Its a FAMILY THEME PARK which means kids there. Another thing is second hand smoke kills more people than first hand smoking.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
New Maps for All Stars with smoking sections!
- Thread starter PigletIsMyCat
- Start date
Its a FAMILY THEME PARK which means kids there. Another thing is second hand smoke kills more people than first hand smoking.
It's very simple: smokers are drug addicts.
Nicotine is a drug.
Cigarettes are merely a delivery system that large corporations have used, with the help and encouragement of the US Government (which loves big business), to create millions of drug addicts who MUST buy their products.
End of story.
All other discussions must stem from the fact that anyone writes anything in defense of smoking is writing from the position of a drug addict trying to defend their addiction.
Sorry, but I give no credence to anything drug addicts have to say about their rights.
I think smoking should be banned.
I don't want to hear about your right to be a drug addict.
Nicotine is a drug.
Cigarettes are merely a delivery system that large corporations have used, with the help and encouragement of the US Government (which loves big business), to create millions of drug addicts who MUST buy their products.
End of story.
All other discussions must stem from the fact that anyone writes anything in defense of smoking is writing from the position of a drug addict trying to defend their addiction.
Sorry, but I give no credence to anything drug addicts have to say about their rights.
I think smoking should be banned.
I don't want to hear about your right to be a drug addict.
JCorduroy
Active Member
That's a bit of an overzealous statement, but true in base fact. However, if you're banning cigarette smoking as it's a drug, we'll need to shut down every facility in the US making alcohol, stop importing coffee and tea, get rid of chocolate (also caffeine), no artificial sweeteners...it can be taken too far.
Illegal drugs, I'm with you, man. We're completely on the same level there. However, if someone chooses to smoke outdoors in designated areas, they should be allowed to (like it or not, our government said it's ok, and it's the only government we've got, so we're kinda stuck with it). Same with people wanting to drink around the world at EPCOT - if they're of the legal age, and are in no way impeding on someones ability to enjoy their vacation or day at the park, then they should be allowed to partake of their frosty beverage
, killer margarita:dazzle:, or marlboro red:hurl: .If they're out of their areas? Or, in the case of alcohol, acting like a tool, then they should be removed from the park immediately. I've got no problems with someone damaging their bodies in designated areas, but the second they start taking it too far or moving into a spot that can bother a family or a child - that's too far.
krueg66
Member
So adults without children cannot enjoy WDW as well??? OK.
And as far as the second hand smoke thing, not a scientific fact. I wouldn't sit there and blow smoke in anyones face, but that is a weak argument in this debate. Not liking the smell and dying from it are two different things.
krueg66
Member
WOW, you're a tolerant one, huh? You know who else doesn't want to debate or hear differing opinions....fascists.
shoppingnut
Active Member
You are forgetting one thing, that Disney has decided this to be the law of THEIR land and they are dictating it since it is private property. It costs a lot less and is faster to clean a non-smoking room than a smoking room. Also many people who do smoke will stay in non-smoking rooms because they can't stand the stink of smoking ones. Smoking ones stink NOT because of the housekeeping didn't clean the room, they do clean them, but they can't be shampooing carpets and drapes after people check out. And, yes, there are people allergic to smoke and just smelling it can bring on an asmatic attack.
Regarding the rotten bratty kids, well I deal with it because I like going to Disney, but I have learn to minimize some of my exposure to them so I can have quiet now and then. One way is by eating at some of the higher end restaurants, like Yachtsman and Jinko where you tend to find less kids. I even go off property to other places.
One fact of life is that no matter what the other person is doing it's going probably offend someone somehow.
wannabeBelle
Well-Known Member
Second hand smoke is definitely an opinion thing. I live in NYC So I certainly know from pollution and not great air quality. I also have parents who smoke so I might be more tolerant than others. Smoking within a closed room even with ventilation will cause damage to the fabrics in the room ( Curtains, bedspreads, blankets, sheets, carpeting etc) In addition it will cause more than average dirt to accumulate on the walls. This would all be more costly to Disney to maintain a smoking room. I cant imagine how anyone could argue this.
