Hotels are starting to to hit smokers with hefty fines for violating their no smoking policies. Take Dan Cole. He didn’t light up in his non-smoking Marriott room, honest. Those butts in his garbage can? Um, he smoked them somewhere else and threw them out in the room?
It costs Marriott over $1,000 to scrub the smoke-stink off a room, a charge they happily offset by smacking smokers like Dan with a $250 fine.
Some hotels seek out actual physical evidence before they levy a fine. The New York Marriott Downtown first started charging people $250 for simply leaving the smell of smoke in their rooms after the brand went 100% nonsmoking in Sept. 2006. Within a few weeks, they realized they had too many complaints, says Anna Cervenyak, the hotel’s office manager. Security started taking pictures of butts or ashes when housekeeping found them. Though they still make “plenty” of refunds, they now show people physical evidence, which usually is enough to draw a confession, Ms. Cervenyak says.
Physical evidence also plays a role when a guest tries to protest against the charge through a credit-card company. Sam Patel, who owns the Quality Inn Brick Town in Oklahoma City, says, “A lot of times you have to argue with the credit-card company” to have a smoking charge accepted. “If you don’t find a cigarette,” he says, the charge will not go through, and “we lose money.” he says.
At least one hotel gives employees an incentive to catch illicit smokers: Swissotel Chicago awards housekeepers a $10 bonus for every smoker they catch.
Lingering smoke-stench can cause a nasty unwanted sore throat for sensitive folks like us—not a perk you want when paying for a room. We’d be glad to see no smoking violators strapped to plane wings and sent through hail storms, but we’ve been told to work on our sensitivity issues. We’re willing to accept that select others might think differently, which is why we have comments.
Where were we?
Right, smoking in hotel rooms.
Please don’t.
Now at Hotels: The $250 Cigarette [WSJ]
(Photo: Getty)
More From Consumerist
-
Law Would Make Bongs, Other Devices, Illegal In Florida
-
San Francisco Suburb Bans Smoking In All Multi-Family Homes, Whether Rented Or Owned
-
Canadian Tourist Spent Weeks Decomposing In Hotel’s Water Supply
-
NYC Lawmakers Propose Raising Smoking Age To 21
-
Group Suing NYC Says Parks’ No-Smoking Signs Subject Smokers To Hostile Confrontations
@smoothtom: Yes, it is a false analogy. You cannot make the comparison between the two painting them as the same thing when they are not.
I am not a libertarian. I support reasonable assertion of the government wherever it is appropriate. You can most certainly pick and choose which policies are reasonable and which aren’t.
When people enter an food service establishment, they expect the food to be safe and the preparation area to be clean. On the other hand, they are well aware of any smoking policies and can make an informed decision whether they should be there or not.
@smoothtom: I think his point was that its a slippery slope as to where you want to draw the line, an what we want to ban from society. We really are walking a fine line these days about exactly how unhealthy behaviors are. In fact, eating at restaurants regularly is the easiest way to get sick as most establishments, even while following regulations, accidentally do something that is “unclean”. You coul even reach further and say that because alcohol causes X number of deaths per year, you should ban that too. Or ban serving more than the doctor recommended 3 oz. of wine.
Its really a shame that it has to be all or nothing in this argument. I miss the days where you could say, ok, you can run your restaurant any way you want, as long as you keep everything clean enough to prevent infectious diseases/bacteria.
@DMDDallas: Exactly. A good rule of thumb when I used to go out with my family is whether they had a bar menu or if they dedicated half or most of the restaurant to bar stools.
You wouldn’t go to bar to have a family dinner, but hey, if you think people can’t make decisions, that’s fine, LOL. This is just as bad as that parents TV watch that’s led to a disneyification of primetime tv, which kids shouldn’t even be awake to watch anyways.
“Smoking”, in most jurisdictions, is defined as tobacco use in one form or another. Pot is not “smoking” … but generally illegal.
So I guess gigantic skunk weed “incense” bowls are OK. Or I could just burn jimson weed and watch people twitch an writhe.
Heh.
For those interested, the EPA (pre-Bush) had a draft document on SHS. State-of-the-art, it was. It also would have banned smoking anywhere but in little “suicide booths”.
