Should the travel industry end its war on smokers?

by Christopher Elliott on July 14, 2009

cigHaven’t smokers suffered enough already? You can’t help but wonder when you talk with someone like Efrin Knight, a French professor from Miami who enjoys an occasional cigar. “It’s more and more difficult to get out of my home because of the tyranny of nonsmokers,” he says.

Knight doesn’t want to light up a Cuban on a plane or bus, or even in a hotel room. He’d settle for outdoors. “I find it extremely difficult to have an espresso once I’ve turned on my cigar, except in places like Miami’s Little Havana,” he says.

It’s more than a little ironic that the persecution of smokers is a legitimate issue in 2009. Just two short decades ago, the travel industry was more than accommodating to visitors who wanted to have a cigarette. You could puff away in rental cars, hotel rooms, restaurants — even on flights.

Not today.

· Smoking isn’t allowed on scheduled commercial flights within the United States and on a vast majority of international flights. A partial ban went into effect in 1990 and a complete ban was announced in 1998. Not content to leave well enough alone, the latest FAA Reauthorization Bill will end smoking even on nonscheduled flights.

· Most hotel rooms are designated nonsmoking, according to the American Hotel & Lodging Association. The industry-wide number rose to 86 percent of rooms last year, up from 74 percent in 2006.

· Some rental car companies, including Enterprise and Alamo, forbid smoking in their cars, while others divide their fleet between smoking and non-smoking vehicles. If there’s a trend, it’s toward banning smoking in all rental cars.

· Statewide smoking bans are now common. This spring, North Carolina — yes, America’s premier tobacco-producing state — instituted an indoor smoking ban, following more than 30 other states, including Virginia. Smoking will not be permitted in restaurants and bars in the Tar Heel State.

Have we gone too far? Do smokers have to start their own airline in order to escape from our collective tyranny? First, a confession: I’m heavily biased toward non-smokers. I grew up in Europe in the 1970s, where travelers could light up everywhere and anywhere they pleased. One of the happiest days of my life was June 30, 2003, when an indoor smoking ban went into effect in my home state of Florida, and I could finally savor a restaurant meal without gagging on secondhand smoke.

Still, are we being a little overzealous here?

Before I offer a few reasons for declaring a truce on the tourism industry’s war on smokers, allow me to draw one more distinction: I’m not necessarily talking about the global travel business, only the U.S. industry. In other parts of the world, smokers still rule — for better or worse. Lanny Grossman just returned from Eastern Europe, where he experienced a kind of reverse discrimination. “I had to leave a nightclub in Sarajevo because I couldn’t breathe,” he says. “In Budapest, my dinner table at one of the sidewalk cafes was surrounded by smoke in every direction. There was nowhere to escape.”

Here’s why we need to lighten up when it comes to smoking.

1. There are lots of smokers.
About 1 in 4 adults — roughly 47 million people — smoke in the United States, according to the American Council for Drug Education. The number of adolescents is even higher — about one-third of young people smoke. At the beginning of the antismoking crackdown in the United States, smokers were said to command $1 trillion in annual purchasing power, but today they are treated as if they are invisible and impecunious.

2. They feel unwelcome.
Smokers are treated like second-class citizens when they travel, says Jacob Grier, a bartender who lives in Portland, Ore. Local antismoking ordinances are so strict that he can’t even light up in his own apartment. “Guests have to take an elevator down four stories and walk outside to a sidewalk on a busy street to light up, even though I have an outdoor balcony,” he says. “I can understand forbidding smoking inside the apartment, but this is just bad hospitality.” Grier’s experience is not uncommon for travelers. Whether it’s a smoke-free hotel or restaurant, the needs of smokers are rarely taken into consideration these days.

3. They have nowhere to go.
Communities are moving beyond reasonable indoor smoking bans, and trying to stamp out smoking altogether. Some of the most restrictive laws forbid smoking just about everywhere. Lighting up on the verandah or by the pool is no longer possible. Zak McCune has a front-row seat to the aftershocks of such restrictive nonsmoking laws in Japan. “It used to be a smoker’s paradise,” he says. “Now they’ve enacted laws that take away the smoker’s safe zones.” Those include fewer smoking cars on the bullet train and the elimination of smoking areas on train platforms. McCune, who teaches English, says Japanese reaction to the new laws is disbelief.

Is the travel industry turning its back on a quarter of its customers? Some of it is, some isn’t.

