Smoking in parks not enforced
Tyler Durden
Designated areas only, with the goal of eliminating it completely. Sad to
say, people still pretty much smoke wherever they want, and nobody enforces
the rules. Countless times in every park we were bothered by people smoking
where they shouldn't and never once did anybody say a word. It is time for
Disney to ban it completely, no exceptions.
Steve Russo
news:3df7a3db$1...@news.teranews.com...
smoking areas. It was pretty much confined to Epcot and World Showcase
particularly. You say you saw it in all 4 parks? I don't think I saw even 1
in MK, DAK, or MGM. I suspected it might have something to do with the Food
& Wine Festival but maybe I'm wrong (there's a novel thought).
Roy Johnson
--
http://www.biddulph.u-net.com email r...@biddulph.u-net.com
Our Vacation Rental Home in Florida near Disney şoş.
Know the value of time,snatch,seize and
enjoy every minute of it.
"Tyler Durden" <tyler...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3df7a3db$1...@news.teranews.com...
SGC
be somewhat based on the fact that many guests to WDW are (1) not from the
US, therefore not used to US rules about smoking and (2) not from Florida &
the rules about smoking vary greatly throughout the US [as noted many times
here in radp]. Of course, there's always (3), they're rude & they just don't
care.
During the Food and Wine Festival (going on while we were there), I saw many
more people smoking in the designated areas than I did just walking around.
The only smokers I saw at AK were in a smoking area across from the
character greeting entrance for Pooh & Friends, across the walkway from a
bathroom (near Flame Tree BBQ). I don't remember seeing any smokers at MK or
MGM.
IMHO, smoking areas should be away from general walking areas, should not be
between a major walking area and restrooms, should have benches, should have
ample ashtrays or ashtrays should be emptied frequently, and should be more
clearly marked (not sure how to do this one, just that it would be better
for those wanting to avoid smokers and for the smokers if the smoking areas
were easier to find).
SGC
"Steve Russo" <sru...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:sHOJ9.33385$Vz2.9...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
tx
There are thousands of people in the park and CM's can't monitor every
single one of them. Yes, they could say something if they actually see
someone but otherwise it's not practical to enforce. Sure, I see plenty of
people smoking in non-designated areas but I know how to move and get away
from it if it bothers me and don't expect Disney to catch every person doing
it.
Before Disney can better enforce their current plan, they need to reconsider
some of their policies. MK has one smoking area that is segregated -- the
river landing down in front of the Plaza Restaurant at the end of Main
Street. This location is out of the way of those who don't smoke. The
problem is that they have also decided that this is an excellent VIP
fireworks seating area. So every evening some poor CM has to go down there
and tell people that their smoking area is being closed and they have to get
out. I can say from observation that this can really p.o. some guests and
make a miserable night for the CM. I don't smoke but I don't think
"forcing" them to move leaving with no area close to continue after they
have already "restricted" them just by entering the park is good guest
relations. Many people go down there to smoke while someone else in their
party goes to buy food or something. The other person comes back with the
food and their party is no longer there. Not a big deal during small crowds
but when the park is packed, this is very irritating to those guests.
To be honest, it would almost be better guest relations to ban smoking
altogether. This way the people that smoke won't even visit and there would
be no angry guest incidents inside the park with CM's enforcement or other
guests that dislike or can't tolerate the smoke. The question is...how
would they enforce it and what is the cost in terms of attendance level?
Not an easy topic, in my opinion, to deal with for a worldwide visitor base
company like Disney's parks.
Troy
"SGC" <sgc...@nospamkconline.com> wrote in message
news:rKqcnY1k9I6...@kconline.com...
Rusty Martin
> It is time for
>Disney to ban it completely, no exceptions.
Yeah, I'm *sure* that would go over well with the European and Asian guests.
All to make you happier.
It's a free market. If you don't like the smoking rules, or the enforcement
(or lack therof) then *you* don't go. Imposing your will on others is not the
solution.
Rusty Martin
Hey Osama, here's what our creator gave *us*:
"..all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness." and copyright. <g>
Tyler Durden
> Yeah, I'm *sure* that would go over well with the European and Asian
guests.
>
> All to make you happier.
>
> It's a free market. If you don't like the smoking rules, or the
enforcement
> (or lack therof) then *you* don't go. Imposing your will on others is not
the
> solution.
First off, this is America. Adapt to and obey our rules, our don't come.
That is pretty simple.
Second, smoking is no longer accepted in our society. It is a filthy habit
that is intrusive and offensive to others. There is no place for it in the
parks. There are far more non-smokers than smokers. The solution is for
people like me to voice an opinion, and not sit back and take it. That is
how change happens. Deal with it.
MWS987
>That is pretty simple.
Yea! Sortof like speak english or get out!
>Second, smoking is no longer accepted in our society.
Thats funny, I think they still sell the damn things just about everywhere, to
just about anyone.
>The solution is for
>people like me to voice an opinion, and not sit back and take it.
Go ahead and bitch, but dont expect much help from CM's. I hate to say it, and
it's been said here before, but CM's just dont make enough money to be the
"smoking Police" and to start arguments with guests.
Dave in Dallas
>If you don't like the smoking rules, or the enforcement
>(or lack therof) then *you* don't go. Imposing your will on others is not
>the
>solution.
From the statistics I've heard, it's only about 20% or 25% of Americans that
smoke. So it's not really a case of non-smokers imposing their will, but more
of a case of the majority rule. The mojority of Americans don't want to be
around second hand smoke.
Dave, Dallas, TX
"Tonstant Weader fwowed up." - Dorothy Parker (1893-1967)
(Closing words of review of The House at Pooh Corner, in Parker's
"Constant Reader" column in The New Yorker - Oct. 20, 1928)
Dave in Dallas
>Yea! Sortof like speak english or get out!
This is an apples and oranges comparison. Speaking English is not a health
concern. Second hand smoke is.
Rusty Martin
>From the statistics I've heard, it's only about 20% or 25% of Americans
>that smoke. So it's not really a case of non-smokers imposing their
>will, but more of a case of the majority rule. The mojority of Americans
>don't want to be around second hand smoke.
Ah, I respectfully disagree my good man from Texas.
Majority rule is *precisely* non-smokers imposing their will on smokers.
Then again, that's the beauty of it, the brilliance of the framers of the
Constitution. They created a system *specifically* to avoid majority rule.
If majority ruled, the Civil Rights act of 1964 would never ever had passed
will of the general populace.
If majority ruled, Al Gore would be President by 532,994 votes, rather than
losing by 5 electoral votes.
If majority ruled, the residents of the City of Orlando would not have passed a
law giving special rights to gays.
If majority ruled, on September 12th 2001 beating the sh*t out of muslims would
have been made legal.
We don't live in a system of majority rule. We live in a republic, not a
democracy. The setup nearly perfectly affords the protection of the rights of
minorities, and in this case, the minority is smokers.
If the majority doesn't want to be around secondhand smoke, they are free to
avoid places where smoking is allowed. If that actually monitarily affected
business in such a way that they figured it would be more profitable to be
non-smoking, the rules would be changed, *without* the mob ruling. That's the
beauty of the system and it works.
MWS987
>a
>law giving special rights to gays.
>
Not wanting to start a flame war here, but what "special" rights were gays
given? The right to work and live in peace?
Charlie Foxtrot
>To be honest, it would almost be better guest
> relations to ban smoking altogether. This way
> the people that smoke won't even visit and
> there would be no angry guest incidents
> inside the park with CM's enforcement or
> other guests that dislike or can't tolerate the
> smoke.
per day, right?
>The question is...how would they enforce it
> and what is the cost in terms of attendance
> level?
Exactly - and this makes me think of something. You know that decline
in attendance that people keep reminding us started before September 11,
2001? You know where you can trace it back to? The beginning of the
smoking regulations which had me wondering what they were thinking when
they announced them.
Just for the record, I quit smoking over two years ago, so I'm not
saying this because I'm a smoker. I could, personally, not care less
about smoking areas. From a business stand-point, I thought regulating
smoking in the outdoor areas was not one of the brighter moves of the
company.
>Not an easy topic, in my opinion, to deal with
> for a worldwide visitor base company like
> Disney's parks.
It's not even an easy topic with a local customer base. I know several
owners of stand-alone sports bars that are pretty sure they will be
closing their doors sometime next year, due to Florida's new
anti-smoking law. They have to choose what to do - stop serving food
and lose that income or keep the food income and lose the significant
customer base that is out to drink and smoke.
Foxtrot
WDW1972
(MWS987) writes:
>Not wanting to start a flame war here, but what "special" rights were gays
>given? The right to work and live in peace?
>
I think it was the right to not be discriminated against (denied an apartment,
not be hired) because they're gay. Sounds like a no-brainer to me, but some of
the zealots were up in arms. Guess it's ok to treat a group of people unfairly
if your reason is somehow *good enough*?? <g>
Sue - DivaofDVC aka WDW1972
DVC '97 OKW, Beach Club, Vero Beach, & Hilton Head
ParrotHead
> say, people still pretty much smoke wherever they want, and nobody enforces
> the rules.
Well, I do know that they've been ordered by Lee Cockerell to do
so. But many still choose not to because they don't feel that the risk
of confrontation is worthwhile. This is why I think that perhaps
Security should handle this.
Carol Kennedy
> It's a free market. If you don't like the smoking rules, or the
enforcement
> (or lack therof) then *you* don't go. Imposing your will on others is not
the
> solution.
How about: It's a free market. If someone doesn't like the smoking rules,
or the enforcement thereof, then *they* don't go. Imposing their will on
others is not the solution.
