Budget, Avis ban smoking in cars

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC News

Smoking bans are spreading from planes, trains and buses to another mode of transit: rental cars.

Beginning Oct. 1, Avis and Budget will become the first major rental-car companies to ban smoking in their entire North American fleets and to impose a cleaning fee of up to $250 on customers who smoke in the cars.

"The No. 1 request we get is for a smoke-free car," says John Barrows, spokesman of the Avis Budget Group, the parent company. He says a common customer complaint is a car that smells of smoke, adding, "We're addressing both concerns."

Barrows says employees who drive the vehicles are no longer allowed to smoke and the cars will undergo a new inspection upon return. He says it costs the company more to clean a smoky car, because it often has to be taken out of service longer.

Avis is following a smoke-free travel trend that took off two decades ago. In 1988, Congress banned smoking on short domestic flights and in 1990 expanded that to flights of up to six hours. That year, it also banned smoking on interstate buses.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/budget-avis-ban-smoking-cars/story?id=8565519

[Catch22Dem]

1. Works for me (n/t)

[azmouse]

2. I'm good with that.

[Warpy]

3. Good luck to them enforcing that one!

Smokers all think if they keep the windows open and throw the butts out on the road nobody will ever know.

Unfortunately, nonsmokers always do know. The whole car stinks for at least a week.

While I'd love to think the policy would be respected, I just know it won't be.

They'd better just stick to a good cleaning with a lot of Febreze.

[TheCML]

5. Are you kidding?

They will enforce it and people will get screwed. If there is one thing rental car companies are good at, its screwing people over.

[Catch22Dem]

7. How is having to pay for violating the rules considered getting screwed?

If you sign the agreement, then smoke in the car, then have to pay for it, you're not getting screwed, you're screwing yourself.

[TheCML]

10. You missed the point

This will be relative from one employees sense of smell to the next. I have known lots of people accused of doing some sort of damage to a rental car that they didnt do. Rental car companies are notorious for this, if there was some way they could do this without mistakes, I would be all for it. Similar to how my last apartment complex accused me of smoking in my apartment and tried to charge me a fine, I have never smoked a day in my life.

[Catch22Dem]

21. Fair enough

That makes sense. Very subjective.

Something else to consider, and even backs up your point. If they get the car cleaned from a smoker, it's going to smell clean initially, but the smoke smell may come back after you've rented it, and you'd get stuck with the bill.

[KansDem]

65. That happened to me once...

I rented a car and noticed a small dent in the right-front quarter panel. I brought the car back in the same condition and when the rental-car attendant did his "walk around," he stopped and looked at the dent and then looked on the previous "walk around" sheet. Apparently, the fellow before him didn't mark that dent down, but there was enough confusion as to what was on the sheet that I wasn't charged.

I thought after that I'd bring a camera and do my own "walk around."

[Javaman]

135. Always do that.

I used to drive for a production company in the past. We used to rent a lot of trucks. It was beaten into me to always do my own walk around. The trunk rental companies are always trying to defer costs.

I would point out the most teeny tiny dings or dents.

[Zoeisright]

15. +1

[Javaman]

134. Fail. The cars are theirs to do as they wish. If you don't like them, don't rent them.

really, it's that simple.

[onehandle]

6. That's exactly right.

Except the smell stays forever.

If you do smell 'Febreze' or something in that family, it's Always to cover up smoke.

Doesn't work.

[Warpy]

11. No, but it cuts the overpowering stench

down to something a little more tolerable.

Combined with washing down the surfaces it would do enough of the trick to make the cars habitable by the next person.

[tammywammy]

60. Buy a small bag of charcoal and open it up

Set it in the back seat, it'll clear any stinky air out. The downside, it'll leave a "staleness" to the air.

[elehhhhna]

103. an hour or two of ozone and it's GONE. Easy-breezy.

[Mari333]

48. Actually, I have used FeBreze because of cat piss not smoke

[onehandle]

82. I have found that Windex is great at killing cat pee smell.

I don't know how it does it, but it does the job.