Cruise lines may be the sole bright spot for smokers, even though their effort to accommodate smokers is often alienating the other three-quarters of customers. At least that’s how Barbara Hershberg sees it. She just returned from a cruise from Portugal to Italy, and reports they were overwhelmed by second-hand smoke. “Cigarette and cigar odors permeated so many areas, and for some reason, seemed to linger in the stairwells, even though there was no indoor smoking except at the casino,” she says.

Should the travel industry try to turn back the clock, pushing for laws that permit smoking in hotels, planes and restaurants?

No. The dangers of secondhand smoke are indisputable. But shouldn’t smokers be allowed to enjoy a cigarette, cigar or pipe when they aren’t exposing anyone else to the dangerous carcinogens to which they’re addicted? As long as smoking is legal in America, the answer to that question ought to be: “yes.”

Even ardent nonsmokers like Bill Armstrong, a consultant based in Calgary, concede that smokers should have a place in this world. “In my opinion, a smoking area in a hotel should be away from where guests normally go,” he says. “The smoke from the smoking area should not blow into the hotel, pool or rooms.”

I agree. I think just as we used to allow smokers to indiscriminately consume tobacco products anywhere, we’ve now gone too far in the other direction. Maybe it’s time for a little balance.

Print Friendly

  • Dave

    Perhaps there are specific situations where laws have gone too far, but overwhelmingly I think the laws are needed for the benefit of all. I remember the days when stewardesses passed out cigarettes prior to a flight and I dreaded the next two hours of second-hand-smoke hell. On a recent trip, a hotel had no nonsmoking rooms available. The odor ruined my stay. The more inconvenient it is to light up, the less frequently smokers will do so, to the benefit of their own health and to the relief of everyone else who detests that smell and the carcinogens it carries.

  • Alexandra

    We have anti-pollution and auto emissions laws in this country. They make sense. As an RN who is very allergic to cigarette smoke, I applaud all those who prohibit smoking in public areas. Smelling cigarette or cigar smoke is akin to smelling someone’s body excrement! Smokers could have their own airline, and should have their own restaurants and bars where they can indulge to their content, but please don’t pollute my immediate environment!

  • Peter

    As someone who enjoys an occasional (fewer than 4-6 per year) fine cigar, I’m sympathetic to Efrin’s complaint – and yet I still think we need to keep the comfort and safety of the majority in mind. Cigars, especially, even the finest ones, leave an odour that lingers for days – becoming less and less pleasant over time. Me? I usually savour my investments on a fine evening, sitting on a bench in a lovely park: That way, I can truly enjoy the experience, and no one is forced to share it with me.

  • Shirley

    I can’t believe that you are even starting this discussion. The rights of others to breathe without being exposed to unhealthy smoke is not a debatable subject.

  • Susan

    This has been said over and over but I’ll say it again – a smoker’s right to smoke ends when it infringes on myu right to good health. The dangers of second hand smoke are clear. I do believe however that areas for smokers should be provided – separately (very separately) from non-smokers. You say that there are a lot of smokers – 1 in 4, so that would leave 3 out of 4 people who don’t smoke. Hello???

  • Deborah H.

    Here is my take on this. I am completely biased toward non-smokers because of how I grew up. I watched three close family members die of lung cancer from second hand smoke, YES, second hand smoke. None of them ever were smokers but lived with spouses who did. They died from cancer caused by breathing in the air in their homes. I feel that if people want to smoke,whether it be cigarettes or cigars this is their choice, but NO ONE should be forced to breathe their second hand smoke. Perhaps there should be hotels built strictly for smokers, where only smokers are on staff. And restaurants ONLY for smokers, where only smokers are on staff. But until and if that ever happens I don’t want my air contaminated by smoke. And clean air is more important to me than being concerned that smokers feel they are being treated like second class citizens. If these people had experienced the type of childhood I have in regards to smoking, it would not be hard for them to understand why so many are against having their air polluted….

  • LJ

    Agree 100% with all comments so far. And I also don’t believe anyone has the RIGHT to smoke…..I don’t recall that being mentioned in the Constitution.

  • Amy

    While I get that smoking is dangerous and people deserve to breathe clean air as often as possible, I do think it is getting to be a bit much. I appreciate designated smoking sections, like 50+ feet from the building entrance, but otherwise, if someone is in an outdoor park area or at the hotel pool, I am not going to hate them for having a cigarette. Let them kill themselves. They’re outdoors.

    It’s not just travel, by the way. My parents moved in to a brand new condo, and their community rules require my father to not just go outside, but to go downstairs and 25 feet away from the front door to smoke. It’s a $100 fine every time he is caught not following the rules. This is in his own home. He will take it as initiative to quit, but as far as I am concerned, that is a bit much.