The fact is that it's always a matter of someone imposing their will on
others. Either smokers impose their will on those who object to or are made
sick by smoke (imposing the choice of be exposed to smoke or don't go), or
those who oppose smoking impose their will on smokers (imposing the choice
of go without smoking or don't go). This one is a zero-sum game: someone
wins and someone loses, no matter what.
--
Carol Kennedy (TDC Pollo Grande, Speaker of Inadequate Spanish, and
Translator without Portfolio)
Carol Kennedy
> If the majority doesn't want to be around secondhand smoke, they are free
to
> avoid places where smoking is allowed.
If the minority want to smoke, they are free to avoid places where smoking
isn't allowed.
Dave in Dallas
>Majority rule is *precisely* non-smokers imposing their will on smokers.
If we didn't have such decisions and limitations, or "imosing of will" as you
put it, we'd have no need for laws or ordinances. If the majority didn't want
certain things certain ways there would be no stopping inconsiderate people
from doing what they wanted without regard for others. People in neighborhoods
could run power tools at 2 AM. People could let their animals run free without
licenses or vacinations. People could do what ever they wanted to their house
or property without regard to zoning or ordinances. People could have livestock
within city limits.
>If majority ruled, the Civil Rights act of 1964 would never ever had passed
>will of the general populace.
I think you may have shot yourself in the foot with this example. With this
example you make it sound this was a case of the minority imposing their will
on others. Exactly opposite of what you're trying to say about non-smokers
imposing their will on smokers. And for the record, maybe if as you say, the
majority wouldn't have wanted the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, it would
have eventually been passed no matter what. The majority was being won over to
the need for the Civil Rights Act. There was a movement in progress that was
gaining momentum and gaining numbers of supporters. So yes, the majority would
have ruled on this issue because it would have become, and has become what the
majority wants.
>If majority ruled, the residents of the City of Orlando would not have passed
>a
>law giving special rights to gays.
What "special rights" are you talking about? "Special rights" to live and work
without discrimination? I don't consider that an special right but an equal
right. And I do think that Americans living without discrimination is
something the majority does indeed want.
>If majority ruled, on September 12th 2001 beating the sh*t out of muslims
>would
>have been made legal.
I can't believe you actually wrote those words. No, I don't believe the
majority of Americans would want it legal to beat any and all muslims. I will
agree that the majority wanted and still wants the perpetrators and all
associated to be brought to justice. But wide spread brutalization of all
people of a religion? I don't think so.
>We don't live in a system of majority rule. We live in a republic, not a
>democracy.
Really? Then why do we even bother with elections?
>If the majority doesn't want to be around secondhand smoke, they are free to
>avoid places where smoking is allowed.
And conversly, if people want to smoke they are free to go where smoking is
alowed. But if the numbers of smokers in the United States are dwindeling, and
they statistically are, then it makes sense that the space needed for people
to be able to smoke should also be reduced.
>If that actually monitarily affected
>business in such a way that they figured it would be more profitable to be
>non-smoking, the rules would be changed, *without* the mob ruling.
And don't you think that just maybe this is the case? Since non-smokers have
become the majority, and as such the larger group of partrons to business, the
decision to not go where smoking is allowed does effect businesses monitarily.
It's hardly "mob rule". It's a case of what I think most people want. Just
because it's not what you want doesn't make it wrong. And if I'm not mistaken,
haven't businesses in California shown an monitary upswing since the ban on
smoking?
Cozit / Liz
had a couple of CMs politely explain the rules to smokers... once in
line, once outside a restaurant (and an offer a third time which I
declined telling them that I'd mention it... they were *very* busy at
that shop)... both of those times the CM who was nearby honestly didn't
see that the person was smoking even though they had looked in that
direction a moment or two before that. Not something they said, I just
noticed the reaction on their face as they looked around when I
mentioned it and when they "found" the person while looking.
-Liz
Rusty Martin
>Rusty wrote:
>>We don't live in a system of majority rule. We live in a republic, not a
>>democracy.
>Really? Then why do we even bother with elections?
PolySci 101 Dave. There is a difference between a Republic and a Democracy.
In a Republic the people still vote. The system just works differently (and
better) than a Democracy.
Rusty Martin
>Not wanting to start a flame war here, but what "special" rights were
>gays given? The right to work and live in peace?
and Dave in Texas wrote:
>What "special rights" are you talking about? "Special rights" to live and
>work without discrimination? I don't consider that an special right but
>an equal right.
It's fairly simple. Gays were given discrimination protections that others do
not have.
There's nothing illegal about paying less salary or denying a home to people
based upon if they're:
- Bald
- Short
- Fat
- Redhaired
- Smokers
- Dressed in purple
- From Alabama
- Liberal
.... or any of a thousand other criteria.
There's no protection against discrimination, it doesn't exist. But now my gay
friends have it, whilst other people don't. *That's* what I mean by special
rights.
> And I do think that Americans living without discrimination is
> something the majority does indeed want.
I agree wholeheartedly.
So let's give discrimination protection to *everyone*, and not just specific
groups.
Dabmusic57
>alowed. But if the numbers of smokers in the United States are dwindeling,
>and
>they statistically are, then it makes sense that the space needed for people
>to be able to smoke should also be reduced.
>
>>If that actually monitarily affected
>>business in such a way that they figured it would be more profitable to be
>>non-smoking, the rules would be changed, *without* the mob ruling.
>
>And don't you think that just maybe this is the case? Since non-smokers have
>become the majority, and as such the larger group of partrons to business,
>the
>decision to not go where smoking is allowed does effect businesses
>monitarily.
>It's hardly "mob rule". It's a case of what I think most people want. Just
>because it's not what you want doesn't make it wrong. And if I'm not
>mistaken,
>haven't businesses in California shown an monitary upswing since the ban on
>smoking?
>
WDW/DL if they ban it all together. It sounds like most smokers on here are
considerate and go to the smoking areas and stay out of walkways but it appears
that non smokers want it banned altogether. Doesn't seem like there will be a
happy medium. Yes there will always be people who don't follow the rules and
are rude to non smokers and people from smoking states who don't realize there
are smoking rules elsewhere (including from Europe not just the states). I
don't happen to be one of those people, I stay away from walkways and get as
far back as possible when smoking to not interfer with walkers.
CA businesses? Who knows if it was the smoking or not but it's been so long
since they have had these laws it's amazing to me that other states are just
now starting theirs. I just assumed most states did it long ago when CA
started theirs. I smoke way less when I'm home in CA visiting than I do in
Oklahoma which is a smoking state. I hated it when they passed the laws in CA
but within a year, I found myself smoking less and it not bothering me but
actually it helped me. It may be my imagination but it appeared more people
used the smoking section in DL vs WDW and I'm thinking that perhaps the laws
had been in place so much longer that people are just use to it and know to
look for the sections. Perhaps within a year or so WDW will be the same when
FL laws have been in place for awhile? It amazes me now that I use to smoke at
my desk in a state office back in the early 80's. I think it was 83 when
smoking in CA state buildings was banned.
Eyeluvdiznee
> There are thousands of people in the park and CM's can't monitor every
> single one of them>>
the same way they monitor the no drinking policy in the MK.
and I disagree about the CM's can't monitor everyone comment, they are
stationed all over the park, they are in places that you wouldn't even know
of. if something ever happens (lost child, bomb, whatever) they will all
come running.
there is no reason that they cannot control smoking in the parks.
but they DO need the help and agreement of the guests there.
we have already talked about CM's seeing smokers, but they don't want to ask
them to move out of fear of confrontation.
the CM's are aware, they just either:
1-don't get paid enough
2-don't car enough
3-don't want to be yelled at.
it has never been an issue of whether or not the CM's know of walk about
smokers, but of why they do nothing about it.
>>Sure, I see plenty of
> people smoking in non-designated areas but I know how to move and get away
> from it if it bothers me>>
obviously for the non smokers, they will just move out of the way.
however, in my personal situation, I will be sitting with my son on a bench,
and a cloud of smoke goes past me from a walk about smoker.
how am I to avoid this?
how do you walk away from something you don't know is coming?
and that is not something that just goes away when it dissipates, the toxins
stay with you all day.
I don't think there is anything wrong with people who smoke.
I have found many smokers to be very considerate.
I am just trying to protect my son (and his airway).
--
someone who disagrees with everything "Ron Ng" says!
Rusty Martin
>And don't you think that just maybe this is the case? Since
>non-smokers have become the majority, and as such the larger group
>of partrons to business, the decision to not go where smoking is
>allowed does effect businesses monitarily. It's hardly "mob rule". It's a
>case of what I think most people want. Just because it's not what you
>want doesn't make it wrong. And if I'm not mistaken, haven't
>businesses in California shown an monitary upswing since the ban on
>smoking?
Perhaps they have, but you're missing my point.
It's the *market* that should decide, not the government. Afford me a
hypothetical example which I believe illustrates the point (and also brings
this discussion back on-topic <g> )
Smoking is not permitted in the Adventurers Club.
Smoking *is* permitted in Mannequins.
If Disney were to change the rules and allow smoking in the Adventurers Club
(*disasterous* in my opinion) the attendance and revenue would drop. If Disney
were to also change the rules and *prohibit* smoking in Mannequins, attendance
and revenue would *also* drop.
Disney right now is making the correct business decision in both cases. But
it's *Disney* and the market which has made the decision, *not* the government
or mob rule. If you were to just take a poll of PI patrons, I'm *sure* they
would vote to ban smoking in *every* club. See the difference?
