Marriott goes "Smoke Free"
Smoking in "public" places has been a hot topic here in the District in recent months/years and with the pending smoking ban not only here in DC but in major cities across the United States, Marriott makes a bold announcement that in September, all of their hotels across the United States and Canada will go "smoke free" in all public areas as well as guest rooms. They are not the first lodging organization to make this move, but certainly the largest.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am completely against government-imposed smoking bans in privately-owned businesses. Keep in mind that even in cities with smoking bans, smoking in your hotel room is still legal if designated a smoking room. Marriott had no reason to make this move other than based on it being a wise business decision on the part of the company.
Business owners should be able to make a determination for their own business as to whether activities such as smoking should be allowed inside their establishments. While I have been known to smoke, particularly when drinking, I will freely admit it is a horrible habit and one that undoubtedly kills. And I am sure with the looming smoking ban in the District, I will likely curb most all of my smoking habit since I will no longer be able to combine smoking and drinking. Smoking, however, is done voluntarily and whether it seems fair to say or not, frequenting bars or restaurants where smoking is allowed is also done voluntarily. As a patron, or even as an employee of such establishments, you have made a choice to patronize or work in an establishment that allows smoking. Therefore, you cannot expect the conditions to change because of personal preferences. And you cannot claim a violation of your "rights." When you patronize a privately owned establishment where smoking is allowed and you are aware of that fact, your "rights" are in no way violated when you choose to enter that establishment. The government forcing businesses to make such decisions unwillingly violates the very idea of a free market. A government-imposed ban is not only immoral, but also unneccessary.
Market conditions have shown that there is a market for "smoke free" establishments, whether bars, restaurants or in this case, hotels. Marriott has made a decision based on market conditions and out of concern for their employees. Bravo to them for showing that a free and open market can regulate itself without government intervention. This is how it should work.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am completely against government-imposed smoking bans in privately-owned businesses. Keep in mind that even in cities with smoking bans, smoking in your hotel room is still legal if designated a smoking room. Marriott had no reason to make this move other than based on it being a wise business decision on the part of the company.
Business owners should be able to make a determination for their own business as to whether activities such as smoking should be allowed inside their establishments. While I have been known to smoke, particularly when drinking, I will freely admit it is a horrible habit and one that undoubtedly kills. And I am sure with the looming smoking ban in the District, I will likely curb most all of my smoking habit since I will no longer be able to combine smoking and drinking. Smoking, however, is done voluntarily and whether it seems fair to say or not, frequenting bars or restaurants where smoking is allowed is also done voluntarily. As a patron, or even as an employee of such establishments, you have made a choice to patronize or work in an establishment that allows smoking. Therefore, you cannot expect the conditions to change because of personal preferences. And you cannot claim a violation of your "rights." When you patronize a privately owned establishment where smoking is allowed and you are aware of that fact, your "rights" are in no way violated when you choose to enter that establishment. The government forcing businesses to make such decisions unwillingly violates the very idea of a free market. A government-imposed ban is not only immoral, but also unneccessary.
Market conditions have shown that there is a market for "smoke free" establishments, whether bars, restaurants or in this case, hotels. Marriott has made a decision based on market conditions and out of concern for their employees. Bravo to them for showing that a free and open market can regulate itself without government intervention. This is how it should work.
posted by Carrie Broadshoulders at Wednesday, July 19, 2006
4 Comments:
i don't smoke. i never have. i HATE smelling cigarette smoke while i'm eating. i hate the smell of smoking hotel rooms and will fight tooth and nail to keep from staying in them. i love the fact that i can go out to bars in california and not come home smelling like an ashtray.
however, i spend far more time at JRs than i do at halo. i know that if i go to JRs, i'm going to be around cigarette smoke, and i totally accept that.
i agree that private businesses should be allowed to make their own decisions about smoking, staffing, decor, etc. example: if chick-fil-a wants to fire someone b/c they are gay, that's fine. y'all knew they hated gay people when you took that job, fool! just read who's protected under their discrimination clause. if you love fried chicken so much, go work at KFC.
The argument that perturbs me is the one made by so many gays when I say, if you don't like the smoke, go to Halo, not JRs is that they shouldn't have to accept being in a bar where people smoke. I just don't understand how people forget that bars and restaurants are private establishments with owners who have every right to allow a perfectly legal activity like smoking. The only influence you should have is in regards to whether you choose to patronize that bar or not. You shouldn't think you can dictate what goes on there...it's not your property. It's silly to me that people don't get that.
I agree with you as well about the gay thing. While I think we should honor and praise the companies that don't allow such discrimination by buying their goods/services, I think every company has the right to discriminate any way they see fit. If you don't like it, don't work there or buy their services. That's the beauty of a free market...there is usually someone who is willing to listen to your preferences and have you as a customer.
Why any gay would want to work at Chick-fil-a or KFC is more concerning to me than whether they will be discriminated against when they do work there. :)
Well you can be in full support of whatever you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you are expecting private establishments to change policy simply because of personal preferences and when they do not, you allow the government to clearly overstep its authority by dictating what can happen on private property. You cannot claim your rights are violated when you voluntarily enter an establishment where smoking is happening. You are free to not go there. In my opinion, the government has far more authority to ban smoking in public places like on sidewalks or beaches or outside venues that are PUBLIC than they do outlawing smoking in private establishments or residences.
In my opinion, the government either needs to say that smoking is so harmful and unhealthy and addictive that it should be illegal altogether or it should stay out of the business of dictating where and when people can do it. Clearly government offices and such are in their domain to regulate. But a private bar should not be.
However, as a libertarian of sorts, I think that if me smoking violates no one's rights, the government is not in a position to regulate it everywhere it wants. I just think that gives the government too much power. And its also, as I've argued, unnecessary to have the government regulate it, when you and everyone who hates smokey bars, could have changed the policies of those bars years ago if you had chosen not to patronize them. Statistically smokers are a minority, so you've always had the power to change it. Most people I know who do not smoke would prefer it wasn't allowed in a bar or restaurant. Yet very few have ever made the decision to not go to a bar or restaurant because of the smoke. So you cannot argue that the government has to go in and regulate smoking for the "safety of others." No one forces anyone to work in a bar or patronize one. You know the risks of smoking and second hand smoke. Even in DC, there are alternative bars/restaurants that don't allow smoking. You have choices. So if you freely choose to go into or work at a bar that allows smoking, you have chosen to harm yourself. You can't blame the bar owner or the smokers in the bar.
In the end, it's not your property. The bar/restaurant belongs to someone else. If you think its okay for the government to tell them that they cannot allow an activity you and I can do on the public street, then you really need to rethink the amount of authority you're willing to give to the government over your personal life. The smoking ban is fine with you because you don't like smoke. But what about when its something you do like? Like drinking? Or sex? Should the government regulate that as well?
As for seat belts, I don't think the government should force seat belt use because the only person you put at risk not wearing one is yourself. Who's rights are you violating by not wearing one? I think smoking pot should be legal. Who's rights are violated when you smoke pot? No one. I think prostitution should be legal. Who's rights are violated when someone pays for sex? No one. The government is here to protect our rights.
Good libertairan stuff Carrie....
Marriott have made a business decision as they are entitled to do - it's their property.
For those of us who oppose such a decision, the best thing to do is to make Marriott aware of the business they will lose. Email stephanie.hampton@marriott.com (the contact on the press release) and tell them how many nights you stayed over the last few years, and that you won't be staying there anymore.
As for the health issues, they are barely statistically significant - the probability of death or illness from 2nd hand smoke is comparabile with the probability of death or injury from driving an extra few miles per day.
Post a Comment
<< Home