[Psephos]

9. I think I'd rather smell the leftover smoke than the Febreze ;)

[w4rma]

14. Me too. Yuck on more chemicals just to cover up the cigarette smoke. (nt)

[snooper2]

58. I thought this was already practice

They never have an ash tray and always say no smoking, no lighter ever either...

Whatever...If you pick up a POS white Chrysler 300 at National Rent-a-car at Dulles airport- that was me...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JeanGrey]

75. They'll enforce it easily or the person will pay big bucks.

It is that simple.

[michreject]

76. You're kidding,... right?

When I quit smoking( 11 years ago) I could and do smell an ash tray or cigarette smoke from 30 feet.

[More_liberal_than_mo]

128. I quit 27 years ago

after having smoked for 15 years. The 3 years before I quit cold turkey I was smoking 5 packs of Marlboro Reds a day. My sense of smell started to return after about a year. By the 3rd year my sense of smell was back to normal and by the 5th year I swear it had become hyper-sensitive. I can smell cigarette smoke residue hours after the fact as well as a bloodhound. The odor actually makes me ill and is totally disgusting to me.

[michreject]

129. I hear ya

I gagged on a ash tray. I smoked two packs of Marlboro for 30 years.

[awoke_in_2003]

94. "Smokers all think if they keep the windows open..."

No, we don't. That is why I don't smoke in my wife's car, in a rental car, or in the house.

[Warpy]

104. You're in the minority

but thank you. I appreciate civilized smokers.

[arikara]

107. Febreze and other chemical smell masking agents

only add more oomph to the stench. They smell disgusting and are not healthy to use. I have a sensitivity to any of the chemicalized perfumy stinks that are in things like detergents, dryer sheets, air "fresheners" etc and its getting worse all the time because nearly everyone spreads the crap all over the place.

[RobinA]

112. Nonsmokers Always Know

:rofl:

Or at least think they do. Ya don't know what you don't know, now do you?

[progressivebydesign]

131. it'll be just like hotels. Your card will be charged a fee for breaking the policy.

I stayed in a nice hotel recently, and the check in process was very explicit about not smoking in the rooms or on the balconies, or anywhere on the property. You even had to sign a form that stated you'd be charged a few hundred dollars for crews to come and clean the room of the smoke smell. And yet.. at least 4 people sat on their balconies and lit up that first night. Of course the stench came into my room. They ended having to throw a few of them out for refusing to comply (and a few were smoking cigars.) Just one night of a smoker in a room requires the equivalent of fire restoration cleaning.

So I think the car companies will do the same...

[onehandle]

4. I rented from Avis on our corporate account for years and years a while back.

I wouldn't accept a car if it smelled like smoke.

Good for them.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. This is good news. (n/t)

[ixion]

12. pathetic

people with too damn much time on their hands deciding how others should live.

[proteus_lives]

13. +1

[KittyWampus]

18. anyone should be able to pour toxic crap into the town well?

[ElboRuum]

43. This isn't the town well.

Analogy fail.

Cue devolution of smoking thread into a "think of the children" thread. But I think I can help...

Nanny solutions are always the least appropriate to any situation. The appropriate solution was to have a nominal surcharge to rent vehicles which will only rented to smokers or those non-smokers who just don't care one way or the other. This would have taken up the slack of profit loss due to fallow cars and accommodated everyone reasonably. But I've never credited modern businesses with any amount of common sense.

[ixion]

51. very well put

I agree. :applause:

[Posteritatis]

23. How others should live in *their property*, you mean (nt)

[LeftyMom]

26. I've decided that I like my airway open and functioning.

Cigarette smoke gets in the way of that particular personal decision of mine. Sorry.

[ixion]

32. Hey, and you are totally entitled to that

However, that doesn't mean that you should decide for everyone.

[ElboRuum]

53. If your decisions affect mine... we have a problem.

While there are many arguments you could make against smoking, you've chosen the very weakest. Your conjecture implies heavily that there are people who have a right to make personal decisions, and those who must yield to the benefit of the former. In other words, "all men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others." Kind of anathema to a free society, wouldn't you agree?

