (who, incidentally, did not appreciate having a stripper disagree with him) recently - idea of "letting people live their lives" in this sense is a bit facile. I mean, government exists to interfere in people's lives - they regulate a whole lot of things (I daresay MOST things); why should smoking be so different? I mean there are certain protected freedoms that the government needs a very compelling reason to interfere with, like speech, life, etc; I don't know if I'm willing to label "smoking" as one of those freedoms, so I can't see why the government can't regulate smoking as it chooses. Plus the idea that the government CAN simply "step out" and not regulate seems a bit facile as well - I mean the government is always intervening, inevitably - it's just a matter of whose side they are intervening on.

    Finally - smoking is a dangerous, deadly pastime with no tonic or beneficial effects. Arguing for a laissez faire attitude towards something that, if invented or created today would NEVER, NEVER be allowed to be distributed much less sold seems a bit silly. To me.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  9. #9
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Marriott can do what it wants to on their properties. It's legal to smoke. It's legal to not allow smoking on your property.

    If smoking were not invented until today, it wouldn't be legal. The only reason it's not a Schedule I drug is because it was already in popular use at the time of the Controlled Substances Act. An addictive toxic carcinogen with adverse health effects to the entire body, and no postive effects or medical benefit? Pfft. Wouldn't stand a chance.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member casaubon1's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East
    Posts
    371
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 14 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Business it is. Having shown up late more than once and gotten stuck in a smoking room, I would be happy to do business with a hotel that can tell me there don't have any smoking rooms. But it is, unfortunately, still a Marriott.

  11. #11
    God/dess Mastridonicus's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Paradigm City
    Posts
    6,784
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    you're all right, I'm not saying what marriott is doing is wrong, it's just the latest installment, I feel, in what is legally singling out a group of people based on a similarity, smoking.

    Sure it's really a health issue and not only that it damages property. But I think it as well as a non-smoking state etc etc etc, is masking a very inconciderate way to tell someone what their habits are, regardless of how legal they are, are wrong.

    Look I can get drunk as shit in my hotel room, tear down the walls, rape a few women, and kill a child then get in my car and drive into a bus of college kids. But no one is out there making an "alcohol free state" they're just calling me irresponsible, blaming the alcohol use as the cause and throwing my ass in the chair. Doesn't matter that there may have been 80 people in my city doing the same thing that night.

    To me, as long as it's legal, alcohol, cigarettes, hookahs, all that recreational shit is the same and carries the same issues just in different varieties.

    I'm just acknowledging what I see as an inequality. But you're all right. I have learned a bit
    People are not ruled by their memories.

  12. #12
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Maybe folks can switch to chew when they stay at Marriot? Also there are vaporizers that create a smokless high when smoking pot, would that work with tabacco?

    It is the smoke the hotels have issue with, not the useage of the product. I see your point, though, Mast.

    It is kind of like a restaurant that has a "No Hats" policy. When a Sikh family wishes to dine there, they are confronted with the host telling them to remove their "hats" before they can be seated. I would not want to be that restaurantuer in that situation. You either have to piss off your clientele that does follow the dress code or you look like a racist if you turn away the sikh family for not following the dress code.

    I have to back Marriot on this one. Being a stripper working in a state where live sex shows are legal, I have chosen to NOT participate in those shows. If the customer wants to see a live sex show, he will just have to find another girl to perform for him, it's that simple. If a club tells me I have to do the shows to keep working there, then I will go somewhere else.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  13. #13
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastridonicus
    you're all right, I'm not saying what marriott is doing is wrong, it's just the latest installment, I feel, in what is legally singling out a group of people based on a similarity, smoking.

    Sure it's really a health issue and not only that it damages property. But I think it as well as a non-smoking state etc etc etc, is masking a very inconciderate way to tell someone what their habits are, regardless of how legal they are, are wrong.

    Look I can get drunk as shit in my hotel room, tear down the walls, rape a few women, and kill a child then get in my car and drive into a bus of college kids. But no one is out there making an "alcohol free state" they're just calling me irresponsible, blaming the alcohol use as the cause and throwing my ass in the chair. Doesn't matter that there may have been 80 people in my city doing the same thing that night.

    To me, as long as it's legal, alcohol, cigarettes, hookahs, all that recreational shit is the same and carries the same issues just in different varieties.

    I'm just acknowledging what I see as an inequality. But you're all right. I have learned a bit
    What are you talking about? Where did you come up with the phrase 'non-smoking state'? What is it in reference to?

