Does the Smoke-free Hotel policy apply to Marriott’s international properties?

The policy is optional in our international properties at this time. We will continue to offer non-smoking guestrooms in all hotels located outside of North America but will allow international properties to accommodate local laws, cultures and preferences when deciding to implement the smoke-free hotel policy at individual hotels.

Thanks, I see.
So there's no "chain-wide ban on smoking rooms".
The ban is only valid in one single country. @:-)

Not sure the Canadians approve of your statement

You mean Canada is not considered "international"?
When did that happen? I didn't get the invasion memo.
Funny, those Americans. However, I do like their non-smoking policies. Hence, I'll have more than 50 Marriott nights on U.S. based Marriott properties this year. Not counting those funny "international" stays.

It's funny how most of the responses are from ex-smokers or nonsmokers. I'm a current die-hard smoker, and I definitely do adjust my travel plans according to the currently increasing nonsmoking regulations in airports and hotels.

I lament the loss of bars and restaurants that used to allow smoking past security and close to gates. I would stay there until the absolute last minute to board. Now, if wait-time and short security lines allow, or if there is a serious delay in the flight, I will sometimes exit security for a last-minute smoke outside before boarding begins.

I remember when Air France first banned smoking on international flights to/from the United States. At first, they actually provided packets of Nicorette sublingual tablets (not available still till this day in the USA) to their smoking passengers, and they were very effective. I'm not sure whether they still do this.

On my current long-haul international flights, I do use Commit lozenges and Nicorette gum as last resorts when the smoking urge becomes uncomfortable (usually about 4-6 hours into a flight). Even with nicotine replacement aids, I am anxious to deplane and get that first cigarette lit outside, even before going to baggage claim.

On domestic flights, on flights longer than 4 hours, I definitely choose stop-overs in airports that either have easy access to the outdoors without a security hassle to return, or provide smoking lounges (like ATL and Denver). Whenever possible, I avoid airports that have ridiculously restrictive nonsmoking regulations; for example, I no longer fly to Tahiti via HNL, which now bans smoking even in its spacious and empty outdoor areas with trade winds blowing through, where my second-hand smoke would annoy no one.

I no longer stay in Marriotts or any other hotel with a 100% nonsmoking policy. In some locations (e.g., HNL), this often makes it difficult to find an available room.

I like to think that I am a considerate smoker. I do not smoke close to other people unless they are smokers, even in outdoor areas; I always find a "designated smoking area" before lighting up; and I carry a small portable ashtray with a lid and do not litter with my butts. I wouldn't DREAM of lighting up in an airline lavatory!

I hope this helps the OP with information. It's been my experience in most forums that the "smoking" topic brings out a lot of judgmental opinion from nonsmokers. I don't need a lecture -- I know I have a habit that is becoming more and more socially unacceptable -- but I am among the approximate 15-20% of the traveling public that still smokes; and smoking is still a legal activity, and a personal choice.

I was on a flight from Frankfurt to the U.S. back when smoking was allowed, and there was a group of 30 or so German smokers aboard who had been booked in the smoking section. They were taking turns moving to the back of the cabin sitting on one or two empty seats and smoking. I was in the very last row of non-smoking and it was killing me. But it was also killing the smokers, just because they had non-stop smoking next to them.

The cabin got so smokey that and some of the passengers were getting sick, so the pilot finally banned smoking on the entire flight for an hour or two, and the Germans were banned from sitting in the empty seats to smoke.

I used to fly the Singapore Air non-stop from Newark to S'pore and back. 18-19 hours. As another poster mentioned, my brain seemed to accept the fact that there wasn't going to be any nicotine flowing in and so I had no cravings.

I was peeved the one time I checked into a Marriott unaware that they changed the policy. The one I stay at most often, however, has a wing of rooms on the ground floor that have sliders to a small patio. This works out pretty well. No stinky room, and less consumption having to get up and go outside. At another property, they were happy to give me a room at the end of the hall next to a key-card access side entrance.

I do have a problem with airports that do not offer anywhere to smoke without having to trek out through security. The many that do offer some sort of facility show proof that it can be handled without intrusion on non-smokers.

I have always wondered whether I could partner with the inventors/engineers out there to produce a product that could bypass the lavatory smoke detectors.

Perhaps some sort of a contraption with a tube, a filter (acting like a sponge to sop up the smoke), a fan, and a cover for the smoke detector? Maybe some sort of variation of the desk-top smoke-sucker that I have seen in people's offices back when smoking was allowed in such places. I am not very good with mechanical things, so I have no idea if this is possible. I am sure that it is possible -- I guess the question is whether it would be practical to carry-on and how cheaply we could produce it? Judging from the responses here, perhaps there wouldn't be enough smokers desperate enough to shell out, say, $299.95 for such a device. . .

(Yes, I know, this would still be violating the laws and, taken to the extreme, perhaps present a danger for fellow passengers, but let's put those concerns aside arguendo.)

Of course it can be done; it's a no-brainer. The inexorable disappearance of smoking facilites inside airports has nothing at all to do with practicality and very little to do with health issues either. It's just the anti-smoking zealots insisting on having things their way (not just in airports BTW).

Well, AA does not consider Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean to be international destinations when you try to get lounge access when flying on a business class ticket...

My sister smokes a couple packs a day and she really has a hard time on flights although they are just a few hours long. I never flew back when smoking was allowed. I couldn't imagine being in an enclosed area breathing in someone else's secondhand smoke. It is bad enough when you get a non-smoking room at a hotel and the person before you decided to smoke in it. There are many considerate smokers but at the same time, many that are not.

Wally Bird,

I can not tell you how many times I have come home after being around smokers and have had to wash my hair and my children's hair to get the smell of smoke out. I'm not an anti-smoking zealot just a person who has seen both of my parents die from lung cancer. They stopped smoking after the kids were born because I asked them to but not soon enough to save their lives.

I can get over the smell but I can not get over all the lives that are lost both from first and second hand smoke. I'm all for your right to smoke if that is your choice but please don't call us zealots for not wanting to be around it.

Amen to that. I don't have a problem with people smoking, it just shouldn't invade on others.

Will that cover the product liability insurance?

And I'm all for your right not to be around smoke or smokers.

As someone mentioned some smokers are inconsiderate, but that's a characteristic not limited to smokers IME. I reserve the zealot description for those who would eliminate entirely the option for smokers to smoke if they want without affecting others. You surely remember that when most/all airports (and other public buildings) did provide smoking areas, that you didn't have to walk past and through a gaggle of smokers/smoke at the entrance. And there weren't heaps of butts on the sidewalk etc.

But this is somehow seen as an improvement ?

Give smokers somewhere to smoke away from you and others who are bothered by it and most will happily comply. Give them nowhere to smoke and most of them will do it anyway; likely where you have to pass by or through. Excuse them for not feeling terribly upset about that ^ .