I think we can dismiss this argument on face as being way too facile for serious consideration. Generally happens when you start channeling Orwell.

[LeftyMom]

102. You don't have a right to smoke anywhere. I do have a right to breathe.

When your personal decisions endanger others, they can be restricted by law for the common good. That's the whole point of a social contract. Welcome to the enlightenment.

[ElboRuum]

116. Hmm. Definitely a better argument.

The Enlightenment? LeftyMom, there hasn't been anything resembling the Enlightenment in this country for so long, I forget what it looks like. Let's put aside that snark for now, it's only going to muddy the issue.

If you are not around me, smoking can't harm you. So, if I am in an establishment that permits smoking, and caters to it, you are endangering YOURSELF by showing up. You may have a right to breathe, but you also have a choice of where you do it. If you choose to do it where there are smokers, they have no obligation to cater to your wishes.

Of course most laws in most states don't even allow the proprietors of establishments the option of catering to smoking clientele, which is about as uncompromising and unenlightened as it gets. This isn't a social contract, it is majority bullying of the minority.

Would there be some provision for a private business owner (such as the owner of a bar or restaurant, the places of greatest friction regarding this issue) to provide a smoker-friendly establishment, there would be no quarrel, but it is clear that the laws as written give little or no consideration to that.

[Gulftrout]

27. Ain't your car

Rental company owns the car. What they say goes. Nasty up your own car. You got the right.
Keep on smokin', we need the tax $$.

[ixion]

29. Yeah, I get a big kick of how you anti-smoking zealots love to tax

it shows the true depths of your hypocrisy.

[Rise together]

33. whoops! wrong thread! nt

[TommyO]

30. No, they're telling you can't smoke in the cars that they own

That's very different than deciding how others should live.

[ixion]

31. so why doesn't that apply, then, to bars, restaurants, work and public places?

Okay, fair enough. Their vehicles, their rules. I can live with that.

However, this is being driven by a vocal group of fanatics who take great pleasure in telling others how to live.

[TommyO]

34. Hey, I fully support your right to kill yourself with cigarettes

I expect you to support my right to work, dine, drink, and live without other people inflicting their habit on non-smokers.

[ixion]

40. when children are not allowed in restaurants and other public areas

then I'll support a smoking ban. Otherwise, it's just one sub-set injecting their beliefs on another.

[TommyO]

56. Such idiocy

The presence of children is in no way comparable to the noxious fumes that cigarettes produce.

[ixion]

59. that is entirely your opinion

right back at'cha.

[TommyO]

61. Cigarette smoke is demonstrably harmful

Children are not.

[ixion]

62. poppycock

You are incorrect.

The tests that prove second hand smoke is harmful are questionable. That children spread disease is not.

[TommyO]

67. Adults spread disease as well

[ixion]

69. exactly my point

thanks!

[TommyO]

72. As does your cigarette smoke, you have no right to inflict your habit onto others.

Smoke at home, in *YOUR* car, but don't think that other people are going to let you blow your cancer causing smoke into their faces.

[ixion]

85. blah blah blah

stop telling other people how to live their lives. Get over yourself.

[TommyO]

101. Smoke all you want, kill yourself with cigarettes

Just don't inflict it on others.

[RobinA]

114. The Subject of Smoking

always separates the liberals from the wannabes.

[ixion]

133. And if you think a nanny-state is liberal

you're very confused, in my opinion.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

81. "The tests that prove second hand smoke is harmful are questionable"

LOL..........you people are ridiculous.

[ixion]

86. right back at ya

[politicat]

100. You obviously haven't met my nephews.

Disease vector? Check.
Potential to cause injury on random strangers and family members? High, especially torsion trauma to lower extremities, adult male genital trauma, contusions. Model 2 may cause lacerations (oral mode.) (Current injury count, both models: 3 ACLs, 2 sprained ankles, multiple uro-genital incidents, 5 biting incidents. Current estimated cost of injuries caused by two prototypes: $51,000.)
Pollutants? Noise, CO2, methane.

:)

[Bill McBlueState]

66. yeah, I huffed a toddler when I was in college

I have lung cancer now. I hope everyone learns from my mistake.