As far as the second hand smoke/ health argument, the answer is simple for me. I choose not to be around second hand smoke if I can avoid it as I already have enough potential carcinogens, I dont think I want more. I cant control some of the other pollutants in the air I breathe, but this one I can so I do. It isnt done with malice or hate, I dont get all huffy about it and most people have no problem that I want to stay upwind of smokers. It seems to work out OK for me.
Belle
As far as the second hand smoke/ health argument, the answer is simple for me. I choose not to be around second hand smoke if I can avoid it as I already have enough potential carcinogens, I dont think I want more. I cant control some of the other pollutants in the air I breathe, but this one I can so I do. It isnt done with malice or hate, I dont get all huffy about it and most people have no problem that I want to stay upwind of smokers. It seems to work out OK for me.
Belle
I mean that you should know that kids will be there, and i did not say adults without children can not enjoy disney. I said you should realize kids will be there as well.
Also just to let you know a server in a smoking section for a whole shift is like smoking a pack of cigrattes.
krueg66
Member
Well, it isn't banned. So if I were you, I would avoid the quarantine zones which I'm sure you do.
This whole thing has gotten off track. Can Disney dictate their hotels as smoke-free, absolutely. Will most of us Evil Smokers/drug addicts abide by the rules, absolutely. Do those of you that hate smoke/Evil Smokers/drug addicts have a choice to stay away from the quarantine zones, absolutely. Should smokers that break the rules be beaten, absolutely. Should absentee parents of screaming, annoying children be beaten, absolutely. There, we are all happy now.
jmvd20
Well-Known Member
People may be able to say that secondhand smoke being dangerous is an opinion but that is not the case.
Fact, carcinogens cause cancer.
Fact, cigarette smoke contains 11 *known* human carcinogens
Based upon these it is easy to conclude that cigarette smoke, including second hand is dangerous.
I do however feel that smokers should be allowed to smoke in designated areas that are located fairly frequently in guest areas, even including Toontown.
Fact, carcinogens cause cancer.
Fact, cigarette smoke contains 11 *known* human carcinogens
Based upon these it is easy to conclude that cigarette smoke, including second hand is dangerous.
I do however feel that smokers should be allowed to smoke in designated areas that are located fairly frequently in guest areas, even including Toontown.
jmvd20
Well-Known Member
Which they should. If someone is repeatedly breaking the rules then there is no other choice but to remove them.
It is just like everything else though - a few bad apples spoil the bunch. I know many smokers and they are all courteous about it. If they were asked they would put the cigarette out and it would be over, no need for an extended argument. Just because some break the rules doesn't mean everyone will.
krueg66
Member
I'm sure it is...but that is much different than being outside or even on a balcony. You are in a confined space with people blowing smoke all around you. Much different than at Disney, don't you think?
I do know that kids will be there and I deal...kinda like dealing with smokers in the quarantine zones and at bars.
krueg66
Member
You're concluding that...there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support it. (kinda of like global warming, a theory, not scientific fact)
krueg66
Member
...as they should.
Smoke on the balcony kind still get into the rooms from the vents.
shoppingnut
Active Member
Not if my balcony is downwind of yours. At least if it is outside I can walk away from you, but when on the balcony, my only choice is to go inside my room and that's just unfair since I paid good money to have a hotel room with a balcony.
IcicleM
New Member
Uhhh... I think you might be missing something, here. It's not that we "don't like it" It's the fact that it uh... kills us, maybe? Whining children and nasty stench won't kill us, and we can put up with that, but if there's a person smoking in front of or somewhere around us, and they refuse to put out their cigarette (because their cigarette isn't a person like a baby or a stinky person is, so they have a choice, there) for common courtesy's sake, then people are actually getting hurt by it. I'm an asthmatic who is also allergic to nicotine, and have swelled up before while being around a smoker long enough, and as I ran out of line to go into a clear area and use my medicine, the smoker watched me run away, still smoking their cigarette.
I swear I could have STRANGLED her while still swollen!
So though you think you've "hit the nail" and made a great post, really look what you've done: You've created a new argument.
UncleJeet
New Member
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?
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?