• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should hotels/motels be allowed to have smoking rooms available?

Should hotels/motels be allowed to have smoking rooms available?


  • Total voters
    44
My opinion? Are cigarette fumes carcinogenic or aren't they? This is an administrative issue determined by a scientific one, and since smoking is hazardous then that will contribute to the administrative policy.

Also, since smoking is a choice, then smokers can choose to smoke where their carcinogenic fumes are not harming others. So is that 50 feet? A hundred feet? I don't know, and frankly I think that's something of a red herring, because the original question was "Should hotels/motels be allowed to have smoking rooms available?" And on that level the question has no ambiguity because it refers to enclosed spaces. At least then the question is easy. If you want to broach a further discussion on how far away is far enough outside, that's another topic.
So, in other words, the answer would be inconvenient for your argument. Got it.

Please note that you were the first respondent to the thread. You said right away that smokers should go outside, as it is an "easy" solution. In a later post, you said...
I'm an ex-smoker, and regardless of that I can say that going outside to smoke is a win-win scenario for everybody. The business does better business, the non-smokers have their non-hazardous space, employees get to work in a non-toxic environment, and smokers still get their fix. And if you're receptive to any occupational safety and hazard issues of the workplace, this is no different. And if you're not receptive to that kind of concern, then there's no middle ground for you and I to agree on.
...even referring to outside as a "non-hazardous space", since smoking is hazardous. After all, why would inside be "non-hazardous" if smoking isn't a hazard.

Sorry, but you steered the conversation outside, not me. And now you won't commit to how far outside is necessary. Not even a guess. Just vague statements that smoking is unhealthy. We know that. At this point you're not contributing anything to the conversation.
 
So, in other words, the answer would be inconvenient for your argument. Got it.

Please note that you were the first respondent to the thread. You said right away that smokers should go outside, as it is an "easy" solution. In a later post, you said...

...even referring to outside as a "non-hazardous space", since smoking is hazardous. After all, why would inside be "non-hazardous" if smoking isn't a hazard.

Sorry, but you steered the conversation outside, not me. And now you won't commit to how far outside is necessary. Not even a guess. Just vague statements that smoking is unhealthy. We know that. At this point you're not contributing anything to the conversation.

You're trying to find contradictions where none exist. Is smoking outside safer to people inside? That doesn't even have a right to be a question. You're the one who tried to introduce a level of ambiguity by asking how far away is far enough outside, to which I honestly answered that I don't know but offered a possible medical answer anyway. But is it dangerous to people indoors? That's not an ambiguous question and doesn't have an ambiguous answer.
 
You're trying to find contradictions where none exist. Is smoking outside safer to people inside? That doesn't even have a right to be a question. You're the one who tried to introduce a level of ambiguity by asking how far away is far enough outside, to which I honestly answered that I don't know but offered a possible medical answer anyway. But is it dangerous to people indoors? That's not an ambiguous question and doesn't have an ambiguous answer.

Then you shouldn't have even taken it outside. All I was doing was following your path and seeking clarification.
 
Should hotels/motels be allowed to have smoking rooms available?

In strict otherwise non-smoking states. Legally allowed. Please note that I said "allowed", not "required".

I see no reason why not. As long as the following conditions are met...

1) If they have only one option, it would have to be the non-smoking rooms.
2) Non-smoking rooms would need to be 67%+ of the total rooms available for rent.
3) The policy is clearly posted by the front door.
4) The smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms are in completely separate buildings.

I smoked two packs a day for 30 years and have the heart disease to prove it.
Can't stand the stink now.
 
Then you shouldn't have even taken it outside. All I was doing was following your path and seeking clarification.

Um.........what? What's a more reasonable alternative to inside than outside?
 
Should hotels/motels be allowed to have smoking rooms available?

In strict otherwise non-smoking states. Legally allowed. Please note that I said "allowed", not "required".

I see no reason why not. As long as the following conditions are met...

1) If they have only one option, it would have to be the non-smoking rooms.
2) Non-smoking rooms would need to be 67%+ of the total rooms available for rent.
3) The policy is clearly posted by the front door.
4) The smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms are in completely separate buildings.