[pointblank]

124. YAY

I agree. Every time I am around someone's screaming snot nosed kid in a restaurant my blood pressure skyrockets just as much as when I smoke.

If I can't smoke in my local bar, that serves ALCOHOL to ADULTS, with my drink after working 70+ hours a week, then these fucking anti-smoking nazis can keep their fucking kids at home and out of my eating establishments.

Take them to Chuck e Cheese if you want to show them off.

[Rebubula]

37. Want to smoke??

Don't rent their fucking cars!

No one is telling you how to live, but if you borrow something from someone - they have a right to make preconditions.

[ixion]

41. my, how very sanctimonious of you

it must be such a chore being so very perfect. Apparently you have totally conquered the body odor problem and your ability to spread disease. Hizzah! :eyes:

[ElboRuum]

44. Please, don't try to mask your love of authoritarianism...

...can I get a ban on the reek that causes?

[Thickasabrick]

52. People still smoke in hotel rooms, the people I know who do it

have never been fined and just carry Febreeze with them. It is very hard to prove. I don't think this will change much except that people will quit asking for "smoking" cars.

[ixion]

54. yep, I carry Ozium

works great.

[Thickasabrick]

108. I have never heard of that. Is it like Febreeze? n/t

[ixion]

111. It's an industrial grade air-sanitizer

hospitals and the like will use it. It more than scents the air, it ionizes it. Awesome stuff. You can find it at Walgreens, etc, right in the air freshener section, usually.

[Treo]

78. Authoritarianism

Would be the state forcing them to do this and you're dead right that's wrong.

If Avis made a business decision on the use of their property you can either abide by your contract, pay the fine (that you agreed to pay when you signed your contract.),buy your own car or take your business elsewhere.
Deal with it.

[ElboRuum]

90. Authoritarianism has nothing to do with the state.

Hate to break it to you. Authoritarianism is a philosophical viewpoint that believes in the idea that societies are better served by order rather than by freedom, that the freedom of individuals are often detrimental to the health of the larger whole and that individuals should not typically be permitted to act against the society in which they live. You can be an authoritarian without being the government. Essentially, authoritarians believe that the principles and freedoms of the individuals in a society can and should be sacrificed when greater order in the benefit of that society can be attained. In an authoritarian view, the freedom of an individual to act is far secondary to the benefit of the society should it be determined that the act be in some way detrimental.

In a society that predicates its greatness, even its reason for being, on the freedom that individuals enjoy, it is somewhat an ironic juxtaposition to see the anti-smoking laws and policies that are being accepted in both the public and private sectors.

Now, you say that Avis made a business decision, and you are correct, although I would argue that it really wasn't a good one. There was a much better alternative, but it would also be fair to say that laziness also plays. The alternative would require a little more work and forethought to implement.

But it isn't Avis who I state is the authoritarian. An authoritarian is always happy to see the coercion that they champion pay off, even in the smallest ways.

[Treo]

97. And yet

You deny Avis the freedom to make (what you perceive to be) a bad business decision

Typo

[ElboRuum]

139. Hardly.

I can't deny them what I have no control over. Nor would it occur to me to do so even if I should. I merely state that if I was CEO of Avis, I'd have gone a different way with this... a way which I believe would have not taken the chance of losing business to competing companies who may have a different view on the smoking issue.

Avis is a private company, and how they choose to execute their business is their choice. I'm not sure where you got this idea that I am denying them anything. I merely stated that authoritarianism is a philosophy of how a society should operate, not limited to any particular government, but also subscribed by individuals. In fact, I believe I clearly stated in my previous response to you that it was not Avis who was the authoritarian in this discussion. Not sure where you got the idea that I had stated otherwise.

[Jo March]

38. No. They aren't saying that you can't smoke in YOUR car

You just can't smoke in THEIR cars. There is a big difference.

[high density]

39. Except your living bothers my living when I have to rent the car after you've stunk it all up.

Thanks.