Doesn’t bother me one bit that smokers would be charged for pissing in the room by smoking. I’ve gotten rooms that stank of smoke and I did pay for the non-smoking room. That hotel has lost my business. If it takes totally non-smoking hotels, so be it. You want to kill yourself, fine.
Your cancer risk by living in an urban area, say Philadelphia, only doubles your cancer risk. Smoking easily approaches certainty.
Smoking bans didn’t kill business. You just lost the losers. The no-smokers more than made up for the addicts that left.
@Katorok: “WOW your stupid..”
Okay:
1) If you’re going to call someone else stupid, learn the difference between “your” and “you’re”. Else – well, wow, you’re stupid. (See how I did that? Live & learn).
2) If you’re going to call someone else stupid, learn the difference between an ellipse and a period. Don’t just settle the difference by typing “..”. It fools no one.
3) If you’re going to call someone else stupid (boy do I need a macro), learn when to use commas. A non-stupid person would have used one.
4) I’m going to assume that you typed “WOW” instead of “Wow” because, well, you’re stu…
Never mind. Horse beaten into a fine wallet.
Have to admit, perversely impressed that you can make four mistakes when typing a three-word sentence.
On behalf of readers everywhere, stay away from writing books? Thanks!
@bdgbill: such. a. fucking. asshole.
One of the things that trouble me about the 2nd-hand-smoking studies is a correlation problem. Households that smoke are much likelier to be working class or lower, which have a host of other factors that affect longevity. My understanding of the smoking studies, including the Surgeon General one that started the hysteria is that they simply looked at households with smokers versus those without.
Not correcting for this would be garbage science.
I’ve seen perfumed, unctuous ladies, sitting in a Starbucks patio next to a parking lot with long lines of SUVs driving past loudly complaining about smokers three tables over. Of course, it was “for the children”. The mind boggles.
@parad0x360: It’s happened to me. I have no reason to believe that the people I know are lying either.
As for correlation — I imagine various studies use various methods but you’d have to read the study to know.
@Trai_Dep: You used a question mark in the wrong place in your final sentence.
The property that I work for has a 150 dollar fee for those caught smoking in non-smoking rooms.
For those who think that it is unreasonable to charge for smoking in a non-smoking room, here is what 150 dollars pays for:
1. Steam cleaning the carpets and upholstery
2. Sending the curtains out to be cleaned
3. Extra staff time to strip all ‘soft’ items from room, run an ozone generator to eliminate lingering odors, and replace ‘soft’ items with new or clean.
4. Putting the room out of order if we do not have a spare clean set of curtains or if there is not enough time between the checkout and check in time to let the carpets dry completely.
In most cases, we do lose a night of business on a room that is being deep cleaned. Add that to the cost of professionally cleaning curtains and overtime for housekeeping and 150 dollars is a bargain.
@snoop-blog: I don’t pay to sleep in a factory, thanks.
@Trai_Dep: Welcome to the internets! ‘Your stupid’ is often intentionally misspelled that way to add a bit of irony.
I’m one of those people that has physical allergies to cigarette smoke. It gives me asthma, a headache, stiff neck, and eyes that feel like they’re on fire. Often this reaction is my first clue to a nearby smoker, before I actually smell the smoke.
Needless to say, a smoked-in room is totally unacceptable.
@Trai_Dep: ellipsis, not ellipse. One is a geometric figure, one is a figure of speech (in a manner of speaking).
That about sums it up. Thanks for being honest. I wish you good luck in your financial and health misgivings in the future. Thanks for the cigarettes tax revenue. To be honest, I don’t really appreciate fixing your health when you get sick though
Next time I check into a hotel and ask for a non-smoking room and it smells of smoke, I am going to charge them $250.00 for the privilege!
@Bunklung: Smoking actually provides a net benefit, smokers pay in more than they collect in health benefits. [medicine.plosjournals.org]
@HRHKingFriday: I get what you’re saying … but my point should be narrowly construed. A typical objection to smoking laws rests with a libertarian argument–i.e. that businesses should be allowed to determine how they do business, period. If a person is opposed to smoking laws but still in favor of other health and safety laws, AND couches his disagreement in libertarian terms, he is being disingenuous. Instead, he should accept that smoking laws are of an ACCEPTABLE CLASS of laws while still arguing against the NECESSITY of that specific regulation–that is, to say that it is not the kind of health and safety law that is needed. Many people do that, by arguing that second-hand smoke is not dangerous, or that type of health “violation” is readily apparent whereas unclean kitchens are not, or so forth.