  • http://Tripso Albert Bruton

    Smokers have absolutely NO rights to smoke where they please!
    There is no such thing as a SAFE way to smoke!
    When someone lights up ANY type of tobacco product it creates a cloud of toxic gases that permeate the air in ALL directions.
    This FORCES innocent bystanders, for great distances in all directions, to suffer these dangerous and offensive fumes.
    What is so difficult about understanding this simple concept?
    If a smoker lived in close proximity to an industrial site that was producing toxic and foul smelling fumes I’m certain they would complain to the authorities to have the practice ceased.
    Having “smoking areas” in public places is like having a “no peeing end” in a swimming pool. The spread of the smoke can not be controlled by any means.
    Smokers are addicted to a killer habit that is more dangerous to others than to themselves. Most of these addicts need to be regulated since they can’t do so themselves.
    They wreak havoc on public and private property with the residual damage to anything that comes in contact with the smoke produced.
    Did you ever see a smoker carry away their but ends? They seem to believe the world is one big ashtray.
    They cause fire and health insurance insurance rates to be much higher for all of the non smokers.
    I could go on and on about the reasons to continue the “war against smoking” but to sum it all up I will say that the biggest favor that anyone can do for a tobacco addict is to make it extremely difficult for someone too start the habit in the first place and/or to continue in their use of the product.

  • DocInDetroit

    Cigarette smoke damages the public health. Period. While nicotine may be the single most addictive substance that people can get their hands upon, this addiction (representing only 25% of the population) should never subvert the well being of non-smokers.

    Hooray for a full ban on smoking indoors, in planes, cars, and hotel rooms! Smoking should be banned in all locations except a smoker’s privately-owned house.

    Unwelcome indeed! Quitting is difficult … not impossible.

    Good riddance

  • ton

    wel the answer is no

    1st hand smoke hurts a lot of smokers , 2nd hand smoke hurts al lot of other people and the latest information shows that the toxins in smoke coat your clothes and body, so the next time you tell yourself it is oke because you don’t smoke near the kids think again, the levels on your clothes alone is high enough to hurt and a hug will transfer that to your kids.

    as far as the arguments
    1 no argument here, but a lot of people speed, do (other) drugs, fight and cheat on their taxes etc. 1 in 4 men in south africa has commited rape btw. The fact that a lot of people do something is not a argument.

    2 so are rude people etc. also not a reason

    3. yes the can, the can go where they want they just don’t get to smoke there it is that simple, and they can stop period.

    Smoking has no use, no benefits only causes problems

    Here is the best argument of all (saving your life not enough) stop smoking and you save enough money for a holiday

  • Janet

    I’ve developed asthma due to second hand smoke and even passing a cigar in an outdoor area is enough to bring on an attack . Smokers tend to congregrate in areas where you cannot avoid walking by them – by the exits to airports, doors to buildings. All I really want is to be able to avoid the smoke. BTW, at the end of the week my clothes and suitcase inevitably smell like cigarettes

  • http://tripso.com Martha Caruana

    I am sick and tired of people beating up on people who smoke. I live in Staten Island, NY and commute to work every day. I take two trains and a ferry. When the ferry pulls away from the slip the stench of oil and fumes is repulsive. When you go downstairs to take the trains, between the fumes, smells and creatures running around these people have the nerve to complain about secondhand smoke. Anyone who lives in a metropolis city (i.e. NY, ATlanta, Los Angeles, Boston) are subjected to car and bus fumes everyday when they commute and these people are worried about second hand smoke. If we want to light up JUST LEAVE US ALONE!!!!!

  • Bill

    Smoking is harmful to everyone, including those who are non smokers.

    One smoker can pollute a very wide area and affect hundreds of others whilst having even one cigarette.

    A considerable number of smokers choose to ignore no-smoking regulations and show a lack of consideration towards others.

    As can be told on the several other forums that this article has been posted on, a significant number of smokers are quite unreasonable in their assertations that they have a “right” to pollute other people’s airspace.

    Since you can run into tobacco smoke only a couple of minutes from almost anywhere on earth (maybe not planes, but almost anywhere else), we are very far still from an acceptable level of restriction on this obnoxious habit.

    by calling it a “War on smokers” you might have it backwards. The “smokers” started the conflict by polluting else’s everyone’s air.

    The efforts to contain it are merely a reaction to their rather obnoxious habit.

    The more places it is banned, the better. The more severe the penalties and the stricter the enforcement, the better.