[ixion]

42. yeah, it's your world,

we're just living in it. :eyes:

[high density]

47. OK, I'll be sure to leave a huge turd in my next rental car, so you can smell me after I'm gone

If we're going to be so considerate of others, I'll throw it right back at ya.

[ixion]

50. what I'm saying is this:

There are smokers living in the world, and there are non-smokers. Both lifestyles should be respected. I've fine with having non-smoking vehicles, as long as there are smoking ones, too. Same with hotels and restaurants.

We all have to live together.

[Treo]

73. Vote W/ your dollars

Find a rental car company that caters to your need and support it. Call Avis and tell them you won't be supporting them and why. There you have it, free enterprise in action

[AndyA]

109. Smoking is harmful to the smoker's health, as well as others around the smoker.

Smokers do not have the right to inflict their smoke on others, and expose them to harmful second hand smoke.

[ElboRuum]

49. Why should that matter one whit to anyone?

Your living bothers mine, precisely because of that attitude, but I doubt you'll stop posting here because of that. And well you shouldn't stop. But that's the difference in quantity and quality of respect offered from a person of a libertarian bent (like myself) and one of an authoritarian bent. See, I don't think I own the universe. I accept the fact that what I want is all fine and good, but I'm not owed it. In your statement, what you've said is that you are owed greater consideration than those who bother you. Presumably, and this is just a guess mind you, but I have confidence in it, because you believe you've made the "right" choice in your life. And because you've made the "right" choice, I guess this equates to some sort of moral cachet, in which your rights to avoid being bothered trump whatever considerations anyone else would claim.

I hate to be the harbinger of harsh revelation, but no one appointed you God. Either the job is taken, or there is no job.

[high density]

57. I don't leave the car/room/meal/whatever smelling like an ashtray

So, that is my level of consideration in this situation. It has nothing to do with being an authoritarian or having a God complex. Cigarette smokers on the other hand, leave behind their smell everywhere. It seeps into the fabric of the vehicle. It ruins a good meal in a restaurant. How is that considerate to the vast majority of us that don't smoke and don't want to smell it?

There is a lack of consideration here and it's from the smokers. I don't give a crap what choices other people make until it starts to infringe on my own choice to not participate in it.

[ElboRuum]

87. No. You are wrong.

I personally can't stand the smell of cologne or perfume. Ostensibly, the people wearing it don't care that I don't. Nor should they. You're saying that not only can I expect my dislike to have merit with them, but it should carry more weight that some two-bit opinion.

If you don't like the smell, no one has ever impinged on your right to not participate in it. Just. Go. Somewhere. Else.

Your meal ruined? Go to another establishment.
Detecting that smell somewhere else, BE somewhere else.

Sorry, but that attitude seems to indicate the God complex yet again. "Wherever I go must be to my specifications. If it is not, it is the job of the place I go to accommodate me, not mine to go elsewhere."

Not a soul has infringed on your choice.

[high density]

95. False equivalence.

I've never rented a hotel room, rented a car, or eaten a meal where the smell of somebody's cologne or perfume has lingered after they're gone or overwhelmed me the way cigarette smoke does. Certainly there are people in our society that wear too much of either, but that doesn't excuse the toxic cigarette smoke from a smoker's desire to stink up the place.

Why don't you take your own advice and smoke somewhere else, like your home or in your own personal car. The non-smokers that don't want to smell you appreciate it greatly.

[ElboRuum]

120. Done with this stupidity.

I am at A, smoking.
You go to A.
Neither of us have to be at A.
Who should leave and go elsewhere?

[rbixby]

64. The cars are theirs

They can put whatever caveats to rental that they want on them. Feel the need to smoke in your rental? Go with a different agency.

[Treo]

68. They're not deciding how others should live

They're setting the conditions for the use of their property. Cigarette smoke can induce an asthma reaction in me so why do you have the right to smoke around me and decide how I'll live?

[Regret My New Name]

88. This is a business decision on their part...

I doubt they are doing it because they want to improve the health of their client's lungs... They are doing it to improve the health of their bank account. They can fine people for non-compliance and they save time(which usually equals money) on the turn around... People who need to smoke will just go to another company that allows for smoking in their cars. Anyway, I think your point would be more valid if it was a government making it a law...