People who can't stand smoke are free to go to the AC or CW. Smokers can
either choose to avoid the AC or CW or comply with the non-smoking rules. In
*either* case, people are free to choose *and* Disney maintains control of
their own rules. This is the way it should work. Each specific business
should make its own business decision. But polling the majority on PI will not
give the correct result.
Dave in Dallas
>It sounds like most smokers on here are
>considerate and go to the smoking areas and stay out of walkways but it
>appears
>that non smokers want it banned altogether.
I don't think that's true. At least for this non-smoker. I have no problem
with people choosing to smoke. But I also see no problem in providing
comfortable, convinient areas for them to do so.
>Doesn't seem like there will be a
>happy medium.
I'm not sure about this, either. The majority of smokers I know are
considerate and have no problem removing themselves from groups to have a
smoke. And I don't think the the majority of non-smokers are complete
abolisionists. I think it's more of a case of both sides are in transition of
defining their boundaries.
>CA businesses? Who knows if it was the smoking or not but it's been so long
>since they have had these laws it's amazing to me that other states are just
>now starting theirs.
It often has seemed that something that happens in California eventually
becomes practice in other states. Other states sort of wait to watch how
something like this works out in California before they decide to give it a
try. And I don't really think it's been that many years since California gave
this smoking regulation in restaurants and bars a try. It's really been only 3
or 4 years, hasn't it? I honestly think it's amazingly fast that other states
and cities are giving consideration to similar regulations.
>I hated it when they passed the laws in CA
>but within a year, I found myself smoking less and it not bothering me but
>actually it helped me.
Good for you. Change is often difficult, but we eventually get used to it and
adapt.
Dave in Dallas
>we have already talked about CM's seeing smokers, but they don't want to ask
>them to move out of fear of confrontation.
>the CM's are aware, they just either:
>1-don't get paid enough
>2-don't car enough
>3-don't want to be yelled at.
This doesn't hold water for me. You are told the requirements of a job when
you take it. Not being paid enough, not caring enought or not wanting to be
yelled at are not reasons for avoiding parts of your job you find unplesant.
There are parts of my job I don't like doing, but if I skipped over them I know
there would be consequences to my actions.
>obviously for the non smokers, they will just move out of the way.
>however, in my personal situation, I will be sitting with my son on a bench,
>and a cloud of smoke goes past me from a walk about smoker.
>how am I to avoid this?
>how do you walk away from something you don't know is coming?
Good point. And this is why there needs to be clearly designated smoking
areas. So if someone wants to avoid second hand smoke, they can.
MickeyM©
Tyler Durden <tyler...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3df7a3db$1...@news.teranews.com...
> We were happy when they created the new smoking rules for the parks.
Are you speaking for everyone now??? Try keeping it to a opinion, not a
general statement of fact. i.e. "Many were happy when they created the new
smoking rules for the parks."
> Designated areas only, with the goal of eliminating it completely. Sad to
> say, people still pretty much smoke wherever they want, and nobody
enforces
> the rules.
Funny, I've seen CMs ask people to please go to a smoking area. Again,
maybe "many" people don't do anything, but "nobody" is just a over reactive
statement.
>Countless times in every park we were bothered by people smoking
> where they shouldn't and never once did anybody say a word. It is time for
> Disney to ban it completely, no exceptions.
Yes there are many rude people that smoke where they aren't allowed. I
smoke and I'm offended by people that do this. Enforcement is the key issue.
If your going to have the rules, at least enforce them. The wife and I
smoke. The wife and I go down to WDW twice a year for a minimum total annual
stay of 17 days. We spend a good deal of money every year there. That is
just 2 of I'm sure many reasons that you won't see smoking banned
completely. I doubt we would spend as much time ( or money ) in the parks as
we do if we couldn't smoke at all until we left the park.
I think it's funny how very few people ever put this issue square in the lap
of the government where it belongs. If tobacco were under FDA control, as so
many other consumer products are, it would have been banned as a cancer
causing agent like other products are. But tobacco is under ATF control who
seem to feel that death by tobacco is OK for the American people.
Maybe if people put more focus on the point that tobacco is the only cancer
causing agent legally sold for human consumption. And that the government
could put a stop to sales at ANY TIME. Then maybe we could spend less time
discussing public smoking rights at WDW or anywhere else for that matter.
--
MickeyM©
GOH 1996 DVC 1999 BWV
The Walt Disney World 360 Project
http://WDW360.Digi-Hut.com
The Disney World Photographers Group
http://groups.msn.com/DisneyWorldPhotographers
>
>
Barry L. Wallis
news:20021212114036...@mb-fw.aol.com...
Good example Rusty. In fact, the *only* two clubs my wife and I go to are
the AC and CW exactly because of the smoking policy. I am actually torn on
this. I voted against the smoking restriction law here in California because
I thought it was an unfair infringement on the business owners. However, as
a non-smoker I was happy that it passed because I can now go to restaurants
without concern about breathing the air.
On the other hand, my wife and I generally don't elect to sit outside in
restaurants that offer that as an option because it is likely that people
wandering by will be smoking. I would have supported a law banning smoking
on public streets and other accommodations not privately owned and allowing
private business owners to do as they see fit. At one time they had a law
like this (it included enforced non-smoking in private businesses as well,
though) in San Luis Obispo, California, but I'm not sure of the current
status.
--
- Barry as TDC Sorcerer, Magical Manager of the Mysteriously Missing Main
Street Magic Shop
- "Have a fever? Have the Flu? Come on in and we'll cure you"
- Benjamin Silverstein, M.D., Main Street Disneyland
- DCA Pictures: http://members.cox.net/barry.wallis
MickeyM©
telling the smokers your problems and try telling the government. Funny how
the ATF doesn't want us to have guns anymore, but tobacco is OK.
MickeyM©
--
MickeyM©
GOH 1996 DVC 1999 BWV
The Walt Disney World 360 Project
http://WDW360.Digi-Hut.com
The Disney World Photographers Group
http://groups.msn.com/DisneyWorldPhotographers
Rusty Martin <rusty...@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20021212002909...@mb-mp.aol.com...
Dave in Dallas
>If Disney were to change the rules and allow smoking in the Adventurers Club
>(*disasterous* in my opinion) the attendance and revenue would drop. If
>Disney
>were to also change the rules and *prohibit* smoking in Mannequins,
>attendance
>and revenue would *also* drop.
I understand your point, but I don't nescessarily agree with it. If smoking
were banned in Mannequins I don't think attendance would really drop. That's
always been the arguement of restaurants and bars that fear being subjected to
smoking regulations. But after having to deal with the regulations attendance
and revenue, from what I understand, doesn't drop at all. I've heard it in
some cases actually increases. And in the case of a place like Mannequins, why
couldn't comfortable smoking facilities be provided for those wishing to smoke?
It's not like the primary purpose of the club is smoking. Is smoking so
intigrated into a dance club experience that it would completely destroy the
overall experience for the smoker, even if there were a comfortable location
for them to enjoy a smoke when they wished it?
>Disney right now is making the correct business decision in both cases. But
>it's *Disney* and the market which has made the decision, *not* the
>government or mob rule.
I keep coming back to the fact that it's really a health concern. Not just for
the patrons, but most importantly for those who must work in that environment.
Sure people can choose to work or not to work under those conditions. The same
could be said for lots of other unsafe working conditions. But that doesn't
make it right. That's like saying it's OK for people to work in a building
infected with black mold as long as you tell them about it before they take the
job. And in matters of public health, yes it is the business of the
government. And no, it's anything but mob rule.
>If you were to just take a poll of PI patrons, I'm *sure* they
>would vote to ban smoking in *every* club. See the difference?
No. Frankly I don't see your point here. Why is it wrong for the patrons of
PI having their voice heard? That doesn't make sense to me.
>People who can't stand smoke are free to go to the AC or CW. Smokers can
>either choose to avoid the AC or CW or comply with the non-smoking rules.
No arguement. As things currently stand, yes, people do have a choice in both
cases. But specifically for Mannequins, why should the majority be discouraged
from enjoying the establishment for the convenience of the minority? As I
asked earlier, is smoking so integrated into the experience of a dance club
that to regulate it would would completely destroy the experience for the
smoker? And I want to go on record stating that I'm not advocating a ban on
smoking. But I see no problem with using a comfortable, regulated smoking
facility if this is what the majority wishes.
Eyeluvdiznee
I agree that it is wrong, but that was basically the end result in the last
discussion on this topic.
you are right, just about every job out there deals with something
unpleasant some time or another. that just goes with the territory for the
work force. with that said, I DO NOT think that it's right for CM's to be
treated badly by smokers with attitude, but it has been shown that is what
happens. I do think that they should still tell people to move, and if they
are rude, yell or start calling people names, then I think that they should
be kicked out of the park (that's just my opinion).
I would hope that Disney would have a little respect for their employees,
and if they were being harassed by a guest, they would remove them totally.
I know that won't happen, but in a perfect world, we wouldn't even have to
have a smoking debate, everyone would all just get along!
--
someone who disagrees with everything "Ron Ng" says!
"Dave in Dallas" <dav...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20021212120930...@mb-ch.aol.com...
LJCefali
based upon if they're:- Bald- Short- Fat- Redhaired-Smokers- Dressed in purple-
From Alabama >>
Probably because this rarely happens based on those criteria. If they were
denied regularly, then there would be something illegal about it
Barry L. Wallis
news:IA3K9.330137$QZ.48387@sccrnsc02...
I'm confused. I neither smoke nor use a firearm (I do drink in moderation).
When did the BATF make a policy decision against the use of legal firearms?
In fact, all three items are legal and controlled in the US.
Barry L. Wallis
> Rusty Martin wrote:
[...]
