Actually, you don't technically have an allergy to cigarette smoke. (
link) That being said, of course the smoke (as smoke, mind you, not as the lingering smell in a hotel room or on a person's body) can irritate existing conditions or other allergies already aggravated, which is why many doctors simply tell their patients that they are allergic to the smoke itself. It's an easier idea to get across, and something that everyone already believes - but, anyway, that's just semantics.
As for Disney being private property which can therefore dictate the "laws" of their land, that's only true up to a point. In this particular circumstance, yes they have every right to come up with whatever smoking regulations they want. However, they don't actually have the right to create laws, regardless of how magical their kingdom is. WDW is not, actually, a sovereign nation, independent of both national and state laws and regulations. For the less reactive readers of this forum, this will be a silly nag point I'm making, but there seem to be quiet a lot of extremists in this thread, and it is for them that I make it.
As far as my examples go of regulating behavior, yes I know kids will be at Disneyworld. I intended my example as, well, an example - not as a hard counterpoint over which we should debate. We can ignore kids altogether, if you like, and I'll make a more literal comparison and we can debate this one, if you want.
Let's go with the assumption that people are "allergic" to cigarette smoke. Asthmatics can't be around it (one would hope they wouldn't go to the out of the way nook-and-cranny smoking areas), and I understand that. That's why there are designated smoking areas and smoking rooms. Again, please observe that I'm saying that most people have no problem following the rules. I just like rules to be reasonable.
Now let's say, and this is much more true than many of the claims made against smokers, that people are also allergic to various colognes and perfumes. They can upset a person's medical conditions by coming into contact with the fumes they produce, which is to say that simply being near someone wearing a fragrance to which you are allergic is enough to set off your symptoms. This is a bit different from the lingering smell of cigarette smoke, which can't trigger medical symptoms but which can just be annoying to those who have to smell the person near them who recently finished a cigarette. To cause problems, one suffering a medical condition needs to be around the smoke itself, remember.
People also tend to put on their fragrances in their hotel rooms when they're getting ready for the day, or cleaning up for the evening. It's also, depending upon the chemical compound of the fragrance, very difficult to get out of the room because you cannot neutralize it with an air spray like you can with cigarette smoke. (I'm sure you could, if you knew which fragrance you were targeting and which chemicals would counter it, but since there are 'umpteen' colognes and perfumes out there, it's a bit of an impractical notion.)
So this leaves us with a problem. If we agree that smokers should be banned simply because some people dislike the way they smell, or even if we make the logical leap that would allow both cigarette smoke itself
and the lingering scent it leaves to upset medical conditions, then we really need to address the cologne and perfume problem.
However, telling people that they can't wear cologne or perfume at Disneyworld seems like a crazy notion, doesn't it? Even with the knowledge that people wearing fragrances are much more pervasive than those smoking cigarettes, and that since one must actually be exposed to the smoke itself to upset medical conditions rather than simply breath in the smell of a fragrance the person next to you is wearing, it makes logical sense that fragrances be banned. After all, there are more people wearing cologne or perfume walking around unchecked than there are smokers huddled in an out-of-the-way smoking nook.
My point is very simple and, I think, very American. I respect your right to do something you enjoy but that I find personally offensive. If your enjoyment of whatever that is encroaches
unreasonably upon me, then we're going to have a conflict. If, however, you respect my space, I will respect yours.
In other words, if you smoke away from me, in one of the designated areas I won't go to, then I won't be subject to your harmful second hand smoke. All I will be forced to deal with is the smell I find objectionable later, when you're standing next to me in line. Since that's just a minor annoyance on my part, rather than something that would directly cause me harm, I don't really feel I have any right to demand you change your behavior. Now, if you were to light up next to me in the queue, that then becomes
unreasonable, and we're going to have problems.
I ask you, then, why is it unreasonable to allow smokers designated areas and rooms which contain the medically harmful smoke, but reasonable for someone else to wear their cologne, which can potentially harm anyone who gets near them?