[awoke_in_2003]

98. First off, I am a pack a day smoker...

now, that being said, they own the cars, and can say how they will be used. I rent a car from Enterprise 10 times a year. I am told up front (and in print) that I can not smoke in their cars, nothing is hidden.

[rd_kent]

141. .

[customerserviceguy]

16. I almost always rent from Enterprise

and the last several cars I've gotten from them have no smoking clauses in the contracts. They even have an anti-smoking logo attached to the key fob.

[The Straight Story]

17. If a business chooses this, that is the right. Sad thing is when people whine to the government to

do things like this for them because they are not pro-choice.

[WillyT]

19. Guess I'll Have To Start Renting Convertibles Then...

:hide::evilgrin::hide:

[SidDithers]

20. Good....nt

Sid

[fujiyama]

22. It's fine if they start this with brand new cars

I don't want them starting this all of a sudden with old cars and then they decide to screw people over.

I don't trust big companies and their million little clauses and car rentals are good at charging for every single little thing they can.

[hayu_lol]

24. Enterprise banned smoking starting several years ago...

this is just another case of the media not checking things out.

[KillCapitalism]

25. Seems like they just want to keep their vehicles nice.

A lot of vehicles that have been smoked in have burn holes in the seats or in other places in the interior. Not to mention, the smell is impossible to get rid of.

[timo]

28. good

they ought to ban the nasty little things OUTRIGHT!!

[Treo]

77. Because it worked so well W/ Marijuana? NT

[Le Taz Hot]

35. This has been going on in CA for years.

This is back in my bad old smoking days but when I would rent a non-smoking car, I, of course, would smoke in the car then when I'd turn it in I'd complain that this whole damned car smelled like cigarette smoke and I should get something off the rental price for all my pain and suffering. :evilgrin:

[KansDem]

71. Hey, I like your style...

I like a cigar now and then, so I could rent a car, drive it for several days while cigaring, then turn it in and complain about the smoke-smell, saying, "It must have been a corporate CEO! You know how those guys love their cigars!"

[Treo]

79. So, you're a thief and a liar as well as a smoker? NT

[Le Taz Hot]

89. Where the hell did you get all that?

I'm no longer a smoker and I didn't steal anything. Despite my pleas I never actually got a discount. Lying, OK, I'll give you that one but what the hell . . . I never promised perfection. :shrug:

[Treo]

96. Where I got all that

You said you were a smoker (congratulations on quitting)

You said (and confirmed) that you lied to the rental company

You said you tried to get a discount based on your lies. If the only reason you didn't get a discount was because your pleas failed you're still a thief just an unsuccessful one

[Le Taz Hot]

126. Here's a dollar, ace.

Buy a sense of humor.

[liberal N proud]

36. Good

It's annoying to travel somewhere far away only to get in a car that smells like cigarettes.

I saw an email from Avis a week ago about this and didn't read much more than that they were going to do this. The email didn't go into details how they were going to enforce it.

$250 should do the trick, I would think.


The fat cat's that are not bothered by $250 will probably be taking limos anyway

[tammywammy]

45. As a smoker, I have no problem with this

It's up front and I've seen emails about this for a few weeks at least, as I book travel for the people that I work with.

[comtec]

46. When I was in alaska last year I had to Sign that I was not a smoker

The penalty was rather steep if I had been smoking.
IIRC that was Dollar rent-a-car (dollar my fat ass!), or perhaps it was Budget...

Anyway, nice truck, Dakota 2/3 truck :) 20 MPG and it made what I imagine were rough roads feel like silk!

If you need to smoke in a rental, pull over. You're probably on vacation anyway.
If it's a virulently anti-smoking state/area, chew some 'gum'.

While I am sympathetic to the plight of the ever-shrinking (thank GOD) "smoking class", You are driving someone else's car, as the people who follow, will appreciate it.

[apnu]

55. Ex smoker checking in here...

... and though I have no problem with the ban personally, this does remind me of the jihad against smoking which has always bewildered me.