> No arguement. As things currently stand, yes, people do have a choice in
both
> cases. But specifically for Mannequins, why should the majority be
discouraged
> from enjoying the establishment for the convenience of the minority? As I
> asked earlier, is smoking so integrated into the experience of a dance
club
> that to regulate it would would completely destroy the experience for the
> smoker? And I want to go on record stating that I'm not advocating a ban
on
> smoking. But I see no problem with using a comfortable, regulated smoking
> facility if this is what the majority wishes.
What you say makes sense and I agree with you. However, the owner of the
club (Disney) doesn't agree with us. If they thought that making it into a
non-smoking (smoking-regulated) club would increase profits, I believe they
would do that. The alternative is to believe that Disney has some other
agenda regarding the smoking issue.
Dave in Dallas
> with that said, I DO NOT think that it's right for CM's to be
>treated badly by smokers with attitude,
Neither do I. But if that were the situation wouldn't the CM have the option
of calling their supervisor to the situation? Or security? The CM shouldn't
have to handle an unmageable situation. But they should make an gentle attempt
at correcting a guest's indiscretion rather than overtly avoiding it being
afraid of a possible conflict.
Dave in Dallas
>What you say makes sense and I agree with you. However, the owner of the
>club (Disney) doesn't agree with us. If they thought that making it into a
>non-smoking (smoking-regulated) club would increase profits, I believe they
>would do that. The alternative is to believe that Disney has some other
>agenda regarding the smoking issue.
I'm not sure it an agenda as much as it's Disney's dragging their feet until
they need to make a commitment. Disney has never really been a trail blazer on
controversial issues. It think it will take another corporation such as
Universal with City Walk to make this type of move before Disney will even
consider it.
Rusty Martin
>It think it will take another corporation such as
>Universal with City Walk to make this type of move before Disney will even
>consider it.
Note well: Universal has made *no* moves to copy Disney on their smoking
policies.
They outright stole the fastpass idea. But designated smoking areas? None.
See? That's the free market at work. If they thought they'd make more money
following Disney's lead, they would in a heartbeat.
Rusty Martin
>I understand your point, but I don't nescessarily agree with it. If
>smoking were banned in Mannequins I don't think attendance would
>really drop. That's always been the arguement of restaurants and bars
>that fear being subjected to smoking regulations. But after having to
>deal with the regulations attendance and revenue, from what I
>understand, doesn't drop at all. I've heard it in some cases actually
>increases.
I'm sorry but you just don't get it.
If a business owner on his own decides to make a particular establishment no
smoking, then the patron has a choice whether to go there or not.
When no-smoking is *mandated*, the patron has his choice taken away. When the
playing field is the same for *all* businesses, and everyone is *forced* to be
non-smoking, revenue and attendance won't change very much. But *instead* you
have completely alienated people who prefer that envirionment.
On the other hand, if the business owner is permitted to make his *own* choice,
then patrons on both sides of the issue are free to make their own decisions,
go or not go. But it seems that to you, smokers shouldn't have *anyplace* to
go, just in case *you* might go there.
Because *you're* in the majority, *we* get no place to go. Mob rule.
> And in the case of a place like Mannequins, why couldn't comfortable
>smoking facilities be provided for those wishing to smoke?
Why not just accept the place as it is. It's a smoking dance club. If Disney
thought for a *minute* they'd make more money with it as a non-smoking club,
they'd do it in a second. Don't be naive enough to believe they don't have the
data on that.
> It's not like the primary purpose of the club is smoking.
No, but maybe smokers enjoy going there. I like to smoke when I drink (just
like I like to smoke when I play blackjack) Mannequins gives me a nice place
to go, drink, smoke and chat with bartenders.
>Is smoking so
>intigrated into a dance club experience that it would completely destroy
>the overall experience for the smoker, even if there were a comfortable
>location for them to enjoy a smoke when they wished it?
Like where? On the third floor? Why not just accept the place as it is. If
you don't like it, don't go. If I don't like the AC or CW, *I* don't go. Free
choice in a free society.
>I keep coming back to the fact that it's really a health concern. Not just
> for the patrons, but most importantly for those who must work in that
> environment. Sure people can choose to work or not to work under
>those conditions. The same could be said for lots of other unsafe
>working conditions. But that doesn't make it right.
Please. Have any PI bartender friends? Wanna find out how long the line is to
*become* a Mannequins bartenter? It is highly sought after. Bartenders who've
left it generally prefer to be back there. Choice, that's what it's all about.
Individual freedoms.
> That's like saying it's OK for people to work in a building
>infected with black mold as long as you tell them about it before they
>take the job. And in matters of public health, yes it is the business of
>the government. And no, it's anything but mob rule.
And I guess that's where you and I part company. I see no problem with workers
being informed about the hazardous nature of a particular workplace and then
letting *them* decide if that's the employment they want. (Note, I don't
support dirtbag employers who *don't* inform their workstaff of inherent
dangers, they should be jailed)
Individual freedom. It was what this country was founded on.
>No. Frankly I don't see your point here. Why is it wrong for the
>patrons of PI having their voice heard? That doesn't make sense to me.
Obviously you're not a free market person. The patrons of PI *are* making
their voice heard. They're the ones spending the money.
Someone may be able to correct me if I'm wrong here, but I seem to remember
that at one point the Jazz Club was non-smoking. Now it's smoking *and*
cigar-friendly. Exactly what a jazz club should be.
>No arguement. As things currently stand, yes, people do have a
>choice in both cases. But specifically for Mannequins, why should the
>majority be discouraged from enjoying the establishment for the
>convenience of the minority?
Once again, you're getting back to mob rule. Manniquins as it is *is* the
experience. Your choice to go or not go.
Basically, your point of view seems to be saying that since smokers are in the
minority, they can't have *anyplace* to enjoy. Mob rule.
> As I asked earlier, is smoking so integrated into the experience of a
>dance club that to regulate it would would completely destroy the
>experience for the smoker?
You mean aside from that obnoxious smoke gas they pour in to the place every 15
minutes? Would making it non-smoking make it that much better for you? C'mon.
It is what it is. If Disney thought they'd make more money catering to a
non-smoking crowd, they would. In a heartbeat.
>But I see no problem with using a
>comfortable, regulated smoking facility if this is what the majority
>wishes.
It's comfortable and regulated as it is. But your *mob* majority would rather
take one more place away from my enjoyment.
What? There aren't enough non-smoking places already? You just *have* to have
it further regulated? Choice. Go or not go, that way the decision is yours
and mine and Disney's, and not a behemoth government. That's the way it should
be.
S. Arnold
>I think it's funny how very few people ever put this issue square in the lap
>of the government where it belongs. If tobacco were under FDA control, as so
>many other consumer products are, it would have been banned as a cancer
>causing agent like other products are. But tobacco is under ATF control who
>seem to feel that death by tobacco is OK for the American people.
>Maybe if people put more focus on the point that tobacco is the only cancer
>causing agent legally sold for human consumption. And that the government
>could put a stop to sales at ANY TIME. Then maybe we could spend less time
>discussing public smoking rights at WDW or anywhere else for that matter.
There is one reason why tobacco is legal: MONEY
The taxes on cigarettes are a "great" money maker for local, state and
federal governments (plus all of the jobs that the tobacco industry
creates and the "special perks" that our representatives and senators
get from the "industry")
This is the reason why tobacco isn't regulated by the FDA
Steven
TDC Knight of Fantasia Garden
SGC
"Eyeluvdiznee" <Eyeluv...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e12dnYjhbeO...@giganews.com...
> > My question is how can Disney enforce the current smoking restrictions?
> > There are thousands of people in the park and CM's can't monitor every
> > single one of them>>
> snip
>
> the same way they monitor the no drinking policy in the MK.
And how do they monitor the "no drinking" policy in the MK? (just curious,
no accusatory tone intended)
Seems to me that since there isn't anywhere to buy a drink in MK you can't
get a drink. I suppose you could carry in your own beer/wine/liquor -- but
y'know what... that stuff is a heck of a lot heavier to lug around than a
pack of cigarettes and a lighter.
SGC
Rusty Martin
>How about: It's a free market. If someone doesn't like the smoking
>rules, or the enforcement thereof, then *they* don't go. Imposing their
>will on others is not the solution.
Carol, I couldn't agree with you more. If Disney or any other business chooses
to be non-smoking I have absolutely *no* problem with that. What I *do* have a
problem with is making constitutional amendments that remove the choice from
the matter.
>The fact is that it's always a matter of someone imposing their will on
>others. Either smokers impose their will on those who object to or are
>made sick by smoke (imposing the choice of be exposed to smoke or
>don't go), or those who oppose smoking impose their will on smokers
>(imposing the choice of go without smoking or don't go). This one is a
>zero-sum game: someone wins and someone loses, no matter what.
Yes, it is. But it maintains our freedoms which is the issue as I see it.
Afford me the opportunity to discuss a specific business development that I've
seen three different times over the last 10 years. This exact scenario
happened to three businesses that I patronized in two states.
The business was a restaurant, catering mostly to a lunch crowd. The
restaurant had both a smoking and a non-smoking section. Due to complaints
from non-smokers, the manager decided to make the restaurant 100% non-smoking.
(In one of these cases I was surveyed by the manager several weeks in advance
and actually *told* the manager that I would discontinue my patronage) At any
rate, the restaurants each went non-smoking. The loss in business from the
smokers was not made up by extra business from non-smokers. The restaurants
were in trouble.
Then each of these restaurant managers made the critical error. They went back
to the original setup, with both smoking and non-smoking sections.