    It is not too “harsh” “harsh” is having to smell it in the first place.

  • Henry Mensch

    it’s not the travel industry’s “war on smoking” … society ittself has decided that the risks and unpleasantness of second-hand smoke aren’t worth the cost and inconvenience.

  • http://www.icheapairfares.com/blog Isaac

    If passengers were allowed to smoke then could I have an extra loud conversation on that same flight?

    I should have every right to converse as loudly as I’d like since it’s something I enjoy doing. It bothers me when I’m at a restaurant or on a flight and I’m told to speak at a normal decibel level.

    If only there was an airline where I could talk as loudly as I’d like on flights. After a long day, the sound of my voice bellowing throughout a room (or plane cabin) is therapeutic for me, similar to a nicotine rush.

    Could I equal their smoke pollution with my noise pollution on flights?

  • Rebecca

    I have read this article and the posts. I am constantly dumbfounded by how neurotic anti-smokers are. It is impossible to be allergic to second hand smoke since it is not an allergen. Asthma is not caused by shs but most likely pharmaceutical drugs. The hysteria coming out of the anti-smoking movement is totally unwarrented. People must breathe the fumes from your car, parfume, cleaning supplies, weed killers and fertilizers…….on and on and on and yet you complain about second hand smoke which is 98% water vapor?

  • Billy

    Wait a dang minutehere! First of all why is it that in a anti smokers brain they think they are going every where? Hmm lets see how many of your anti smokers belong to a private club, how many of you plan on going to strip clubs, how many of you are gamblers, do you anti smokers drink heavily? Hmm I think I know whats wrong, the anti smokers lead a far more indulging lifestyle! Or that they are afraid of life in general!

  • marb

    First of all, ANY harm from second hand smoke is absolutely disputed. Second hand smoke is 98% water vapor. Big pharma began this entire charade just to benefit themselves with their own brand of nicotine, you know the products that cause skin lesions, hair loss, tooth loss and cancer, far more so than smoking ever did. Big pharma spent almost a billion dollars for this charade. It’s not hard to find all of this out. This charade has gone so far as to cause psychosis when it comes to smoke. Smokers are so overtaxed and alienated that they WILL NOT spend their money where they are not welcome. It has been written that the Great Depression was caused by Prohibition. The economy started to tank with the advent of smoking bans recently. My business welcomes smokers and non-smokers, anti-smoker zealots can go elsewhere!

  • virgilk

    So what some are saying is, you don’t like the smell. If you check, you will find that we are not guaranteed the right to breath air of any kind. You may not need a treadmill because, like smokers, your unable to detect your own smell. You may stink to high heavens and not know it. Likewise smokers are not aware of the stench you claim. Common courtesy is not the problem because it isn’t thought to be offensive by the smoker.
    If you worry about being on a plane with stinky smokers, that shouldn’t be your worst fear. Now that smoking isn’t allowed on Planes they no longer introduce fresh air into the Plane. Now the air is recirculated and any airborne virus is easily spread. There are more sicknesses spread world wide now than ever before.
    Try spending 20 minutes in an enclosed area with a running car and you die. That same 20 minutes in a room full of smoker will just make you stink. And your lungs will be clear in an hour or less. There is no proof that SHS has caused one death.

  • virgilk

    The planes dump Tons of carcinogens at Airports every day. The CDC says the average non-smoking male lives to age 70 The average Smoking male lives to 71.9.
    An airport where hundreds of planes are freely spewing jet fuel fumes into the terminals’ air intakes?? Looking at just two of the emissions that jets and cigarettes have in common shows how ridiculous this is. According to the Surgeon Generals’ 1986 Report on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, a cigarette puts out a total of 3 mg of nitrogen oxide (NO) and 40 mg of carbon monoxide (CO). The 1995 EPA study on airplane emissions cites a single 747 takeoff/landing at about 115 pounds of NO and 32
    pounds of CO. That’s 52 million mg of NO and 14 million mg of CO if you do the math.
    Doing a bit more math for a typical 500 takeoffs/landings per day shows us that
    the nice clean smokefree air being pumped into those terminals has the CO equivalent of over 160 million cigarettes and the NO of Eight and a Half BILLION cigarettes. All of which is being shwooshed right into the lungs of travelers who are supposedly receiving a “dangerous dose” from a few cigarettes being puffed in secluded and sealed off terminal areas and bars. This would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

  • virgilk

    The Congressional Research Service is a branch of the Library of Congress and has all the resources of that esteemed institution at its disposal. It is highly respected, accepted by both Republicans and Democrats as fair and impartial, has no ties to tobacco, no regulatory or other agenda, and accepts no outside funding. But the CRS, at the request of the U.S. Congress, looked at the issue and concluded: “It is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS [environmental tobacco smoke].” Further, it stated that nonsmokers exposed to pack-a-day ETS every day for 40 years have “little or no risk of developing lung cancer”—much less dying from it.
    Note above is from post below.