There are many things I encounter in everyday life that could offend me. Rambunctious children. Loud music or any loud noise. Perfume. Hell, any chemical smell. Any kind of smoke, including BBQ smoke and wood smoke. Obesity. Seeing a fat person is looking at a pool of vomit. The reek of alcohol, and drinkers in general because they are putting me at risk because of their mental impairment. The smell of auto exhaust. All of these things annoy me.
You know what I do when I encounter these things? I shrug it off because that’s life. If let all these things get too me I would go crazy. So I let it go. And I let it go because I believe in Live and Let Live, Different Strokes for Different Folks, and It’s A Free Country. Whatever happened to those sentiments in this country?
And by the way, I used to have asthma. I never blamed anyone else for my asthma. I figured there was something wrong with me if I got a bad reaction.
If I don’t like smoking in a bar, I won’t go in there. If I want to smoke in a hotel, I’ll stay at one those permits smoking. If I don’t like something, I just change the channel.
smoothtom,
Then you would be in favor of banning public alcohol consumption, right. Doing so would certainly save lives.
@TheUncleBob: OMG, thank you!
@spyglass: That’s an illogical and sensational conclusion of my argument.
smoothtom,
Please elaborate. I don’t see how anyone could dispute that a prohibition of alcohol consumption in public places would not save lives. If alcohol was invented today, it would almost certainly be prohibited by the FDA on the basis of the mental impairment that it causes.
“Smokers have a right to smoke. On their own property, or the private property of those who permit it.
Smokers do not have a right to smoke on private property where they are clearly told “No Smoking”. Period.
Why is this even a debate?? “
I don’t think there is the debate about that at all. The debate is whether an anti-smoker can prohibit smoking on another’s private property, such as a bar. I don’t hear anyone seriously objecting to smoking bans when the owner bans it. They simply take their business elsewhere. As it should be.
You know, I don’t hate smokers. I don’t smoke, but my parents do.
I just wish you all would get over your attitude about these supposed ‘rights’ you have. You have no rights, I have no rights, when we are on private property even if we are paying to stay there.
And please just stop crying about discrimination. You are not born a smoker. Unlike skin color, gender and sexual orientation. Your ‘right’ to smoke is not inherently protected by the Constitution, unlike the freedom to worship (or not). If the FDA had the wherewithal to federalize and regulate nicotene, it would be better controlled or possibly illegal.
So, you have your freedom to smoke. All you have to do is obey the rules. Private property owners and private entities limit smoking? Well, don’t go there or work there or just obey the rules. Don’t like all the hassles and tax payments you make on every pack, quit. Simple solution.
You can’t cry about freedom to smoke and then complain when people or businesses want to limit smoking in differing situations and then say you are powerless to stop.
Hell, somedays, I’d like to take a walk around with a beer or nurse a beer on Sunday drive. Oh yah, that’s illegal, though drinking is… Hmph.
I truly doubt back 40-60+ years ago when smokers were in the majority, MDs endorsed Camels and recommended that pregnant women take up smoking for their nerves; that majority cared about the minority who didn’t.
Oh, what’s that you say? They did not know the health issues and were ignorant? Well, what’s your excuse?
I think you should be able smoke, hell, I was even against banning smoking in bars… Christ, if you can’t smoke in a bar what’s the point? Just stop complaining, already.
these charges are easy to avoid. do what i do – smoke in the hallway or the elevator.
i keed.
i was visiting friends in maryland over winter break and was riding the elevator in their apartment complex, where their was a sign saying “no smoking. $25 fine”
i laughed so hard. not much of a deterrent really.
I am tired of everyone’s thinking that rules (or laws) don’t apply to them. If you break the rule or law, fine. But don’t bitch about your punishment. I don’t care if it’s smoking in a no smoking room or exceeding the speed limit or insider trading or or or. You know it’s wrong, yet you do it anyway. Surprise! The rules DO apply to you.