Unfortunately, the non-smokers who had gotten used to it being non-smoking,
abandoned the place in droves. In all 3 cases, the restaurants were out of
business in less than a year from the first change.
The fact of the matter is, business wants to cater to both sides, and that's
really how it should be. It's unfortunate that the millitant non-smokers can't
leave us be.
Non smokers can choose to avoid restaurants that allow smokers, smoker can
choose to avoid restaurants that prohibit smoking. The decision on which way
to be should be solely that of managment, *not* a constitutional amendment.
MWS987
>based upon if they're:
>
>- Bald
>- Short
>- Fat
>- Redhaired
>- Smokers
>- Dressed in purple
>- From Alabama
>- Liberal
>.... or any of a thousand other criteria.
Please tell me one time when someone was strung up on a fence to die ala Mathew
Sheppard because one of the above things? You just dont get it!
Carol Kennedy
<snip>
> Non smokers can choose to avoid restaurants that allow smokers, smoker can
> choose to avoid restaurants that prohibit smoking.
The difference is that if businesses don't allow smoking, the smokers'
decision is between (1) going to the business and not smoking and (2) not
going; if businesses allow smoking, the nonsmokers' decision is between (1)
going to the businesses and having their health damaged and (2) not going.
Those are not equal sets of options. That inequality of opportunity makes
this a public-policy issue.
Smokers harm others who are subjected to their smoke. Nonsmokers do not harm
others by not smoking. It's that simple.
--
Carol Kennedy (TDC Pollo Grande, Speaker of Inadequate Spanish, and
Translator without Portfolio)
WDW1972
(Dave in Dallas) writes:
>I understand your point, but I don't nescessarily agree with it. If smoking
>were banned in Mannequins I don't think attendance would really drop. That's
>always been the arguement of restaurants and bars that fear being subjected
>to
>smoking regulations. But after having to deal with the regulations attendance
>and revenue, from what I understand, doesn't drop at all. I've heard it in
>some cases actually increases.
I agree. If Mannequins decided to go non-smoking while the rest of the bars
stayed as they are, then I'd believe there would be a loss in revenue.
However, if a law was passed that banned smoking in ALL clubs, I think the
smokers would grumble but they'd be back. It's not like you can go dancing &
looking to meet someone in your own house or apartment <g>. I also agree that
revenue would increase in that case, as some of the people who refuse to go in
(either disgusted by the stench of smoke or physically not able to handle it)
now because people smoke in there are suddenly willing to spend time there.
Remember the airlines and the claims that smokers would stop flying & bankrupt
the industry? LOL - didn't happen. However, if only 1 airline had gone
non-smoking, the smokers probably would have left that airline...and people
like me would have gone out of their way to purposely book it knowing they'd be
spared the cigarette smoke.
Sue - DivaofDVC aka WDW1972
DVC '97 OKW, Beach Club, Vero Beach, & Hilton Head
femino
rusty...@aol.comBATSPAM (Rusty Martin) wrote:
> It's comfortable and regulated as it is. But your *mob* majority would
> rather
> take one more place away from my enjoyment.
>
> What? There aren't enough non-smoking places already? You just *have*
> to have
> it further regulated? Choice. Go or not go, that way the decision is
> yours
> and mine and Disney's, and not a behemoth government. That's the way it
> should
> be.
I think you like using the word mob because of the connotations, but it
doesn't work in your examples. A mob is a large unruly group. I think
you are talking about majority, not mob.
Sandi
Cozit / Liz
restaurant near me that made the decision to go completely non-smoking,
rather than divide it's room space. There is almost always a line,
almost every day of the week, till fairly late in the evening most nights.
Admittedly, there are many restaurants in the area that boast lines just
about every night, but it's not even close to most of the restaurants...
and I know people who make the decision to go to Champs to go to the bar
and hang out with friends, snack a little or eat a meal, partially for
the reason that it *isn't* going to be smokey. Certainly their bar
attracts more people than I've seen at several other restaurants that
allow smoking in their bar area, both at the bar and at the tables in
the bar area.
If Disney chose one dance club/bar to make non-smoking and advertised it
as such (making it prominant in their description of the place... maybe
second to decor-atmosphere and music type) I'm betting that it wouldn't
do so badly... assuming they also picked decent music.
-Liz (who'd be happy as a clam to hit a dance club/bar that was
non-smoking... and won't go to one that is, for health reasons...
limiting choices a lot)
tx
> obviously for the non smokers, they will just move out of the way.
> however, in my personal situation, I will be sitting with my son on a
bench,
> and a cloud of smoke goes past me from a walk about smoker.
> how am I to avoid this?
> how do you walk away from something you don't know is coming?
> and that is not something that just goes away when it dissipates, the
toxins
> stay with you all day.
Okay, it's not pleasent but does this happen to you everytime you sit on a
bench? I don't beleive this happening once in a while is going to kill
anyone. Toxins of various degrees are all around in this world. It's
consistant and regular exposure over time that harms you. I am of course
presuming when this happens you don't run over to the smoking areas to get
more (rather you just remain there and breath in that puff cloud I guess).
Say a car drove by you sitting on a roadside bench with heavy black exhaust.
Would you sit there and wonder if the smoke was going to harm you? Probably
not. Logically, you'd be more likely to get away probably coughing and
gaging at the same time. Drinking by others is far more dangerous to you
than a puff cloud of their smoke. A drunk can get behind the wheel and hit
someone sitting on a bench without warning and cause permanent and immediate
problems. No smoke or exhaust to warn you to get away from that!
> I don't think there is anything wrong with people who smoke.
But it seems you do...some walk by you with a puff of smoke in a non-smoking
area that you can't be preapred for before it happens. You probably
wouldn't have any opinion if you truly felt there was nothing wrong with all
people who smoke. Obviously, the smokers that smoke in a fashion that you
consider offensive you don't think very highly of. Even if it was a close
friend that did that to you, don't you think you would think a little less
of them?
> I have found many smokers to be very considerate.
In a perfect society everyone would be considerate but life isn't like that
so sometimes you need to take your own actions for self preservation. In a
perfect society, noone would be addicted and enjoy a smoke since it can
cause cancer over time.
> I am just trying to protect my son (and his airway).
Exactly, so take the initiave to get up and move him away from that area.
In an outdoor environment, that person's 3 second walk by smoke cloud isn't
going to follow you around the rest of your day. Why should you?? Because
the world isn't full of only considerate people and ultimately you are the
only one that can truly try and protect your best interests. Don't expect
someone else (like the Disney Co.) to do it for you. That's easier than
getting irritated about something you can't personally change about others.
If anyone finds a way to get everyone in society to follow all rules, laws,
policies and procedures, let me know becuase it would sure make my
management job a lot easier.
My gosh, you'd think I was a smoker but I'm not. I just don't think
restricting all smokers in this type of outdoor environment for some smokers
offending some nonsmokers is justified. I'll step down from my soap box
now. :)
Tyler Durden
> > We were happy when they created the new smoking rules for the parks.
>
> Are you speaking for everyone now??? Try keeping it to a opinion, not a
> general statement of fact. i.e. "Many were happy when they created the new
> smoking rules for the parks."
Shut up. I was talking about my family.
> Funny, I've seen CMs ask people to please go to a smoking area. Again,
> maybe "many" people don't do anything, but "nobody" is just a over
reactive
> statement.
I didn't see a single correction. That is not overstatement.
> Maybe if people put more focus on the point that tobacco is the only
cancer
> causing agent legally sold for human consumption. And that the government
> could put a stop to sales at ANY TIME. Then maybe we could spend less time
> discussing public smoking rights at WDW or anywhere else for that matter.
You know this yet, you do it anyway.
Disney would be doing smokers a service, imo, if they banned it. But hey, if
you want to make yourself, your clothes, room, car and everything else
smell, and kill yourself in the process, then have at it, big guy.
Tyler Durden
> Because *you're* in the majority, *we* get no place to go. Mob rule.
Tough shit. Your habits hurt other people. Why would anybody give a crap
about you smoking?
Rusty Martin
>But hey, if
>you want to make yourself, your clothes, room, car and everything else
>smell, and kill yourself in the process, then have at it, big guy.
That's all we'd like, thanks.
Rusty Martin
>That inequality of opportunity makes
>this a public-policy issue.
The best public policies are those which provide the most freedoms for the
society. The worst public policies are those which inhibit our freedoms as
citizens. Free market choice. It is the foundation of our culture.
It should be the choice of the proprietor, not the will of government stuck
responding to millitant non-smokers.
>Smokers harm others who are subjected to their smoke. Nonsmokers
>do not harm others by not smoking. It's that simple.
I will reiterate, there are *no* valid studies which show that casual exposure
to secondhand smoke (as differentiated from excessive exposure like living in a
smoking home or a smoke-filled workplace) causes any ill long term health
effects. If you disagree, cite a specific study that does.
Notwithstanding...
...what you're saying is that if a proprietor puts a sign up on his front door
that says "This is a smoke-friendly envirionment. If you do no wish to be in
such an envirionment we suggest you patronize another establishment and please
do not enter." that wouldn't be good enough for you. You're basically saying
smokers can't have *any* place to go because *you* find it offensive.
Personally, I think that attitude stinks.
Tolerence, we all have to live together. If you find it offensive, or if you
think it's unhealthy for you, don't go. But don't take it away from us.
Roy Johnson
the parks that don't smoke.
That's democratic. So I'll start it.
7 go in my party-none smoke- So far 7 no smoking days :-)
Roy.
--
http://www.biddulph.u-net.com email r...@biddulph.u-net.com
Our Vacation Rental Home in Florida near Disney şoş.
