Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Smoke if you got 'em: Washington DC to OK hotel smoking
Non-smokers probably won't be too excited by the news, but cigar smokers will rejoice. The Washington DC City Council passed a measure last week that eases smoking restrictions on hotels in our nation's capital. The Special Event Exemption Emergency Act of 2010 carries an amendment that offers a way for hotels to be exempted from the city's smoking ban. If you prefer your hotels sans puffing, there's no cause for alarm – the rules are pretty narrow.Hotels will be allowed to host special cigar-smoking events once a year, as long as at least 500 people are in attendance (which means the venue must be large enough to accommodate this number of guests). Also, the hotel will have to notify the Department of Health and pay a $250 fee. Quite simply, it has to be a pretty hefty occasion.
As with any "emergency" measure, you'd be correct to assume that this law was passed with something specific in mind. In this case, it was the city's annual St. Patrick's Day dinner, organized by the social organization the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick. Historically, the patron saint of Ireland is toasted with brandy and a cigar.
In Washington DC, most emergency legislation lasts for 90 days, but this measure stretches out for 270, as the council also wanted to protect a charity event called Friday Night Fight, which is held on November 11. Last year, it raised more than $2.8 million for Fight for Children.
Read these great hotel reviews from Gadling
Filed under: North America, United States, Hotels and Accommodations
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Maria R Martinez Mar 8th 2010 8:31PM
So in order for the hotels and tobacco industry to make money, you are willing to jepordize the employees working to second hand smoke which also kills. Shame Shame
Richard Ott Mar 8th 2010 8:38PM
Barach Obama, as a person who's trying to kick the habit, himself,
he should sign a bill to ban smoking from the Washington DC hotels,
before this whole thing gets out of hand. Not only that, the surgeon
general should warn him that rejecting that bill could become
extremely hazardous to our health.
shempbat Mar 8th 2010 8:50PM
I think that there should be smokers bars and hotels, oh, and restaurants too. They should be staffed with smokers. Of course, someone will scream discrimination of some sort. But WTH, just a suggestion.
Tom Mar 8th 2010 10:18PM
The whole second hand smoke issue is blown way out of hand. If you don't like the smell, that's one thing, but, to claim that breathing in some second hand smoke is going to kill you is ridiculous. We breath in small quantities of all sorts of crap every day and our systems deal with it quite well. Look at all the people in their 90s that have breathed in all sorts of crap. When you inhale a cigarette, significant quantities of smoke goes directly into your lungs. We all know how harmful that is. But the concentration of second hand smoke in a room is very very low. The smoke is diluted by the quantity of air in the room. If you don't like the smell or you have sinus problems then that's one thing. But to act like a little smoke is going to hurt you is over-reacting in my opinion.
Jackie Estrella Mar 8th 2010 10:38PM
Tom, have you read the amazing amount of scientific research on the effects of second hand smoke? If you did, you would not be commenting. You sound like a person that is so selfish in his addiction, that to hell with everyone else. The first hand effect is so horrible in itself. I lost beloved parents too early because of their addiction. My health suffers and I am on oxygen every night due to exposure from a lifetime of second hand smoke. Sinus problems go hand in hand. I should not have to medicate myself when I sit next to someone who smells like a human ashtray. Believe me smokers do stink.
You have probably tried many times to quit and failed. You have caved in and now sound aggressive to non smokers. Just exactly why are there so many laws against smoking now? If you want to kill yourself, fine, but don't drag me and others with you. Read the research and STFU.
Tom Mar 8th 2010 11:04PM
Jackie, Actually I have read quite a bit on the subject. The studies that have been done on second hand smoke are based on statistics. Many of them rely upon anecdotal evidence and play fast and loose with the criteria used to determine who was harmed by second hand smoke. The largest study was conducted in California on 35,000 couples where one smoked and the other didn't. But you don't hear much about it. The occurence of health problems amongst the non-smoking spouses was insignificantly increased. Another finding was that children of smokers experienced fewer allergy problems later in life than children who were not exposed to smoke. Apparently being exposed to small quantities of crap in the air helps them build up immunities. It works that way with germs too. I am certainly not disputing the fact that directly inhaling on a cigarette is very harmful. But, the majority of second hand smoke studies are based on questionable statistical data and not on cause and effect. We have studies that say hair dye causes cancer, that chemicals in our foods are killing us, and everything else is causing us harm. If you look behind who pays for the studies all of a sudden you realize they have an agenda.