As for making smoking illegal, it ain’t gonna happen people. There is entirely too many tax dollars dependant on smokers buying cigarettes.
@bdgbill: You’re an asshole, plain and simple.
The comments here by the buttheads – sorry, the smokers – is truly astounding. Why are you on a consumer advocate site if you’re against customers expecting to get what they pay for?
For the intellectually challenged, think of it this way: If you rented a car and rear-ended it into a pole, you’d be an idiot not to expect to pay for repairs.
Both cars and hotel rooms are rented, so it is a valid analogy. That means: stop trying to excuse your selfish and filthy behaviour of damaging others’ property.
@NameGoesHere: Same here. The odor gets in everything, my eyes sting, and that’s not good.
I don’t drink. I don’t smoke. My health is really good.
If someone wants to die early. so be it. It’s a free country.
@smoothtom:
While your being sarcastic, it’s true. The differences is, there are some minimum cleaning standards required to even get a restaurant license.
The smoking ban on bars happened after the fact and not part of the bar licensing.
My dad had a rental property with a smoking tenant. I used TSP on the walls, floors, and ceiling for one week. I still didn’t get all of the gunk.
I paid for a hotel room and a night’s sleep. The smoke irritates my lungs and eyes, permeates my clothes in the suitcase, and doubles my cancer risk. Please keep your toxins to yourself.
The EPA draft document on second hand smoke should clear up any doubt on the hazards.
@bdgbill: so your the guy.. I’m sure that $10 helps pay off a huge chunk of that $1000.
@timsgm1418:
Some time last year there was a non-smoker that fought a $250 cahrge. Turned out the cleaning staff was smoking in the rooms while cleaning, and then blaming it on the hotel vistitor. Wish I could find a link for this story.
Working in health care I can honestly say that non-smokers have a 100% mortality rate.
A little dirty secret about health care is that smoking is sort of a catch all etiology. If you come in and have a problem that can’t be linked to a definitive cause, they’ll blame it on smoking 99% of the time.
As far as SHS, if you live and/or work with a smoker that smokes around you in an enclose area you could very well have adverse health effects. Passing a smoker on the street and/or building entrance isn’t going to hurt you.
The funniest thing I see/hear are the fat people that bitch about smoking. These people wolf down Mickey D’s like it is going out of style, but don’t dare light up near them. Remember, heart disease is the #1 killer.
I’ve been in non-smoking rooms that stink of smoke and instead of staying in it I ask to be moved. Smelling cigarette smoke for a while gives me bad migraines, so staying in a room for 6-8 hours while sleeping is not going to happen. Changing the room right off the top also prevents the hotel from charging me for a stench I didn’t create.
As much as I think smokers who ruin the non-smoking hotel room I’m paying for should be punished, I think paying a bonus to maids for finding smokers is asking maids who want to make a little extra cash to set people up. I wouldn’t put it past some people.
I work at a hotel in Los Angeles. We’re pretty new, so all of our rooms are non-smoking. We have a smoking fine, but we make people sign off on our non-smoking policy on the registration cards when they check in. If they smoke in the room, they’re boned. Additionally, our linens are imported from Europe, and they’re expensive to relplace. If someone smokes in the room, I think we just toss the linens out.
I think people that say that they can’t stand the least little hint of cigarette smoke should harden the fuck up. I’m a non smoker and don’t particularly care for coming home reeking of Camels…but I go to the bar for the company. I can’t stand the least little hint of perfume or cologne or chemical smelling hair-care products. You don’t see me having a fucking cry about those things and proposing city ordinances to ban them. There’s far worse things being put in the air in the world than Tobacco smoke. Don’t see too many people banning Hummer H2s or jet aircraft or semi trucks. Those put out more bad shit for you than their weight in smokers.
Yes, what’s in second hand smoke is harmful…HOWEVER the studies that make this “fucking duh” conclusion fail to conclude weather or not the substances are present in amounts that can actually harm you. Even the surgeon general’s most recent study just says that the substances in SHS can harm you it does NOT say weather or not they are present in sufficient quantities to actually harm you.
It’s like saying, “there’s lead in most tap water”….there probably is and yes lead is bad for you. However, is there enough lead to actually make you sick?