Know the value of time,snatch,seize and
enjoy every minute of it.
"Tyler Durden" <tyler...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3df7a3db$1...@news.teranews.com...
> We were happy when they created the new smoking rules for the parks.
> Designated areas only, with the goal of eliminating it completely. Sad to
> say, people still pretty much smoke wherever they want, and nobody
enforces
> the rules. Countless times in every park we were bothered by people
Dizznoid
2 out of 2 smoke in my party x 23 trips to date
= 46 smoking days
Current status is 46 smoking 7 non
"Roy Johnson" <Jo...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:atcge8$jth$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Carol Kennedy
> I will reiterate, there are *no* valid studies which show that casual
exposure
> to secondhand smoke (as differentiated from excessive exposure like living
in a
> smoking home or a smoke-filled workplace) causes any ill long term health
> effects. If you disagree, cite a specific study that does.
Someone already cited it. Not only that, they cited a *tobacco company*
brochure that says it. You ignored the post. I'm not going to go hunting for
it, only to have you ignore it again.
In addition, why do the health effects have to be "long-term" to be
significant? I got an ear infection because of upper-respiratory irritation
caused by a single hour in a not-visibly-smoky casino, and my doctor says
that not unusual.
> ...what you're saying is that if a proprietor puts a sign up on his front
door
> that says "This is a smoke-friendly envirionment. If you do no wish to be
in
> such an envirionment we suggest you patronize another establishment and
please
> do not enter." that wouldn't be good enough for you. You're basically
saying
> smokers can't have *any* place to go because *you* find it offensive.
Not because I find it offensive, but because it damages my (and others')
health. Allowing smoking in public is exactly the same as allowing the
pollution of air, water, and land.
> Tolerence, we all have to live together. If you find it offensive, or if
you
> think it's unhealthy for you, don't go. But don't take it away from us.
You aren't allowed to hit me because you feel like punching someone, saying
"If you don't want to get hit, don't go where I am." You aren't allowed to
take a sledgehammer to my car because you don't like the color, saying, "If
you want a car that color, stay out of my sight." You aren't allowed to
drive after drinking, saying "If you don't like it, stay off the roads." You
shouldn't be allowed to pollute the air I must breathe, saying "If you don't
like it, stay out of places where I want to smoke."
Dave in Dallas
>The best public policies are those which provide the most freedoms for the
>society.
As I said before, if this were the case there would be no reason for laws or
ordinances. If what you say is true, we could have livestock within city
limits, we wouldn't have to have our dogs licecensed and vacinated for rabies,
we wouldn't have to show proof of insurance to drive a car, we could walk down
the street nude if we felt like doing so, there would be no regulated use of
fireworks, you could drive dunk, and other examples too numerous to mention.
>The worst public policies are those which inhibit our freedoms as
>citizens.
What about the non-smoker's freedom to breath in public places where smoking
isn't regulated?
>I will reiterate, there are *no* valid studies which show that casual
>exposure
>to secondhand smoke (as differentiated from excessive exposure like living in
>a
>smoking home or a smoke-filled workplace) causes any ill long term health
>effects.
Someone already posted quotes from a brochure from a tobacco company stating
the dangers of second hand smoke. From a *tobacco company*. Do you think they
would publish something like this if it wasn't fact? I suggest you go back and
read through this thread and find that posting with the quotes. The
information you said didn't exist regarding second hand smoke has indeed been
provided.
And you mention "long term effects". What about short term effects. They are
just as valid. An allergy reaction or asthma attack is a short term effect
that is indeed a health hazard. Someone told of having to go to a doctor
because of an ear infection caused by second hand smoke. It was a short term
effect that was serious enough to go to a doctor. It doesn't have to be lung
cancer to be enough of a health hazard to consider second hand smoke more than
just an annoyance.
> You're basically saying
>smokers can't have *any* place to go because *you* find it offensive.
Not "offensive". "Health hazard". Like painting the walls of the
establishment with lead based paint. Like having unsaitary conditions in the
kitchen where food is prepared. "Health hazard".
>Personally, I think that attitude stinks.
Well, I got something to say, and I'm not being flippant here, but get used to
it. This is only the beginning of smoking regulations that you will be having
to deal with. And I'm honestly not being a smart ass in saying that. The days
when a smoker could light up any place they wished are long gone. The dangers
of second hand smoke are known, the numbers of smokers have dwindeled to a
small minority, and the opinion of the general public is that second hand smoke
is something we don't want to endure. I'm sorry if a pleasure of yours is
being limited. Butcha know, that's the way things go. And without sarcasm or
hostility, I again say get used to it.
Dave in Dallas
>However, if a law was passed that banned smoking in ALL clubs, I think the
>smokers would grumble but they'd be back.
That seems to have been the case in California.
>It's not like you can go dancing &
>looking to meet someone in your own house or apartment <g>.
Well, I've often gone dancing in my own house. In fact it's the only place I'm
brave enough to do it. <G>
>Remember the airlines and the claims that smokers would stop flying &
>bankrupt
>the industry? LOL - didn't happen.
Exactly!
Me
"Roy Johnson" <Jo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> What about having "No Smoking Days" proportional to the number of people in
> the parks that don't smoke.
> That's democratic. So I'll start it.
Cute idea, but still no way to effectively enforce that type of policy
than there is the current policy, much less determine the proportion of
smokers to non-smokers.
Rodney T. Grill
>From: rusty...@aol.comBATSPAM (Rusty Martin)
>Date: 12/11/2002 11:29 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20021212002909...@mb-mp.aol.com>
>
>If majority ruled, the Civil Rights act of 1964 would never ever had passed
>will of the general populace.
You can't compare the rights of members of a racial group to smokers. Smokers
choose to smoke and can change this aspect of their lives (although, as I know
firthand, it can be very difficult). Race is not something that can be changed
(well, unless you are Michael Jackson). Besides that, there is nothing
offensive about race. There is nothing unhealthy about being around a person
of any particular race. The same cannot be said about smokers.
As for the rule of the majority in this issue, I truly believe that the
majority of Americans wanted everyone to enjoy equal rights regardless of race.
However, there was a small minority of Americans who chose to believe in
racial INEQUITY. It required legislation to make sure that the choices of this
racist minority did not infringe upon the rights of any other American.
This is what is happening now with anti-smoking legislation. A minority of
Americans are smokers, but since smoking is a conscious choice, they are not a
"minority class". Just like with the Civil Rights Act, it appears that a
majority of Americans do not want any rights infringed upon by this "minority
of choice".
- RODNEY
Rusty Martin
I wrote:
>>I will reiterate, there are *no* valid studies which show that casual
>>exposure to secondhand smoke (as differentiated from excessive
>>exposure like living in a smoking home or a smoke-filled workplace)
>>causes any ill long term health effects.
Carol Kennedy commented:
>Someone already cited it. Not only that, they cited a *tobacco
>company* brochure that says it. You ignored the post. I'm not going to
>go hunting for it, only to have you ignore it again.
And Dave in Dallas also commented:
>Someone already posted quotes from a brochure from a tobacco
>company stating the dangers of second hand smoke. From a *tobacco
>company*. Do you think they would publish something like this if it
>wasn't fact? I suggest you go back and read through this thread and
>find that posting with the quotes. The information you said didn't exist
>regarding second hand smoke has indeed been provided.
And Rusty replies....
The cite by LJCefali is of a tobacco company brochure which cites a study which
is solely a study based on other studies. The cite given (which I am in the
process of researching) does not differentiate between *excessive* secondhand
smoke (which you get no argument from me has been proven to be a health hazard)
and *casual* secondhand smoke (which again, no valid study has shown that)
The cite given does not differentiate among the two, and source studies used by
the cited study must be examined to see what, if any, conclusions were drawn on
the *casual* secondhand smoke issue.
Do you understand the difference?
The smoking in public places issue is about *casual* seconhand smoke. The cite
given doesn't differentiate. So no, a contrary cite to my position has *not*
been presented.
Carol K continued....
>In addition, why do the health effects have to be "long-term" to be
>significant? I got an ear infection because of upper-respiratory irritation
>caused by a single hour in a not-visibly-smoky casino, and my doctor
>says hat not unusual.
And Dave added:
>And you mention "long term effects". What about short term effects.
>They are just as valid. An allergy reaction or asthma attack is a short
>term effect that is indeed a health hazard.
Because plenty of people have reactions to plenty of things. Perfume, wool,
various kinds of soap give short-term reactions to some people and they can be
severe. But to regulate it, you would need to show that it is a true health
risk for more than just a few folks.
You're going to go after peanuts at the bar now too?
If you have a reaction, you avoid it.
>The dangers of second hand smoke are known
I disagree when it comes to casual exposure in a public place, and you have yet
to show that.
> the numbers of smokers have dwindeled to a small minority, and the
>opinion of the general public is that second hand smoke is something
>we don't want to endure. I'm sorry if a pleasure of yours is being
>limited. Butcha know, that's the way things go. And without sarcasm or
>hostility, I again say get used to it.
But you're not addressing my question. Are you saying that we can't have *any*
place? Even if you're completely forwarned? You can't tolerate a *single*
establishment that's set aside for smokers who want to have a place where
*they* can feel comfortable? Where non-smokers can just walk on past and go to
the thousand of other places without being bothered in the least? Non-smokers
are entitled to infringe on every single place?
That's not reasonable.
Get used to it? Yeah, I'm already used to it. But it's narrowminded and
intolerant millitant non-smokers who are the *real* problem.
Rusty Martin
>You can't compare the rights of members of a racial group to smokers.
That wasn't the point.
My point was not whether or not racial groups needed protection in 1964, of
*course* they did.