Any private owned business should be able to allow smoking if they want. I am very much against banning smoking in a private business.
 
I'm an ex-smoker, and regardless of that I can say that going outside to smoke is a win-win scenario for everybody. The business does better business, the non-smokers have their non-hazardous space, employees get to work in a non-toxic environment, and smokers still get their fix. And if you're receptive to any occupational safety and hazard issues of the workplace, this is no different. And if you're not receptive to that kind of concern, then there's no middle ground for you and I to agree on.

People have to right to chose not to work in a place that allows smoking.
 
Should hotels/motels be allowed to have smoking rooms available?

In strict otherwise non-smoking states. Legally allowed. Please note that I said "allowed", not "required".

I see no reason why not. As long as the following conditions are met...

1) If they have only one option, it would have to be the non-smoking rooms.
2) Non-smoking rooms would need to be 67%+ of the total rooms available for rent.
3) The policy is clearly posted by the front door.
4) The smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms are in completely separate buildings.

I want to say no. Mostly for the safety of the workers who might forgo their safety for a paycheck and guests who might forgo their safety for a room. If hotels/motels want to allow their guests to smoke then designate a smoking area outside. I used to smoked, I live in an apartment building where if tenants want to smoke then they have to do it outside on their patio/porch.

Plus I don't see why a hotel/motel would want to have potential fire hazards and extra costs.I don't know if you ever looked at the walls of a smoker's,but they look something like this-

The white spots are where picture frames used to be.
Redston-2.jpg
 
It's their property, they can have anything they want, so long as it is otherwise legal.
 
Should hotels/motels be allowed to have smoking rooms available?

In strict otherwise non-smoking states. Legally allowed. Please note that I said "allowed", not "required".

I see no reason why not. As long as the following conditions are met...

1) If they have only one option, it would have to be the non-smoking rooms.
2) Non-smoking rooms would need to be 67%+ of the total rooms available for rent.
3) The policy is clearly posted by the front door.
4) The smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms are in completely separate buildings.

Sure, why not. But as Cardinal and a couple others pointed out, I don't know if it's really a good idea to do so.

The best legal argument I could see against smoking rooms is the fire hazard, however slight, they bring.
 
I'd be fine with it as long as the smoking and non-smoking rooms are required to be on separate HVAC systems.

The smoking rooms would be better if they had a powerful exhaust fan with a sensitive smoke detector. Or a switch with a sign.

I quit smoking eleven years ago, but think that smokers should be accommodated. They aren't lepers.
 
Sure, why not. But as Cardinal and a couple others pointed out, I don't know if it's really a good idea to do so.

The best legal argument I could see against smoking rooms is the fire hazard, however slight, they bring.

Most of the arguments against smoking in scenarios like this would be better arguments if the proposal were banning smoking altogether. A prohibition, if you will. But, when it's cherry-picked which ones are allowed and which are verboten the argument loses credibility.
 
Should hotels/motels be allowed to have smoking rooms available?

In strict otherwise non-smoking states. Legally allowed. Please note that I said "allowed", not "required".

I see no reason why not. As long as the following conditions are met...

1) If they have only one option, it would have to be the non-smoking rooms.
2) Non-smoking rooms would need to be 67%+ of the total rooms available for rent.
3) The policy is clearly posted by the front door.
4) The smoking rooms and non-smoking rooms are in completely separate buildings.

Sure. It's a private business. If, however the reverse were true, that hotels/motels are required to provide smoking rooms, then no.

I don't believe there should be strict non smoking states.
 
Sure. It's a private business. If, however the reverse were true, that hotels/motels are required to provide smoking rooms, then no.

I don't believe there should be strict non smoking states.

I would never advocate it as a requirement. Only as a legal option.
 
I would never advocate it as a requirement. Only as a legal option.

But in many areas the government bans smoking in private areas such as bars and hotels. Is that different?
 
I have no problem with smoking rooms. I do have a problem if the rooms for non smokers have to smell the smoke. I say charge extra for the smoking rooms. Use the extra money for ventilation fans, to repaint, change linen, drapes, and carpet as needed to keep the rooms sanitary. Ventilation is probably the biggest part of keeping down the damage from smoke.

I used to go to bars in my youth and the smoke would flow out the door as if the place was on fire. I had a friend who owned a bar and I used to tell him all the time to put in some ventilation. He never did. One day the clean air people Not sure what agency came in and fined him thousands of dollars and said they would be back. He called me to install the exhaust fans.
I wired up 3 exhaust fans to 3 switches. this way he could vent out the smoke as needed. Those 3 fans would clear the smoke out of that bar on a Friday night is a couple of minutes and keep it out. You could see the exhaled smoke going right up and out the grills. plus when it wasn't to busy he could run as many fans as needed. Oh the other key to this is you need to bring fresh air back in from outside through the heating and AC system.

We have the technology to accommodate smokers but they need to understand it is not free. So expect to pay more to smoke your cigarettes, cigar, or pipe.
 
But in many areas the government bans smoking in private areas such as bars and hotels. Is that different?

Because in public areas, where members of the public are, smoking can affect multiple people. In a private room like a hotel room, it affects only those who are there voluntarily.
 
Most of the arguments against smoking in scenarios like this would be better arguments if the proposal were banning smoking altogether. A prohibition, if you will. But, when it's cherry-picked which ones are allowed and which are verboten the argument loses credibility.

What do you mean? Are there not some common-sense arguments for a blanket ban of indoor smoking?
 
What do you mean? Are there not some common-sense arguments for a blanket ban of indoor smoking?

If smoking is bad, and it's bad to be around smoke, then it's bad everywhere... indoors, standing next to someone outdoors, it's just bad. When states had smoking and non-smoking sections the joke as that smoke didn't know the boundaries. If you're standing next to someone smoking outside it doesn't then, either.
 
Should hotels/motels be allowed to have smoking rooms available?

NO. My personal preferences should be made law and your disagreement makes you a bigot.
 
If I owned a hotel I would consider the addition of smoking rooms to be a really bad business decision. When you consider that smokers can just go outside for a cigarette, that hitting maximum non-smoking-room occupancy means non-smokers can't go into the smoking rooms, and that smoking continues to be on a downward trend, turning potential revenue-earning rooms into smoking rooms makes no sense from a business perspective.


You cant always just go outside with ease. hopping on the elevator from the 25th floor to just go outside isn't all that convenient.
That being said though, If I owned a hotel I would likely do the same but just have a smoking lounge or something.
I smoke. But I choose non smoking hotel rooms when I travel simply because the smoking rooms always stink of cigarette smoke too much. I do not smoke in my own house either.
 
Allowed? Absolutely.

That being said, having been a dedicated smoker for a couple of decades and a transitioning smoker for another couple, I wouldn't want to stay in one. Stale smoke stinks and it gets into everything. I never realized how bad it was until smokers got banished to the outdoors and I'd walk into a completely smoke free room.
 
From a business rights pov the right to create smoking rooms makes sense, but it doesn't jibe with other scenarios, such as the right of an employee to work in a clean and healthy environment, and the fact that possible non-smoking occupants, faced with a desperate need to get a room due to having to stop for the night or being in town for a convention (or whatever), would feel compelled to take the smoking rooms, thereby exposing themselves to a hazardous environment. When you approach it from an OSHA-like perspective, having the workplace allow smoking spaces falls apart.

And again, going outside for a cigarette is an easy decision.

Besides, I think this issue is becoming something of an anachronism. The idea that people can just smoke in any enclosed space regardless of the health considerations of others has become a pretty outmoded concept.

What are the health considerations to employees of someone smoking in their room. Or to non smoking guests using the room after it's cleaned? It's not like someone is going to be actually smoking in their presence. Wouldn't there just be lingering odor issues?
And those might be nauseating to non smokers but it's hardly a health hazard.
 
If smoking is bad, and it's bad to be around smoke, then it's bad everywhere... indoors, standing next to someone outdoors, it's just bad. When states had smoking and non-smoking sections the joke as that smoke didn't know the boundaries. If you're standing next to someone smoking outside it doesn't then, either.

True. Of course, the concentration of smoke and pollutants indoors is more significant than when it can blow away outdoors. IIRC this was a big issue in the tobacco lawsuits in the '90s.
 
Back
Top Bottom