George Mar 8th 2010 11:53PM
TOM, I'M with YOU... I am SO tired of all this anti-smoking nonsense. In this country where every square inch contains an SUV, the health-Nazi anti-smoking loons are STILL relying, basically, on the results of ONE study, conducted circa 1968; second-hand smoke, blah blah blah. I've read about this study time and again. I am in no way belittling the suffering anyone endures, specifically those with lung problems. It's no joke, but THAT is not necessarily THIS. Not only are smokers villified as human trash but we're asked to pay no less than punitive taxes for our smokes. Isn't that nice... curse us to the dogs and back, then have us pay $10+ for the honor. This has been going on for years, and I've seen no signs of any breaks coming our way.
Debbie Mar 8th 2010 10:52PM
I think the non-smokers have enough places to go. Why shouldn't there be places for smokers? Smoking cigarettes is not illegal so why should smokers be discriminated against? I work in a restaurant where our restaurant is non-smoking, and always has been, but our bar is smoking. I get so tired of the people who have the nerve to come in and complain. There are plenty of places for them to go now that Virginia has passed the law for there to be no smoking in restaurants. I know one billiards place that went out of business because people could no longer smoke there. People should have a choice. Restaurants, bars, and billiard rooms should be able to decide if they want it non-smoking or smoking. If people don't want to go where they allow smoking then don't go, go somewhere else. If people want to go where they allow smoking, there should be places for them to go.
Patsy Mar 8th 2010 11:04PM
I agree with you 100%. I am in Florida and we have no smoking in restaurants. I have often wondered what the state would do should someone apply for a permit to have a smokers coffee shop.
Tom Mar 8th 2010 11:10PM
Debbie, Amen! Why do non-smokers feel they have the right to outlaw smoking establishments that they don't have to go to? I'd like to outlaw fat people from going into restaurants. If we ridiculed fat people as much as we ridicule smokers half of the population would cry foul. Live and let live.
Jackie Estrella Mar 9th 2010 12:19AM
Tom, I don't get it. First you quote a California study on second hand smoking, then you say the other studies have agendas. What about the world wide studies from other countries, for instance Japan. Japanese women have the highest rate of lung cancer in the world, from second hand smoke (i.e. their husbands) who are type A driven men in their work. When they smoke, they have filters. The wives do not. This is fact. But I am wasting my time. You know it all. Most of the people that have responded are in favor of smoking and deny the horrible effects of smoking. Surely you have read what the medical research is, but you don't give a rat's ass because you can't kick it. Addiction, pure and simple. So YOUR agenda is to force it on other people. Listen, if you have a basement, turn it into a cigar bar. That way you can have the toxins all to yourself. Live and let die.
Suzy Mar 8th 2010 11:34PM
Two things here: Tom vs. Jackie on Adverse Effects of Smoking: Tom wins This one!
Second: Regarding the ban the was lifted in Washington, D.C., doesn't have anything to do with making smokers feel more comfortable again. It all has to do, with The President, Obama, who smokes cigarettes, and if you think he quit or maybe slowed down? I don't think so. He has one of the most stressful jobs, ever! I'm sure the president has to stay at various hotels, for different causes whatever they may be. Now if the president lights up in one of these ritzy hotels where it's very illegal to smoke.. Surely, Obama can't break the law, nor set a poor example, by, breaking the rules. So do you think these hotels suddenly got a streak of kindness
and wanted to make smokers happier? Wrong! It's all politics - again!!!
Dave Mar 8th 2010 11:54PM
I have to agree with Tom. The more I look into second hand smoke the more I find that makes a good case for it's relative harmlessness. Nobody ever hears about the World Health Organization study that showed no ill effects and in fact children from smoking homes were 22% less likely to get cancer when they got older. Of course if you look at their website now it looks like they joined the ranks of anti-smoking. We hear how health care costs for smokers is higher yet we never see how those conclusions are reached or if all "smoking related" deaths are counted as being from smoking when it wasn't. Smoking related and from smoking aren't the same and who can say that smoking caused anything. There's also evidence that second hand smoke does not trigger asthma attacks. And how come the general public DOES NOT KNOW about the SV40 monkey virus that was present in millions of doses of the polio vaccine administered in the late 50's and early 60's that can cause cancer in us baby boomers? One can only guess at the reason why there's an anti-smoking lobby but seeing that drugs make in US are less expensive in Mexico and Canada one might wonder just how strong the drug companies are and if the lobby is there so the drug companies can hawk their ineffective stop smoking products. Of course in the mean time states are making big money from their smokers under the guise of "health care costs" yet the outrageous taxes don't go to any heath care the majority of smokers use. Some idiot in my state of SC wants to raise the cigarette tax by $1 a pack to pay for education and Medicaid and GA is looking to do the same. And in case some smokers aren't aware of this, there's a bill pending in Congress to kill the Internet sale of cigarettes so your state can rip you off more and more with no recourse. Tell you Senators to oppose BIll S1147!
Dave Mar 9th 2010 12:16AM
Opps. Senate Bill S-1147, not congressional.
Hey ya know, funny how the bill specifically excludes cigars. I wonder how many Senators smoke cigars?
maria27 Mar 9th 2010 12:25AM
MY aunt a non smoker was married to my uncle who was a 1-2 pack aday smoker. My aunt died of lung cancer a horrible death. there is somthing to it.
les808 Mar 9th 2010 1:10AM
cigarette smoking is bad for everyone on the highways and streets thats why we have so many laws to restict smoking almost every where. alcohol on the other hand is ok because it creates a lot of jobs. bartenders, liquor store clerks etc.
oh yeah, i forgot, morticians. so, next time you read about a drunk mother driving up the highway drunk and killing inocent kids, just remember, its ok. alcohol provides lots of jobs and taxes and thats why congress is not going to do anything about it.
LeRoy Mar 11th 2010 7:09PM
It was 5 years today that I quit smoking. I was a 2 pack a day smoker for 32 years and quit cold turkey, and it worked for me because I thought about it for a long time, and wanted to do it while I was still healthy and not having any problems. My home and cars smell better because of it. However, I have many friends who are smokers and I did not expect them to quit just because I did. I am still around them some, and visit their homes which they smoke in, and that is their choice. And, to be honest, it does not bother me. And, I sometimes visit casinos that still allow it, and that does not bother me unless someone blows it in my face. It doesn't smell real good, but hey, smokers have their rights too, and if you don't like it, then you don't have to patronize places that still allow it. When I see people in there with face masks on, it makes me want to laugh!! If it bothers you that much, then don't go there. I hate nothing more, than a hypocrite. As far as health goes, yea, it is not good for you, but then again, breathing isn't much better.
just MEE Mar 9th 2010 3:21AM
why does d.c. control the world ? they can't tie there frecking shoes !! no wonder the world hates the u.s.a. the "united states of ahlai" any one see where this boat is going ? americans are sheep ! i quit going to non smoking places. how much are they profiting on me now ? no one said i have to eat there !! go some where else & let the non smokers have the dump !! i just go away !! poof !! no more of my cash for the control freaks !!
Bonne Mar 9th 2010 3:22AM
I agree with LES808-
Finally a law that makes sense. Whatever people say, if something is legal why is it acceptable then that smokers are made to feel like 2nd class citizens? My 17 year old daughter was hit by a drunk driver(who happened to be a fireman), she was in a coma for 3 weeks, she suffered a servere brain injury, had 5000 stitches in her face, lost 70% of her vision in her left eye, and needed to have emergency reconstructive surgery on her face. To date my daughter has had over 16 surgeries because there are no laws to stop drunks(I know what someone will say, there are laws for driving drunk and over the limit, that is true but you need to catch these people first), who when then get into their cars is the equivalence of them carrying a load weapon.
The laws for smoking are across the boards, I wish that were true for the liquor industry that has major lobbyist in Washington, and are back by millions upon millions of dollars.
People just need to accountable for themselves. Why do we need to have restrictions placed on us by the government? As previously stated if an establishment has restrictions such as no smoking then smokers can just just give their patronage to establishments that allow smoking.
Sometimes I think we allow ourselves to be "handled" by government. Government is controlled by who has the most to contribute to their "war chest", and it just that simple
abbyvlle Mar 9th 2010 4:04AM
Can you really trust non-smokers. Seems like they want to dictate to everybody and run everybodys life while hiding their flaws. We know that nobody is perfect. Yet non-smokers like others to believe that they are, enough to be able to tell others what is best for them. If they knew so much about what is best for everybody, they would stop being so phony. Lying and dictating is usually a waste of time, people aren't as stupid as non-smokers would like to believe. Smokers aren't special, but they know it, know what they want and don't ask for people's opinion. They don't need it and are getting tired of having to hear unsolicited bunk.