The point was that if you allowed "majority rule" to make that decision in
1964, the legislation wouldn't have happened.
I was expressly amplifying why a republic (deliberative representation of the
populace) is far better than a democracy. (Majority (Mob) Rule)
That was the only point to be made, not a judgement whether the legislation was
neccesary or not.
LJCefali
by
the cited study must be examined to see what, if any, conclusions were drawn on
the *casual* secondhand smoke issue. >>
I am SURE if it were ONLY by extensive exposure the tobacco company would
definitely have been this distinction... the fact that they eliminated any
distinction pretty much seals up the fact that even casual exposure is bad. And
as I wrote you in a private email - I am sure the change is due to employee
exposure, rather then customer - they don't want to be sued for exposing
employee (who suffer much more then casual exposure) to unsafe working
conditions.
ONCE A TOBACCO COMPANY ADMITS THAT SECONDHAND SMOKE IS HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH, THE
DISCUSSION IS OVER!
Rusty Martin
>I am SURE if it were ONLY by extensive exposure the tobacco
>company would
>definitely have been this distinction... the fact that they eliminated any
>distinction pretty much seals up the fact that even casual exposure is
>bad.
But you're making an assumption. You don't *know* that. I'm sure you know
what happens when you assume. Cite a study.
>ONCE A TOBACCO COMPANY ADMITS THAT SECONDHAND
>SMOKE IS HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH, THE DISCUSSION IS OVER!
Oh, so I guess I could paraphase that as "Please don't confuse me with facts."
*I've* admitted that continual exposure is a health hazard. But that still
doesn't address the point.
Feel free to consider the discussion over if you wish. But the case still
hasn't been cited.
Roy Johnson
So we have 7 non ,2 smoking.
Let the fun begin.
Roy.
--
http://www.biddulph.u-net.com email r...@biddulph.u-net.com
Our Vacation Rental Home in Florida near Disney şoş.
Know the value of time,snatch,seize and
enjoy every minute of it.
"Dizznoid" <tsk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:atcj4...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Roy Johnson
--
http://www.biddulph.u-net.com email r...@biddulph.u-net.com
Our Vacation Rental Home in Florida near Disney şoş.
Know the value of time,snatch,seize and
enjoy every minute of it.
"Me" <sr...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:srhi-66C1CE.1...@news.comcast.giganews.com...
Dave in Dallas
>The smoking in public places issue is about *casual* seconhand smoke.
I do not consider smoke in an encloses environment, such as a restaruant, bar
or nightclub "casual" secondhand smoke. It's excessive. When you smell the
odor of the smoke on your clothes the next morning, it has been an excessive
exposure. If your clothes smell like that, what must the residue in your lungs
be?
>If you have a reaction, you avoid it.
That's the point. In some places, it's unavoidable.
>I disagree when it comes to casual exposure in a public place, and you have
>yet
>to show that.
What your definition of "casual" and a number of other peoples definition of
"casual" are seems to be quite different. There is the bottom line to why we
are disagreeing on this subject. You consider exposure to second hand smoke in
a enclosed environment "casual". I do not.
>But you're not addressing my question. Are you saying that we can't have
>*any*
>place?
You've ignored what I've said is a reasonable compromise. To offer the smoker
comfortable smoking facilities. Such as the smoking areas in the parks. It's
not an unworkable idea. But you came back and said that it's not what you
want. You want to sit at the bar and smoke. Well I'm actually not against
letting you have that. Put a full service bar in the smoking lounge or smoking
patio. But don't make the entire establishment something a non-smoker has to
endure or completly avoid. Especially when non-smokers are in the majority.
>You can't tolerate a *single*
>establishment that's set aside for smokers who want to have a place where
>*they* can feel comfortable? Where non-smokers can just walk on past and go
>to
>the thousand of other places without being bothered in the least?
Are you kidding me? I don't go to any fully enclosed bars or nightclubs
because of the smoke. "Thousands of other places"? I have a couple of places
here in town I'll go to that have patios when the weather is nice and I spend
all my time out there because of the smoke. But always, to get to that patio, I
have to pass through a poorly ventilated, fully enclosed enviroment. So to even
make a compromise by spending my time at the bar by doing so on the patio, I
have to pass through a smoke filled bar. And in the extremes of heat and cold
that can happen here in Dallas, when the temperature is high I have no place to
go out and enjoy a beer with friends. So I honestly think that saying
"thousands of other places" is unrealistic. Non-smokers may like a little
night life now and again as well as smokers, you know.
>Non-smokers
>are entitled to infringe on every single place?
Not at all. But we shouldn't be given a choice of "Like it or lump it". Which
is what you are suggesting when it comes to night spots.
>That's not reasonable.
I agree. But from a totally different perspective.
>Get used to it? Yeah, I'm already used to it. But it's narrowminded and
>intolerant millitant non-smokers who are the *real* problem.
It has nothing to do with being narrowminded or intolerant. It has everything
to do with being concerned about physical health and well being. My lungs are
already damaged from years of exposure to second hand smoke. Not wanting to
further damage my lungs is far from intolerant or narrow minded in my opinion.
LJCefali
>SMOKE IS HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH, THE DISCUSSION IS OVER!
Oh, so I guess I could paraphase that as "Please don't confuse me with facts."
>>
The fact is the the tobacco company states that secondhand smoke is
hazardous... nothing confusing about that fact. Seems like YOU are the one that
doesn't want to be cofused with facts - you still won't heed the tobacco
company's facts.
I say sit in smoke filled rooms all you want - but please give me a healthy
alternative.
What more is there to argue?
James
> the parks that don't smoke.
> That's democratic. So I'll start it.
> 7 go in my party-none smoke- So far 7 no smoking days :-)
> Roy.
How about just having Goofy dumping a bucket of ice water over the
head of anyone caught smoking in a non smoking area?
Rusty Martin
>I do not consider smoke in an encloses environment, such as a
>restaruant, bar or nightclub "casual" secondhand smoke. It's excessive.
Fine, that's your definition. That still doesn't change the fact that such
exposure is not shown to be unhealthy.
So, it's "uncomfortable." I guess you're saying that's justification enough to
legislate it out of existence.
>>If you have a reaction, you avoid it.
>That's the point. In some places, it's unavoidable.
My point is, avoid the places altogether. But just let me have one to go to.
>Not at all. But we shouldn't be given a choice of "Like it or lump it".
>Which is what you are suggesting when it comes to night spots.
Well Dave, feel free to pack up and move here to Florida. The deadline for the
enacting legislation is July 1st. Depending upon how the ultimate legislation
is actually written, it seems that not one single restaurant in the State will
be permitted a smoking section, *even if* it's a separately sealed structure.
The amendment is pretty clear on that. Going to the Ale House (currently cigar
friendly after 10PM) is really going to suck. I hope you enjoy it.
No, we have *no* place to go. So much for tolerance and compromise.
Dave in Dallas
>Fine, that's your definition. That still doesn't change the fact that such
>exposure is not shown to be unhealthy.
And you haven't proven that it isn't, either. So we are at a crossroads.
There have been several of us on this board alone who have cited personal
examples of allergy attacks, asthma attacks and infections due to exposure to
second hand smoke. But still you say that this doesn't prove that this type of
exposure is unhealthy. To me when the human body has any of the above
reactions, I think it's undeniably unhealthy. And so would anyone suffering
these conditions, I would think.
>So, it's "uncomfortable." I guess you're saying that's justification enough
>to legislate it out of existence.
Have you ever experienced an asthma attack? It's more than uncomfortable. It's
frightening to not be able to take a breath. And an infection where a person
has to seek medical attention is merely "uncomforable"? Even an allergy
reaction is merely "uncomfortable"? Are you really that unable to see another
person's point of view to think that a physical reaction to something is no
more than "uncomfortable"? I find that rather selfish.
>My point is, avoid the places altogether. But just let me have one to go to.
I'm not even suggesting that you have to have to be exile to just one place to
go. I'm suggesting to provide reasonable alternatives for both sides of the
issue in the same establishment. And make it a reasonable, workable
alternative. Seperate rooms. Not like some restaurants do by offering the
bare minimums that they are required to do. But something that offers honest
seperation.
>Well Dave, feel free to pack up and move here to Florida. <snip> Depending
upon how the ultimate
>legislation
>is actually written, it seems that not one single restaurant in the State
>will
>be permitted a smoking section, *even if* it's a separately sealed structure.
>The amendment is pretty clear on that. Going to the Ale House (currently
>cigar
>friendly after 10PM) is really going to suck. I hope you enjoy it.
I probably would enjoy it. Hope you're able to adapt to the new circumstances
you'll find yourself in. It's a new world. And bitching about it won't make it
any different. Things they are a'changing.
>No, we have *no* place to go. So much for tolerance and compromise.
Yes, you do have a place to go: Outside. And please don't stand too close to
the enterance doorway. (For the record, yes, I am trying to be an asshole this
time.)
Rodney T. Grill
>From: rusty...@aol.comBATSPAM (Rusty Martin)
>Message-id: <20021213110604...@mb-cn.aol.com>
>
>Rodney wrote:
>
>>You can't compare the rights of members of a racial group to smokers.
>
>That wasn't the point.
>
>My point was not whether or not racial groups needed protection in 1964, of
>*course* they did.
>
>The point was that if you allowed "majority rule" to make that decision in
>1964, the legislation wouldn't have happened.
I beg to differ. I believe that a majority of Americans supported this
legislation. Recognizing that we cannot take away the inalienable rights of a
minority class does not make us any less a democracy. Realizing that a
majority of Americans do not smoke and do not want to be exposed to second hand
smoke and then making laws to limit the exposure is pure democracy in action.