Smoking is bad for you and will kill you, but I feel, frankly, that alcohol abuse to be far more dangerous than smoking. But for some reason society in general feels its OK to make outcasts of smokers but not drunks. Boggles my mind.

[ElboRuum]

92. Even liberal Americans have no problem...

...with marginalizing groups they find distasteful.

:rant:

Every time one of these smoking threads get started, you have the same people who are well used to championing the rights of people and standing against the marginalization of anyone in this society thinking precisely nothing of doing exactly that if the people they're talking about annoy or disgust them in principle.

To avoid feeling like and looking like hypocrites, they'll say its all about the harm to people, you know, as if telling another person what to consume, and the parameters by which they may do so consume is somehow forgotten even though the choice people have to be a part of something or not be a part of something is exactly two way. It is possible to have establishments to cater to smokers, such a thing would be the choice of the establishment you patronize. But do the laws on the books EVER brook that obvious and sensible compromise any quarter? Not in my state. Not in many other states. If the real problem was a health issue, why ban establishments from deciding who to cater to? Why not give THEM the choice?

Because the ANTI-SMOKERS WANT NO ONE TO HAVE A CHOICE. THE WHOLE POINT IS TO REDUCE SMOKERS TO PARIAHS IN SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS, TO HIT THEM WITH REGRESSIVE TAXATION UNTIL THEIR WALLETS BLEED GREEN, TO CAUSE THEIR INSURANCE COMPANIES TO THREATEN THEM TO BE DROPPED FROM MEDICAL COVERAGE OR DENY IT FROM THE START, IN SHORT, TO SQUEEZE FROM ALL DIRECTIONS UNTIL THEY QUIT. PERIOD. There is no place in their order for people who resist what they believe to be the "right choice for everyone, no exceptions." It isn't to establish a compromise on any real principle of health, logic, or even consideration from either side. It is to exact the agenda of the authoritarians among us, and somehow, they seem to think that if they do it this way, short of actually passing a law banning tobacco in this country, that it won't seem like authoritarianism, and therefore, actually has a place in a society calling itself free.

:rant:

[undeterred]

63. I get a migraine from cigarette smoke

and right now I have no insurance and nothing to take for it. If I sit in a car where someone has been smoking or go into the home of a smoker I will get a migraine, even though there is no smoking going on at that moment. So, I am the kind of person who needs a smoke free car or hotel room occasionally. Its that or 4 days of being sick.

It isn't a matter of preference, or even long term health considerations, or a desire to oppress smokers. Smoke makes me physically sick in a way that will last for days.

[Thickasabrick]

80. I know people who have the same reaction to perfume.....should they

ban that too?

[undeterred]

83. People spray perfume on themselves,

not on the upholstery, so its really not a comparison.

[ElboRuum]

91. Au contraire.

Perfume does make its way into upholstery. Whenever there is a person with perfume/cologne on in my car, I can smell it for days up to weeks afterward, depending on just how much of that crap they sluiced themselves with.

[undeterred]

105. So lets also ban scented deodorant.

Oh wait, body odor might get in the upholstery.

What we really need are gas masks.

[ElboRuum]

117. No. What we really need is...

...to just tell anti-smokers to quit fucking whining. They've gotten all of the concessions that they need, anything more is just being fucking unreasonable.

[undeterred]

125. Not going to happen.

[ElboRuum]

138. I can dream, can't I? Please don't spoil it with reality.

[Xithras]

70. The bottom line is...the bottom line

This has nothing to do with persecuting smokers. It costs them more money to clean a car after a smoker has used it, and they're trying to cut costs.

There's also the resale angle. Part of the profit model for these companies is calculating the resale value of the vehicle once its rental period is over. That's why they charge for dings and scratches...every ding in the car reduces the amount of money they can resell it for, and they want to recoup the cost.

One of the BIGGEST killers of resale value is the scent of tobacco smoke. I would never own a car that had been owned by a smoker, because that scent never entirely vanishes. That wasn't an issue in the "good old days" when half of Americans smoked, but only about 20% of Americans smoke today. By permitting smokers to pollute their cars, they're making that car an unattractive purchase for 80% of Americans, lowering its value markedly.