    No one said anything about someone's habits being wrong. All that happened is the Marriot announced a new no-smoking policy.

  14. #14
    God/dess scarlett_vancouver's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    6,699
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 22 Times in 20 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Also there are vaporizers that create a smokless high when smoking pot, would that work with tabacco?
    Really? Tell me more!

    As for Marriott going non-smoking, I think it's fair. Especially if it's a financial issue for them.

    Feature costumes for sale!

  15. #15
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.


  16. #16
    God/dess doc-catfish's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    123 Tornado Alley Way, Hooterville USA
    Posts
    6,322
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 30 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny
    I mean, government exists to interfere in people's lives - they regulate a whole lot of things (I daresay MOST things); why should smoking be so different? I mean there are certain protected freedoms that the government needs a very compelling reason to interfere with, like speech, life, etc; I don't know if I'm willing to label "smoking" as one of those freedoms, so I can't see why the government can't regulate smoking as it chooses.
    Well, a lot of people who support such government intrusion in our lives don't think the right of a woman to make a living taking her clothes off and grinding on strange men's laps should be a protected freedom either. At least here in the U.S., our highest court has more or less given local jurisdictions much free reign to keep strippers as covered up and as far from their customers' loins as possible.

    I'm not sure why some folks here continue to insist that they can have it both ways.
    Former SCJ now in rehab.

  17. #17
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    ^^^It's not necessarily having it both ways, but rather finding a balance. The balance will alter depending on the environment.

    Personally, I find that pretty girls taking clothes off is on the positive side of the balance - allowing addictive and destructive drugs is on the negative side. But I'm not the community.

  18. #18
    madmaxine
    Guest

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Not a threadjack, but a tip from a dancer pal who uses the medicinal green herb while on the road- exhale through a scented dryer sheet, like Bounce. If you smoked up the room a la Cheech & Chong, swing damp towels through the air & leave the bathroom vent on all night.

  19. #19
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    ^^^It's not necessarily having it both ways, but rather finding a balance. The balance will alter depending on the environment...
    I've been a non-smoker for my entire life, but in this case, I think it's a very small percentage of smokers who ruin things for everyone who smokes.

    In fact, I'm waiting for someone to do a documentary, "Inconvenient Trash," about how Americans are much more cavalier about using trash containers than some other societies. As to smokers, I'm thinking of those who just can't (or don't want to) tell the difference between a trash container, a concrete sidewalk, an ashtray, a drinking fountain and a urinal! Had only a very small percentage of smokers altered their behavior slightly in the past(to be more courteous), maybe the cost of cigarettes would not be as crazy as it is today, considering all the taxes which have been added to a pack or carton. And maybe hotels would be more willing to allow smoking on their properties. It no doubt costs U.S. cities a small fortune just to have the cigarette butts swept up from the sidewalks on a daily basis.
    Last edited by PhaedrusZ; 07-25-2006 at 04:35 PM. Reason: typos

  20. #20
    God/dess Mastridonicus's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Paradigm City
    Posts
    6,784
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by dlabtot
    What are you talking about? Where did you come up with the phrase 'non-smoking state'? What is it in reference to?

    No one said anything about someone's habits being wrong. All that happened is the Marriot announced a new no-smoking policy.
    No offense, but it's just my opinion. I'm allowed to have them without you necissarily knowing what I am talking about.

    Non-Smoking State

    Nothing valid. But it seems like a good word to use to define what I am referring to, but if you don't know what I'm talking about I understand how it means nothing to you.

    Not being a dick, But If you read what I said "it's just the latest installment, I feel, in what is legally singling out a group of people based on a similarity, smoking."

    I've done hotel computers for years. Never fails, every fall a socker tournament comes to town to one of my clients in Ohio who owns 14 hotels. Every year these kids do everything to these hotels. From spreading shit on the walls, along with pizza and everything, but breaking systems, and the biggest: throw all the shampoo bottles in the Hot Tub. I feel so bad for the staff that has to babysit those weeks, but you know what, the owner TRIED to ban these groups citing MASSIVE losses to their hotel in damages and such, but MARRIOTT sent a letter stating that such action would result in them losing their franchise and branding rights.

    It's not equal. It's legal, but it also is a marketing tool. Plain and simple. Get money by doing what everyone wants you to do. But then again, I guess that's how smoking and alcohol got big.
    People are not ruled by their memories.