There was a time in the US, just a few decades ago, when second-hand smoke was unavoidable: on airplanes, in movie theaters, in hospitals, in hotels, in bars, and so on. Non-smokers have not forgotten, which is why we have no sympathy when smokers complain about shivering in the cold, 30 feet from the door.
@dandd: Sounds like you’re full of love for your patients. Can I come to your ward?
@spyglass: Public consumption of alcohol (i.e., drinking in public) is illegal in many jurisdictions.
@MrEvil: You may not complain about perfume, but don’t worry: others do.
@MrEvil: Holy cow, a human making sense?
@dandd: Good point. That is why those studies are so biased.
Of course the anti-smoking lobby wants to talk about getting smoking banned, but they don’t actually want it banned, they’d be out of work and a fair chunk of change, some of which is from the Tobacco companies.
I love how the nonsmokers all get their panties in a knot and start name calling and threatening rather than making logical, rational arguments. Grow up a little. You don’t like something, change rooms, that’s your power, not banning everything you don’t like.
The evidence for a causal relationship between second hand smoke exposure and asthmatic symptoms and reduced lung function in young children is quite strong. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
One of the few instances where I agree 100% with the “solution”. Being a –very accomodating– non smoker, I don’t mind if people smoke in restaurants, bars, their cars, their homes, outside… but I should not have to put up with second hand and third hand smoke and odors just because someone is not strong enough to control his/her vices.
Go outside and smoke.
I see nothing wrong with the fine. If a company policy specifically says “No Smoking” and you violate that rule, then they are completely within their rights to fine your ass.
@harumph:
Vegans find meat-eating unhealthy and disgusting, and will cite many studies which have found eating red meat to be detrimental to your health.
Should we ban eating meat?
@jpmoney:
The overuse of perfumes and colognes gives me a major headache. I frequently have to leave the room when someone walks in wearing too much of one scent or another.
How about pop music playing in stores? That should be banned, since it gives many of us headaches.
Mariachi bands? Ban them, too. Headache-inducing.
The sale of spicy foods should be banned because a lot of people cannot tolerate spicy food.
Liver should be banned because I will involuntarily gag and vomit when I’m around the smell of cooked liver, and many other people have the same reaction.
Guns should be banned because many people in higher-crime areas find it very difficult to get to sleep at night due to the threat of gun violence, to say nothing of those killed in the various school and workplace shootings.
PE should be banned in schools because it causes those children who are not athletic to become depressed and suicidal when they fail to fit in.
Ban peanuts, since people with peanut allergies can suffer fatal bouts of anaphylaxis even when merely breathing near them or coming into the briefest contact with them or any of their by-products.
Ban Umeboshi. The pits contain cyanide, swallowing them can be lethal.
For that matter, ban sashimi, since raw fish can contain many parasites and toxins.
——–
You can come up with “valid” reasons to ban nearly anything. As wiser men than I have said, “If someone says ‘there oughta’ be a law,’ there oughtn’t.”
What really bothers me is the fact that some people have clearly commented that they desire another human being to die because they are a smoker.
I think this may be a warning sign to you…you need to reevaluate your life. It’s really more sad than smoking. Smokers generally have some self-esteem issue that predisposes them to smoking (i.e. wanting to look cool, or fit an image), at least at some point in life. Then they’re stuck with it as they get older. Those who make comments like these are showing that they don’t value human life.
We should be trying to support these people, not demonize them. Even in the case of the people who are blatently defying non-smoking rules.
Screaming and taunting smokers is the last thing anyone should be doing. We all have our demons. Imagine if you took the worst thing about yourself, publicized it for all the world to see, and then total strangers felt free to randomly comment on it. It wouldn’t make you want to be more social, or help your self-esteem…it would make you more defiant.
Have rules, enforce them, but don’t be so harsh with your attitudes. No human being deserves some of the actions and wishes that I have read in these comments.
And no, I am not a smoker.
@sketchy: Because, with a bar, you are in the same room as the smoker when they light up, so you are inhaling 2nd hand smoke. With a hotel, you only smell the smoke after it has been absorbed by the room, so no actual damage to lungs.
@Trai_Dep: Him capitalizing wow is not a mistake. It is an internet use of typing to add emphasis, ala shouting at someone.