They're trying to protect the bottom line.

[JeanGrey]

74. Good. Because you never "clean" a smokey car. The

smell always lingers. Yuck.

[bejamin wood]

84. I'm a smoker...

...and a little suprised this is just now happening. I would not feel comfortable smoking in a rental car as I would not do it in a barrowed friend's car. I don't eat or drink in those situations either though...

[LanternWaste]

93. As a smoker, I've learned to keep it to myself...

As a smoker, I've learned to keep it to myself. I smoke on my balcony, at the designated smokers area at work, and every now and then inside my apt. No one gets offended, no gets asthma attacks, no one's sensibilities are assaulted by the stench.

Seems simple, right? Civility and good manners usually are. But then again, I don't justify my addiction... nor do I see that ever-trendy, all-inclusive "smoking fascist" (clean-air police? butt gestapo? cig stasi?) around every corner (as that would not merely be a justification, but a rather intellectually lazy justification at that).

Since I'm fully aware that it's my addiction and my problem, I can't really percieve why I would burden anyone else with it.

[MidwestRick]

99. Tried to read all of the rants...

but most seem to be using false premises. There is no smoke left in the cars, it's merely the smell. To my knowledge there has been no study to show any detriment by the smell of cigarettes, but many to show the ill effects of 2nd hand smoke.

Yes it can be unpleasant, but it isn't or hasn't been proven to be harmful...yet.

[totodeinhere]

110. I don't care if it's not harmful. I don't want to smell that nasty smell coming from that filthy...

habit. I support banning smoking in rental cars.

[ElboRuum]

121. Well, as long as you get what YOU want.

You know, then I guess we can all sleep nights.

[newscott]

106. I thoguht it was already banned. Whatev.

[AngryOldDem]

113. Have smoking and nonsmoking cars.

Give people a choice.

[ElboRuum]

Too Simple. Too Accommodating. Too Reasonable.

You know that idea won't get any traction in this climate.

[ElboRuum]

122. Self-Delete (dupe)

Damn browser farts.

[ElboRuum]

123. Self-Delete (dupe)

Damn browser farts.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

115. Ozone blasters are GREAT.

Good stuff. Check them out.

www.mold-kill.com

I have two of them. A big one I point at the air intake vent in the central air:

http://www.mold-kill.com/models.html#xtpower
I've used the big one to freshen the inside of my car (I don't smoke and don't allow others to).


Small one for ozonating water and re-oxygenating fruit:
http://www.mold-kill.com/models.html#water

[mitchum]

118. I'm gonna smoke that thing like a rented mule!

[mitchum]

119. Good thing that those rental cars don't put any toxic fumes into the environment

[progressivebydesign]

132. the environment is slightly larger than a subcompact car with the windows rolled up. n/t

[mitchum]

137. But the environment is far more important than a subcompact car with the windows rolled up

This is akin to television networks running anti-drug PSAs.
Same level of hypocrisy.

[ProudDad]

127. Hooray!

Nothing worse than a stinky rental car...

[progressivebydesign]

130. Well, duh. I can't believe it took them this long.

I always assumed it was the case. Nothing worse than a rental car that smell like ciggies. Today I was delivering brochures for a non-profit, and it took me into to several medical buildings. There was one in particular where someone reeked so badly of cigarettes that it was hard to breathe.. everyone was putting their hands over their mouths. Do smokers not realize that you can even smell them if they're in the car ahead of you in the street, or turning in front of you at an intersection? I think it deadens your sense of smell...

Okay.. and I just have to say this. My favorite d'oh! thing is when smokers tell me that they drink bottled water because of "all the chemicals in tap water." Lol.

[Javaman]

136. I only have one issue with this...

I'm a non-smoker, but suppose I go to a club where everyone is smoking. And as such, come out, as anyone who's been to a night club, reeking of smoke. I get into the car and drive back to the rental agency the next day.

The car reeks of smoke. ergo: I'm a smoker by association.

[rd_kent]

140. I, for one, eagerly await the day when the only place to smoke is in your own home.