  21. #21
    God/dess
    Joined
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,352
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    I hope this trend continues as I hate the stench in a hotel room . Hey taking a shit is legal as well but should the next guy checking - in have to smell my odor ! I know a bit over the top on the point but its how I feel about it .

  22. #22
    Featured Member aviendha's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    978
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 8 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    I admit that my perception is colored by the fact that I grew up with a chain-smoking parent who, additionally, is a very rude smoker. Personally, I would prefer a 100% public ban. Not only is it more equitable for public institutions, but let's face it, cigarette smoke is a proven toxin, and long-term exposure causes chronic and even fatal diseases. Not just to smokers, but to everyone who encounters cigarette smoke. In my mind, the idea that a smoker should be able to light up wherever he wants is tantamount to arguing that a drunk driver should be able to drive drunk whenever he wants, or letting a company use asbestos for insulation or dump toxic waste into a river because it's easier or cheaper. The public good is more important than private convenience when it comes to dangerous substances. If a smoker wants to smoke outside or in his own home or car, fine by me--but that's all.

  23. #23
    Veteran Member pipermarau's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2006
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    387
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
    My Mood
    Confused

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    well i smoke lots! i also dont' smoke in my house because i have two cats and i don't want them to have some smoking related kitty asthma because they are more sensitive to such things. i don't really agree with the non smoking rooms thing. i'm sure they will have smoking areas but i'll almost bet its a bench under a half dead tree and a great view of the freeway. then what will smokers do when it rains? they should allow people to have smoking rooms. now i know who to NOT stay with when i go out of town again.

  24. #24
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Letting people live their lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by doc-catfish
    Well, a lot of people who support such government intrusion in our lives don't think the right of a woman to make a living taking her clothes off and grinding on strange men's laps should be a protected freedom either. At least here in the U.S., our highest court has more or less given local jurisdictions much free reign to keep strippers as covered up and as far from their customers' loins as possible.

    I'm not sure why some folks here continue to insist that they can have it both ways.
    Well, you may notice that I never jump into threads on how we have an inherent and guaranteed right to take off our clothes and grind on men's laps for a living. I don't think that is necessarily a protected freedom (although there is a stronger s.2 argument in this than there is for smoking; and in Canada commercial expression is still considered protected. I mean, I think you'd be hard pressed to couch smoking in terms of an expressive act). The government DOES regulate stripping in terms of liquor licenses, stripping licenses etc. Although I resent some of the things that they do, (police clearances - it makes NO sense. Why in the world do I need a police clearance to strip? I don't even need to be bondable and I never touch anyone's money except my own. It's just so retarded) I don't contest their right to do them.

    As well - having things "both" or "all ways" is a bit of a mischaracterization. Because the government CAN regulate nearly all activities doesn't mean that they should, need to or want to regulate all activities in the same manner and to the same degree, or that they should be capriciously intruding on personal lives, or intruding in a negative way (by which I mean "bad" not "non-existant"). I don't really see any way to compare stripping and smoking except insofar as they both "regulatable"; however as many/most activities are regulatable, that is not really a viable basis of comparison. You might as well compare smoking and farming. Keep in mind that JZ makes a good point - that tobacco companies are peddling an addictive and poisonous substance that kills not only people who use it, but those around them and makes for a disgusting environment for all. Call me crazy, but I don't find it hard to find fault with that. Like if the makers of anti-freeze started selling it as an edible substance we would have no problem making them stop even if all people know or should know that you shouldn't drink anti-freeze, because we would feel intuitively that it is sick and wrong to encourage people to drink anti-feeze. (Is anti-freeze one word? Antifreeze?)

    As well (and finally) when you say "support government intrusion" I don't know if you mean the same thing I do. I think it is a little naive to think that there are circumstances in which the government is NOT interfering - I mean capitalism - no matter how laissez faire you want to get - relies precisely on the government interfering - it is simply a matter of how and when and on whose behalf they interfere.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  25. #25
    Featured Member lunchbox's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2005
    Location
    falling from grace
    Posts
    1,943
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. WHO lives in SEATTLE or near?
    By AudrinaN in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 10:02 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-30-2008, 11:25 PM
  3. Ten Lives: How would you use them?
    By Nicolina in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 08:34 AM
  4. The truth about how people turn out in lives...
    By PhillyDancer1982 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 11-30-2006, 09:31 AM
  5. SOME PEOPLE DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE.
    By onlythebest in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-01-2004, 09:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •