I Am A Considerate Smoker Tired Of Getting Ragged On By Nonsmokers!!

[SaritaGator]

I agree with many of you who are offended by smoking in the park. But, if any of you have been to Halloween Horror Nights at Universal, it could be a lot worse. As I was standing in an hour-long line in a hot, crowded area, a group of teenagers decided to light up directly behind me. This happened all night despite the blatant visibility of cast members.

And while I do believe that people have a right to inhale whatever toxic fumes they want, smoking does not belong in the Parks. Disney can designate as many smoking areas as they want, but there will still be many people who disregard this request. As a family-oriented environment where people pay good money to escape from reality, I should be able to eat my double cheeseburger with chili cheese fries without inhaling the fumes of a heedless smoker.

 

[UncleJeet]

For more than 40 years now the Surgeon General of the United States has told us that smoking and secondhand smoke kill.

There is no doubt that smoking is extremely bad for you and no one should advocate the use of tobacco in any way. That said, the above quote is an untrue and misleading statement. The first part is true enough, but the secondhand smoke bit is pure fabrication. Apart from it being a fairly recent addition to the "Dangers Of Smoking" rhetoric and thus hardly having a forty year history, there is no science behind any of the claims that secondhand smoke is behind any number of major health risks for non-smokers. It all began with a report from the EPA in 1993, which was found in 1998 to have been intentionally misleading, ignoring contradicting evidence. I won't go into all of the details, or any of the studies that have been done that continue to show that the hysteria surrounding secondhand smoke is a myth, but if you're so inclined, you can find some good information here.

Apart from not causing cancer in non-smokers, which is the most feared result, there are also no allergens present in secondhand smoke. Since allergens are needed to trigger an allergic response, this means that it is scientifically impossible to be allergic to tobacco smoke, regardless of reactions one may have to it. For example, an asthmatic is potentially allergic to thousands of things, the most common being dust, pollen and pet hair. If cigarette smoke contained allergens, there is no possible way that millions of asthmatics could possibly be smokers.

That said, there's no doubt that secondhand smoke can easily aggravate - sometimes severely - pre-existing conditions and make life extremely unpleasant for the non-smoker with them when exposed to secondhand smoke.

This leads us to why we have designated smoking areas. They are designed, should everyone follow the rules, to allow people who do not wish to be exposed to secondhand smoke to circumvent said exposure.

The problem with banning all smoking goes beyond any health issues. The issue on the table is that of personal freedoms that conflict with the preferences of others. Smoking is a good candidate to use in the crusade to eliminate personal freedoms that others find unpleasant because of its obvious health concerns for the smokers. However, one must not ignore the larger picture.

Since there is no valid science behind the claims of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, what is being put on the table when considering smoking bans is the notion of the cessation of an activity by one party that another party finds undesirable. That's it, pure and simple. You're doing something I don't like, so I'm going to get some legislation passed that makes you stop doing it.

There is danger in such an action. Replace "smoking" with "clothing" - you're wearing clothing I find unpleasant. A lady shouldn't show any skin above her ankle! Sounds absurd, doesn't it? Of course it does, because it is - but that's exactly what smoking bans are doing.

The solution is designated smoking areas. This allows smokers enslaved to their habit to continue to smoke and it affords non-smokers the freedom to choose whether to expose themselves to the secondhand smoke that they produce. Rather than ban smoking through legislation, which is legislation regulating behavior, it should instead enforce standards that allow non-smokers to breathe smoke-free air, such as separate ventilation systems in restaurants. Of course, with America being a "free" society, the question of allowing smoking or not should be up to the owner of an establishment and the choice of going to that establishment left up to the customer, but since smoking legislation is inevitable due to the hysteria that's been created around secondhand smoke, this is the only realistic option that makes sense.

Anyway, that's all I have to chime in with for now. Smoking is very, very bad for you - don't do it. If other people are smoking at Disneyworld, you don't have to get around them. If they're smoking outside of a designated area, then tell them to stop or find a cast member and alert them. They're being inconsiderate and are clearly in the wrong. That said, non-smokers who go into the smoking area and complain, or who complain about the smoking areas merely existing, are doing the same thing as the smoker who is walking around the parks with a lit cigarette. Smokers need to smoke in the smoking areas of the park, but that also means that the non-smokers need to not smoke in the non-smoking areas of the park.

 

[tedhbrown]

You are totally WRONG! I don't think I've ever met a person who grew up with parents who smoked and didn't end up with bad allergies, asthma, sinus problems, etc for the rest of their life. So many kids end up in the hospital each year from health problems associated with their parent's second hand smoke. And if someone breathes in second hand smoke and has a severe allergic reaction or asthma attack - yes, they CAN die from that. I'm astounded at your statement!

Most people who breath in smoke, and AREN'T smokers, typically do cough. And as I said above, breathing in smoke does make some people feel sick. However, breathing in second hand smoke does not cause cancer, and will not kill you. Let me ask you, has anyone ever died from an asthma attack of severe allergic reaction to secondhand smoke? Please, link me to a news article that proves that statement. And where did you get the "so many kids end up in hospitals thing?" I've never heard of a kid in the hospital because his parents are smokers. The most recent study of second hand smoke revealed that it has no negative effects on your health. I'll refer you to this site: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

To be honest, I'm NOT astounded at your statement. You've just been mislead by the same people that produced the original EPA study in 1993, that was made to be intentionally misleading so they could get their agenda passed. Secondhand smoke is junk science. Simple and true.

 

[tedhbrown]

As a member of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health), I assure you, smoking will be completely banned in Disneyworld within the next 5 years. The fact of the matter is, smoking is mass murder. Secondhand smoke causes more deaths than terrorists. You may think you're not affecting anyone by smoking in "designated areas", but it's not the case at all. Smoke spreads around a lot more than you can see it, and it's only a matter of time before science prevails in showing a more accurate radius of toxins. When smoking was banned in bars in Connecticut (while I was living there), air pollution dropped over 70% in and around those bars (I can't remember the exact figure of how far from the bars it was measured, but it was significant). Now we all know and love that classic Disney atmosphere... Great smells... Blue skies (when it isn't raining ;-) )... Now imagine what that smoking ban will do. It's going to be the greatest thing to hit Disneyworld since the Muppets ;-)

Hehe, I must laugh at that terrorist statement Where did you come up with that one? :lol:

To be honest, I've never even smelled smoke at Disney World. I've been there many many times in my life, and not once can I remember being bothered my smoke. I think that many people just make it bother them, so they smell it everywhere they go.

 

[Woody13]

If other people are smoking at Disneyworld, you don't have to get around them.

How far is the right distance to be away from them? We live in an "ocean" of air. Smoke travels in many directions and for great distances. If we were in a swimming pool together, would it be fine for me to urinate in the pool? I'm sure there would be a way to chlorinate just my half of the pool so you wouldn't be bothered. :lol:

 

[KYfriedPanda]

Hehe, I must laugh at that terrorist statement Where did you come up with that one? :lol:

To be honest, I've never even smelled smoke at Disney World. I've been there many many times in my life, and not once can I remember being bothered my smoke. I think that many people just make it bother them, so they smell it everywhere they go.

Check out ASH's website or thetruth for all the statistics. I'm not the one to go guesstimating statistics. The terrorists killing less people is just a way to put it into perspective. There is absolutely nothing laughable about it. I could put any classification of murderer there and they would all pale in comparison to deaths caused by smokers. Secondhand or otherwise. As for this "no scientific proof" nonsense, lung throat and mouth cancer in thousands of non-smokers doesn't come from nowhere. There will always be those who dismiss it or think of 100 other "possibilities" for where the cancer came from. It is quite difficult in many people to determine EXACTLY where cancer comes from. But if you honestly think that secondhand smoke poses no danger to cause cancer, you're as naive as those people who claim smoking poses no danger to smokers themselves. I am not trying to insult anyone here, esepcially those people who take the time to make those websites showing just how little proof there is. I say bravo to those of you who wish to know what the truth is. But just remember... Just because something is not written out on paper as truth, doesn't mean it isn't. Quite frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if all this sceintific evidence you seek is being hidden from public view in order to sustain the amount of money brought in by tobacco sales. If there was ever to be a complete ban on smoking, the economy would take a serious beating. So do you let the deaths continue in an over-populated world or trade it off for an almost certain recession? I'd be willing to bet that most people involved with the governing of this country would choose to throw away the facts, and continue to manipulate the population to focus more on those "other factors" that cause cancer. I don't know. It's a very depressing debate, regardless. Thus, on a site for praise of the happiest place on earth, I promise it's the last I'll say about it. Best of luck to the rest of you who wish to continue. I'm going back to fun talks about which rides and resorts are the best

 

[thedisneyfan]

The problem with banning all smoking goes beyond any health issues. The issue on the table is that of personal freedoms that conflict with the preferences of others. Smoking is a good candidate to use in the crusade to eliminate personal freedoms that others find unpleasant because of its obvious health concerns for the smokers. However, one must not ignore the larger picture.

Since there is no valid science behind the claims of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, what is being put on the table when considering smoking bans is the notion of the cessation of an activity by one party that another party finds undesirable. That's it, pure and simple. You're doing something I don't like, so I'm going to get some legislation passed that makes you stop doing it.

I don't know where you came up with your non-health risk from second hand smoke myth? That's a myth itself. Second-hand smoke is a real health risk to all and does cause cancer when sufficiently around. I have many family members and friends who work in the health care industry and they will tell you that without a doubt second-hand smoke does cause cancer(among many many many other health illnesses and diseaeses) when inhaled for a sufficient quantity and time. Second-hand smoke does not just inflame "pre-existing conditions." There is sufficient scientific data to prove the health risks behind second hand smoke. Do a search of any respectable health journal or publication.

As to the problem with the designated areas, you miss the point that they are too close to areas where non-smokers MUST pass by or near and the haze and cloud the smoking causes.

The problem that pro-smokers "rights" have is that unlike any other activity, when done in a public place smoking interferes with a non-smokers "right" not to inhale the disease causing life killing crap from smoke plain and simple! This is the one and only activity whereby solely partaking in it are you guaranteeing that you force another unwilling person to also partake in it. For that reason alone, regardless of the very real and very true effects of second-hand smoke, this activity should be banned in any place where non-smokers may be near.

I don't know where you got the web site form, but it's little misconstrued and edited(cut down) excerpts of reports are completely wrong and sound like the ramblings of a desperate person trying to avoid the truth that second hand smoke does cause cancer(among many many other diseases). Look at the studies in real scientific journals like JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association).

 

[tedhbrown]

Check out ASH's website or thetruth for all the statistics. I'm not the one to go guesstimating statistics. The terrorists killing less people is just a way to put it into perspective. There is absolutely nothing laughable about it. I could put any classification of murderer there and they would all pale in comparison to deaths caused by smokers. Secondhand or otherwise. As for this "no scientific proof" nonsense, lung throat and mouth cancer in thousands of non-smokers doesn't come from nowhere. There will always be those who dismiss it or think of 100 other "possibilities" for where the cancer came from. It is quite difficult in many people to determine EXACTLY where cancer comes from. But if you honestly think that secondhand smoke poses no danger to cause cancer, you're as naive as those people who claim smoking poses no danger to smokers themselves. I am not trying to insult anyone here, esepcially those people who take the time to make those websites showing just how little proof there is. I say bravo to those of you who wish to know what the truth is. But just remember... Just because something is not written out on paper as truth, doesn't mean it isn't. Quite frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if all this sceintific evidence you seek is being hidden from public view in order to sustain the amount of money brought in by tobacco sales. If there was ever to be a complete ban on smoking, the economy would take a serious beating. So do you let the deaths continue in an over-populated world or trade it off for an almost certain recession? I'd be willing to bet that most people involved with the governing of this country would choose to throw away the facts, and continue to manipulate the population to focus more on those "other factors" that cause cancer. I don't know. It's a very depressing debate, regardless. Thus, on a site for praise of the happiest place on earth, I promise it's the last I'll say about it. Best of luck to the rest of you who wish to continue. I'm going back to fun talks about which rides and resorts are the best

Firstly, I have never questioned the legitamacy of the health risks of smoking. Smoking is seriously dangerous to your health. It has caused cancer in hundreds of thousands of people. That IS scientific fact. And yes, more people have died from smoking than from terrorist attacks. However, there is NO scientific fact showing that second hand smoke is bad for your health, or has cause cancer in anyone. If the "scientific information" was being hidden from public view, then why would the bogus EPA report that came out in 1993 have come out in the first place? That made people believe that second hand smoke was dangerous, and led to the recent government bans of smoking in public places in some cities. This ban has hurt tobbaco sales, and has hurt many businesses in the cities. And besides, as we've learned in the past 30 years, it doesn't matter what you tell people about the health risks of smoking. You could tell them that inhaling one puff of smoke could instantly kill them, and they would STILL do it. They will never ban tobacco smoking, because then it would just lead to the current problems we are having with drugs on the black market. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s, and it still doesn't work in the 21st century.

 

[tedhbrown]

I don't know where you came up with your non-health risk from second hand smoke myth? That's a myth itself. Second-hand smoke is a real health risk to all and does cause cancer when sufficiently around. I have many family members and friends who work in the health care industry and they will tell you that without a doubt second-hand smoke does cause cancer(among many many many other health illnesses and diseaeses) when inhaled for a sufficient quantity and time. Second-hand smoke does not just inflame "pre-existing conditions." There is sufficient scientific data to prove the health risks behind second hand smoke. Do a search of any respectable health journal or publication.

I don't know where you got the web site form, but it's little misconstrued and edited(cut down) excerpts of reports are completely wrong and sound like the ramblings of a desperate person trying to avoid the truth that second hand smoke does cause cancer(among many many other diseases). Look at the studies in real scientific journals like JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association).

The problem with that whole arguement is that all of those health care professionals, and the scientific journals, they ALL refer to the bogus studies that were created by the 1993 EPA report that first started the whole second hand smoke myth. The EPA report was thrown out in court in 1998, because it was proven to be incorrect, misleading, and manufactured to come to a pre-defined conclusion. As quoted by the website I have linked to, " In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long." How can these journals be respectable when they all refer to the bogus study conducted in 1993?

 

[Woody13]

The problem with that whole arguement is that all of those health care professionals, and the scientific journals, they ALL refer to the bogus studies that were created by the 1993 EPA report that first started the whole second hand smoke myth. The EPA report was thrown out in court in 1998, because it was proven to be incorrect, misleading, and manufactured to come to a pre-defined conclusion. As quoted by the website I have linked to, " In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long." How can these journals be respectable when they all refer to the bogus study conducted in 1993?

Well, if you don't like the EPA study, did you ever decide to check what the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, Nemours Foundation, National Cancer Institute or the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery have to say about the issue? They have all conducted studies totally independant of the EPA.

How about Canada?

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html

You are very misinformed.

 

[1disneydood]

I hate that it has to come to this, just from where WDW decided to put the smoking area. I'm considerate there, but I still really don't care what anyone there says. It's all just blah blah blah to me if I'm in smoking area.

We should have a special area away from everything. Like a completely empty 30 ft road leading to a dead end which has benches, ashtryas, and music at the end. A big S M O K I N G A R E A sign posted at the beginning of the road and all the way down. That way if a non smoker comes over and complains, it's their problem for being there. :kiss:

I wish I could quit, I hate it myself. But after everything else I've quit since my mispent youth, smoking isn't that bad compared. I've come a looong way. :lookaroun

 

[Woody13]

I wish I could quit, I hate it myself. But after everything else I've quit since my mispent youth, smoking isn't that bad compared. I've come a looong way. :lookaroun

But don't you see that is the problem? You are addicted to nicotine and you can't give it up. Other people around you suffer from your drug addiction. Why don't you buy some nicotine suppositories? You'll get your fix and the rest of us won't have to smell your nasty smoke, hair, clothes, etc.

 

[bracho]

I am a non smoker and not crazy about smoke but I worked in casinos for over 20 years so I got use to it... the way I see it is as long as you are in a smoking area that Disney has set aside for you to smoke then the rest of these people can pound sand... As long as you stay in the area PROVIDED!!! then the rest of the world can mind their own business.. but with that said, if you smoke outside of that area then I'm sorry.. it's open season!

I use to be one of those non smokers that really hated the provided smoking areas as a place to smoke anywhere I went... but I saw a guy in California walk up to a stranger and get rude with him about his smoking and the guy got up and beat him to a pulp. The whole time the guy doing the beating kept saying, you don't know me, you don't have a right to say anything to me and on and on... I was shocked... security got there really fast (it took 15 seconds I think) but by then the poor guy really took a beating... all he could say to security was he just asked him to stop smoking which was not the truth, they guy got out and out rude with the one smoking... so it just goes to show... be careful what and how you talk to people about smoking... one day you may find yourself saying something to a stranger that isn't going to care what or how you feel about his smoking...

 

[Disney_dude]

I always hate to offensive, stench that comes from smokers. You can smell them a mile away. That nasty, smells like they just licked an ash tray, smell. *puke*

I always say, if you want to smoke, do it at home. Not in public ANYWHERE "smkoing areas" are useless. the stench,polution and harm still spreads in the air.

I have (and will always) told many peopel to not smoke ANYWHERE near me. I have enought problems breathing without having them polute my air.


With that said. I think WDW should be a non smoking place. THE WHOLE PARK, ALL OF THEM.

Too many people don't have enought respect to put their butts in the trash or ash trays. THE GROUND IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL ASH TRAY OR TRASH CAN!!!!! I used to work at Wal-Mart and was walking from the back room when I saw a guy smoking, 1st off Wal-Mart is a non smoking store. Then the jerk just tossed the butt on the floor, didn't even step on it. (nice way to start a fire). I stoped him and yelled at him "DOES THAT LOOK LIKE AN ASH TRAY TO YOU?!?!? THIS IS A NON SMOKING STORE ANYWYAS. YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT OUT SIDE!!!!!!"

It also kills the "magic" to see children and families enjoying the park, then to look over and see some nasty person suck!ng on a fire ball.

I am also behind all public places (restaraunts) that are conforming to non smoking. Last thing I want is to sit down to eat and my food taste like an ash tray. Smell is a major factor is taste and when everything smells like crap, it'll taste like crap.



On a side note. I am in the process of getting our new neighbor transfered to another appartment because he smokes it the stench bleeds through the air system and make sit hard for me to breath.

 

[Dj Corona]

Wow, it was a little chilly in my basement, 'till Ifound this thread, but with all the heat coming off it, everything's fine now, thanks!

..."Nicotine suppositories"... Harsh.. table of 1 now seating

 

[Dj Corona]

I'd like to follow that up by saying, I too am a smoker, and an extremely consider one at that, not in front of kids, not in front of people while they're eating if i'm in a bar that serves food,etc. to a point where if i'm in public say walking down the street, I try not to blow it in anybody's direction, and when i'm done, instead of just dropping it and putting it out with my foot, i'll knock the cherry and all remaining tobacco off completely, and dispose of the butt in the trash rather then litter. I don't even smoke in my house. Unfortunately, due to working in a bar atomsphere, quitting is a struggle...however there are worst "drug" addictions then smoking, especially real drugs that lead to violent crimes that result in murder ( I've never heard of someone getting killed over a cigarette purchase gone bad! ) As far as WDW, however, some if not most of the designated areas are unfortunately right in the way of everybody, and to an extent, i'm surprised the one park that bans alcohol does allow smoking. This is one of those hot button topics, however, so i'm sure this'll be going on 10+ pages from now......

 

[KilleriMac17]

I think the main issue is that a great many people consider it very harmful to themselves and their family, and they dont want to be anywhere even close to smokers. It evokes strong emotions in people, particularly in public child-friendly places like WDW.

actually, I would dis-agree with most of that, I would say it is more likely people just think its politically correct, cuz ya know, thats the big craze now a-days, all these PC people who think they are better than everyone else going around harrasing people(and yet, they are worse than everyone they harras), thats is probably more of it. (BTW, I dont smoke). :king:

 

[UncleJeet]

How far is the right distance to be away from them? We live in an "ocean" of air. Smoke travels in many directions and for great distances. If we were in a swimming pool together, would it be fine for me to urinate in the pool? I'm sure there would be a way to chlorinate just my half of the pool so you wouldn't be bothered. :lol:

Are you sure you want to use this "ocean" of air concept as your basis of argument? I ask because there are a couple of reasons why the concept undermines what you're trying to say. For instance, the very fact that we live in an "ocean" of air - that there's just so darn much of it that the wind is blowing around - means that any bits of secondhand smoke that you're likely to pick up outdoors by standing anywhere other than right in the face of an exhaling smoker are likely to be in such trace amounts as to be completely inconsequential. Secondly, that "ocean" of air has far more pollutants - and ones that are actually harmful, mind you - than secondhand smoke floating around in them. If you ride any of the buses at Disneyworld, for example, you breathe in a far greater quantity of a genuinely "toxic" fume when one single bus drives by to pick you up than you will breathe in of the exhaled smoke from every smoker in every designated area for an entire day in the parks.

Also, feel free to urinate in the pool all you want; apart from it being rude and childish, it wouldn't bother me that much - that's what the chlorine is for. Besides, if we were to make you analogy accurate, __________________ in my pool would make you out to be like the smoker who is smoking outside of a designated area. Therefore, you would be provided with a separate pool in which to urinate as much as you like. In fact, every resort already has one of these. It's called the kiddie pool. (Not that little children aren't __________________ in every public pool you've ever swam in, though.)

What's happening here is a perceived danger versus an actual danger. You're exposed to, and are exposing yourself to, much more harmful substances on a daily basis than secondhand smoke. From industrial and transportation pollutants in the air, to something as simple as food that's bad for you - but no one is trying to regulate your chicken mcnuggets or hairspray.

Trying to ban smoking altogether is, as I pointed out, not due to any real health concerns of secondhand smoke but is entirely about regulating the behavior of one party because another party does not care for it. While one could argue that banning smoking would be good in the long run because even if people begin to understand that secondhand smoke isn't the noxious fume that so many people mistakenly believe it to be, the smokers themselves would be helped because no one can argue the terribly harmful effects that smoking has on a smoker.

However, by that same logic, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to ban fatty foods and empty calories. After all, thin and fit people don't enjoy looking at the obese and if we just took away their chili dogs, they would stop dying of heart attacks and cease being such a drain on the medical resources of the country. I know that sounds offensive - and it is - but it's the same argument brought against smokers and smoking in general. Food for thought, as it were.

 

[UncleJeet]

But don't you see that is the problem? You are addicted to nicotine and you can't give it up. Other people around you suffer from your drug addiction. Why don't you buy some nicotine suppositories? You'll get your fix and the rest of us won't have to smell your nasty smoke, hair, clothes, etc.

What if I find the smell of your cologne/perfume to be nasty? That your hair and clothes are saturated by it and it upsets my allergies (since it quite likely does contain allergens, unlike secondhand smoke)? Should I be able to pass legislation to ban the use of perfumes and deodorants? After all, unlike secondhand smoke, underarm anti-perspirants have been linked as a carcinogen to those using them.

Again, what it all comes down to is someone is doing something you don't like - that doesn't give you, or the government, the right to regulate their behavior. If it did, then anything anyone did that someone else found offensive or rude or merely unpleasant (lots of people smell bad, and not just from smoking), that legislation could be passed to stop it. That way lies madness, my friend.

 

[Hakunamatata]

When does the getting hammered at Downtown Disney thread start? :lookaroun