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14557405&postID=2205762135125440162&page=1
    Edmund Contoski said…
    I challenge the writers of the above comments to cite even ONE study done according to established biostatistical standards that shows SHS produces death and disease in nonsmokers. All the studies that purport to show danger from ETS depend on invalid statistical manipulations, debasing scientific standards, misrepresentation of the actual studies, or other corruption.

  • http://www.smokersclubinternational.com MsProgressive

    It seems apparent that most of the commenters here have drunk the “anti-tobacco” Kool-Aid, brought to you by the pecuniary interests of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation – “charitable” arm of J&J, and makers (or patent holders) of Nicorette, Nicoderm and Chantix. (And for good measure, Founders of “The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.”)

    For every tax exempted dollar RWJF contributes to the “altruistic” propandists who are “tobacco control” J&J makes TEN Dollars in cessation product sales. Nice “back door” advertising, if you can get it – esp. with those tidy tax benefits!

    Intolerance has become rampant in America, thanks to the Nanny Staters who support “mob rule democracy” (and profiteering) over “liberty and justice” for ALL. Therefore I tip my hat to this writer, and his attempt to shed light on this blatant intolerance. I think he might actually be interested to know that in 1993 a U.S. District Court Judge tossed the anti ringleader from court for his fabrications regarding the “dangers” of SHS. Fabrications that are still widely repeated today.

    The “holier than thou,” PC attitudes of those who would arm-twist others to “live as I live” and eject smokers from “polite society” foments just one dirty reality in these United States – to whit:

    http://img259.imageshack.us/i/hatelegalof4.jpg/

  • Allan

    ‘but overwhelmingly I think the laws are needed for the benefit of all’

    Hmmm, another person sucking on the anti-smoking Kool-Aid, as usual. Try telling this to businesses that were designed for smokers, and/or businesses that chose on their own accord to cater to smoking customers! And for the latter, especially stand-alone bars that decided on their own to cater to smokers, before local or state smoking bans came into place, and killed thousands of local mom-and-pop bars, plus affecting other types of businesses in different ways(i.e. cutting staff, reducing hours of operation, etc.) as a result. This has happened to plenty of diners that used to be 24/7 in the Chicago area, both after Illinois’ statewide ban begun, and after local bans that took effect before the state ban started.

    I wish the way this issue could’ve been resolved, over passing total smoking bans with almost no exceptions, would be to only prohibit smoking in truly public buildings(i.e. government buildings, public transit buses, etc.), and require private businesses to post exterior signage at each entrance stating ‘smoking prohibited’, ‘smoking restricted’(and allowing businesses to qualify for this status by using ventilation systems, fully physical separated smoking rooms, or whatever it took to meet a minimal air quality standard), or ‘smoking establishment’. Some communities very wisely chose to do this(i.e. New Haven, IN, Lake Saint Louis, MO, etc.), over passing comprehensive bans. Of course, common sense like this freaks the hell out of antis, since such a solution goes against what such groups try to do(totally squash free choice on the smoking issue).

    Really wish more states had been brave to hold out against anti groups, and not as many caved in to bans(i.e. North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nebraska(as a ban passed in 2008 finally started this year), Oregon(same thing as NE), etc.). Kudos to state legislatures that did stop state smoking ban proposals, such as Texas, Kansas, Wyoming, and Indiana to name several. Honorary mention to Louisiana for stopping a bar and casino smoking ban, Connecticut for stopping an Indian Casino smoking ban, and South Dakota, as enough signatures were collected to suspend their ban, and put a smoking ban proposal on the 2010 ballot.

  • http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.35422/ Rick

    Here’s a link to the American Lung Association’s second hand smoke or ETS statistics. I’m sure smokers will say that it’s all bogus. You better hope the president doesn’t quit smoking. He’s already raised the tax on tobacco products. He may figure if he can quit so can you.

  • Rick

    Oops! Hit enter before I was done. Had to run to turn off my air conditioner because, my neighbor was outside smoking and thus filling my home with smoke.
    Here you go: http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.35422/

    http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4521

Previous post:

Next post: