Originally Posted by
hedur
So...anyone who prefers to not breathe second (or third) hand cigarette smoke, AND prefers to not have their expensive hotel room and/or clothes reek of smoke is a "smoking zealot" or "smoking Nazi"?
We are, with the exception of those on oxygen support. all inhaling smoke/particles of various types, including smoke, first hand, second hand,third hand or 20th hand.
Originally Posted by
hedur
Despite the coments to the contrary, the smokers have made it clear that they are the out of touch extremists in this thread.
How so? I have not seen any smoker here say that they will smoke anywhere regardless of what the rules are? I cannort speak for those who have no expressed their view here.
Originally Posted by
hedur
The only time we care is when your habit forces us to inhale your smoke simlpy because our sliding glass door is open on our balcony.
I don't think smokers or any one should be forced to inhale anything they don't wish to inhale, nor has anyone here suggested that. What people are saying is that there are certain places where you might encounter smoke. NO one is advocating ignoring signs or disobeying rules.
Originally Posted by
hedur
A good hypocrisy test would be this: if the hotel decided to dump an extremely large steaming pile of feces within smelling distance of your room, would you have a problem with it?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
The hotel will have a bigger problem than I would. I could go to another hotel, but the hotel will have to answer to health department. The hotel will probably shut down.
The analogy is completely off the mark. Dumping fecal matter, I am sure, against local laws.
Originally Posted by
PVDtoDEL
What's wrong with smoking in non-smoking rooms? Perhaps the part that you aren't supposed to smoke in a non-smoking room?
I think you misunderstood. He did not suggest that people smoke in non-smoking rooms. He was talking about separate smoking and non-smoking rooms.
After reading all the responses here, I am left wondering when the last time someone here who thingks the non-smoking rules at hotels are stupid/meant to be ignored, don't apply to them etc light up a cigarette on an airplane? If they haven't anytime recently why not? Clearly the law prohibiting smoking is an illegal one and anyone who chose to fight it in court would score a major victory for those who can't go 3.5 hours without smoking.
Your claim is not supported by facts, that one can elicit from opinions expressed here. NO one has suggested that rules should be ignored or they don't apply to them. When people make statements like the one above, makes one think of people with a mission to conquer, hence the reason for using "nazi" in this context.
I am suure you know that smoking in the plane is not the same thing as smoking on a balcony. There is no explicit rule against smoking on the balcony in most hotels. Non-smoking policy in hotels is just that, policy while non-smoking rule on an aircraft has the force of law. I am sure ypu understand the difference.