- RODNEY
CoastalWader
Tobacco company didn't volunteer to put that info in any kind of literature. I
would bet it was forced through litagation and that the exact text could have
been mandated by that litigation or a settlement. Sounds like somebody is
checking into it, but that's my guess.
Kerry
It's all relatively relative
MickeyM©
--
MickeyM©
GOH 1996 DVC 1999 BWV
The Walt Disney World 360 Project
http://WDW360.Digi-Hut.com
The Disney World Photographers Group
http://groups.msn.com/DisneyWorldPhotographers
Carol Kennedy
> The cite given (which I am in the
> process of researching) does not differentiate between *excessive*
secondhand
> smoke (which you get no argument from me has been proven to be a health
hazard)
> and *casual* secondhand smoke (which again, no valid study has shown
that)
What is your definition of "casual" secondhand smoke? The amount a person
gets walking past a smoking person? The amount a person gets sitting next to
someone who is chain-smoking for an hour? The amount a person gets in an
evening at a bar? The amount nonsmokers used to get, just going about their
lives, when smokers were allowed to smoke almost everywhere?
> Because plenty of people have reactions to plenty of things. Perfume,
wool,
> various kinds of soap give short-term reactions to some people and they
can be
> severe. But to regulate it, you would need to show that it is a true
health
> risk for more than just a few folks.
Well, no, you wouldn't. You would just need to convince legislators (or
rulemakers in institutions) to regulate it.
> If you have a reaction, you avoid it.
If you want to smoke, avoid going to places where it's prohibited.
> Are you saying that we can't have *any*
> place? Even if you're completely forwarned? You can't tolerate a
*single*
> establishment that's set aside for smokers who want to have a place where?
> *they* can feel comfortable?
I'd be *thrilled* if there was a *single* establishment in each city (or
even each commercial area), a single establishment in each theme park, etc.,
where smoking was allowed, if smokers would stop smoking in all other public
places. If smokers would stop smoking in parks, on beaches, on the street,
outside the doors of businesses, at bus stops, all of those places, if they
would give up the smoking section in restaurants and bars, I'd be overjoyed
to give them a *single* establishment where they could smoke their little
hearts out (literally).
In fact, I'd be happy simply if no smoker ever smoked outside current
smoking areas, at stores, shopping centers, WDW, hotels, etc. But they do.
If you don't want smoking further restricted, get your fellow smokers to
start following the current rules.
Dizznoid
asked Walt? I managed to get a minute of his time when Marilyn had to use
the powder room...which as we all know was just an excuse to see the
ex-Pres.
We can count the trips. If smokers go much more often than non-smokers than
it would make sense to count trips and number of days staying.
You do realize we will have to start using a ratio to divide it up.
Otherwise, we'll have 782 smoking days per year and only 2 non-smoking days
so non-smokers will never get counted!
"Roy Johnson" <Jo...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:atd3r5$s63$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Judfud
are
just as valid. An allergy reaction or asthma attack is a short term effect
that is indeed a health hazard. Someone told of having to go to a doctor
because of an ear infection caused by second hand smoke. It was a short term
effect that was serious enough to go to a doctor.>>
Good point.
I don't believe that small amounts of exposure to second-hand smoke will give
me lung cancer, or any other life-threatenting illness. I do know, however,
that each time I am around cigarette smoke I have to use my asthma inhaler. I
hate doing so, because the medication makes my heart race and keeps me up at
night. For my health, I stay away from smoke as much as I can. I have had
reactions after eating in non-smoking sections of restaurants. This is
especially the case when a restaurant also has a bar area.
My parents quit smoking several years ago. One of the main reasons was that
my dad hated being told when and where he could smoke. After smoking for 50
years, he didn't like being treated like a nuisance.
judy
Judfud
>>
The problem I've had is the end-of-season parties for kids' sports teams.
They're always held at one of three local pizza places which are also bars.
The families order pizza, the dads get a few pitchers from the bar, the kids go
play video games.Smokers can only smoke in the bar area, which is adjoining the
restaurant area. Because there is so much smoking done in the bar, I always
get asthma. I can't really avoid the parties altogether, but it sucks that
they have to take place in an environment which makes some people sick (no, I'm
not the only one, bellieve me).
judy
Brian
>-Liz (who'd be happy as a clam to hit a dance club/bar that was
>non-smoking... and won't go to one that is, for health reasons...
>limiting choices a lot)
I gave up going to bars years ago. I'd like to go, listen to music
etc. but I like to breathe more.
Brian
>The point was that if you allowed "majority rule" to make that decision in
>1964, the legislation wouldn't have happened.
I have to disagree. If there were a large majority vociferously
against it, it would not have passed. Elected officials would like to
be re-elected.
It wasn't popular with many people but a majority saw it as necessary
even if they weren't necessarily enthusiastic.
Brian
>I will reiterate, there are *no* valid studies which show that casual exposure
>to secondhand smoke (as differentiated from excessive exposure like living in a
>smoking home or a smoke-filled workplace) causes any ill long term health
>effects.
As opposed to, say, a short term asthma attack.
Brian
>No, we have *no* place to go. So much for tolerance and compromise.
As opposed to the last time we were in Florida and asked for
non-smoking. We were given a table a table next to people smoking and
told that we were in "non-smoking."
Restrain yourself for an hour or go outside.
I've lived for 55 years with obnoxious smokers and it's only in the
last few years that the tide has fortunately begun to turn.
It's absolutely ridiculous for a tourist to have to trek from one
restaurant to another in search of a place that has a decent
non-smoking section when one might not even exist.
Florida exists because of tourism.
Brian
>What is your definition of "casual" secondhand smoke? The amount a person
>gets walking past a smoking person? The amount a person gets sitting next to
>someone who is chain-smoking for an hour? The amount a person gets in an
>evening at a bar? The amount nonsmokers used to get, just going about their
>lives, when smokers were allowed to smoke almost everywhere?
My wife used to have to change clothes after she got home from work
because they reeked of smoke. She had no choice.
My wife and daughter went to an Avril Lavigne concert last weekend. We
had a third ticket for me but my wife called the establishment where
it was held. She was told the usual BS about the fans etc.
They came home reeking of smoke and even after they showered and
changed clothes, the smoke still came out of their pores.
My daughter said that people were smoking in the audience, holding
their cigarettes down and almost burning others including the young
children in the audience.
Brian
>I don't believe that small amounts of exposure to second-hand smoke will give
>me lung cancer, or any other life-threatenting illness. I do know, however,
>that each time I am around cigarette smoke I have to use my asthma inhaler. I
>hate doing so, because the medication makes my heart race and keeps me up at
>night. For my health, I stay away from smoke as much as I can. I have had
>reactions after eating in non-smoking sections of restaurants. This is
>especially the case when a restaurant also has a bar area.
>
> My parents quit smoking several years ago. One of the main reasons was that
>my dad hated being told when and where he could smoke. After smoking for 50
>years, he didn't like being treated like a nuisance.
>
>judy
I really don't believe that a small amount of exposure will cause
cancer either. Like you I know it causes asthma attacks.
My father smoked for many years until I was fortunately able to
convince him that he would benefit from quitting. He had the idea that
since he had smoked so long all the damage had been done.
He never could understand the objections of my mother and me until
after he quit. I feel that I was harmed by his smoking but he did most
of it before reports were published. He quit in 1969.
I really pity children in cars with smoking parents. There are just
some people who are invincibly ignorant.
Brian
>Disney would be doing smokers a service, imo, if they banned it. But hey, if
>you want to make yourself, your clothes, room, car and everything else
>smell, and kill yourself in the process, then have at it, big guy.
As long as the family doesn't have to suffer.
Brian
>OK....sounds fair..
>2 out of 2 smoke in my party x 23 trips to date
>= 46 smoking days
>Current status is 46 smoking 7 non
6 trips of 3 non-smoking including one horrible experience at the
Contemporary plus 2 trips of 2. That's 20 non-smoking,
Brian
>How about just having Goofy dumping a bucket of ice water over the
>head of anyone caught smoking in a non smoking area?
Sounds good to me. <G>
Dave in Dallas
>My father smoked for many years until I was fortunately able to
>convince him that he would benefit from quitting. He had the idea that
>since he had smoked so long all the damage had been done.
My father and mother smoked almost all their lives. My dad started when he was
13. He and my mother both quit when he developed bladder cancer, which the
doctor said was smoking related. So smoking can effect more of your body than
just your lungs, throat and mouth.
Judfud
was
13. He and my mother both quit when he developed bladder cancer, which the
doctor said was smoking related. So smoking can effect more of your body than
just your lungs, throat and mouth.>>
Sorry about your dad's cancer.
My dad also smoked since age 13 - until age 63, when he quit. It's been 14
years now. When the first warnings about cigarettes came out, he did what most
men of his generation did - he switched to cigs with filters! Yeah, way back
in the 60's, real men smoked Camels or PallMall reds - just paper wraped around
tobacco, no filter at all. And menthol cigarettes were considered 'healthy"
- because of the addition of chemicals?
judy
Judfud
>non-smoking... and won't go to one that is, for health reasons...
>limiting choices a lot)
I gave up going to bars years ago. I'd like to go, listen to music
etc. but I like to breathe more.>>
Me too - and at Pleasure Island, I stick to CW, Adv Club, and listen to the
music from the outdoor stage. I haven't been in any of the other clubs. If
they were non-smoking, I'd at least pay a visist and look around, maybe buy a
drink.
judy
Dave in Dallas
>Sorry about your dad's cancer.
Thanks. It unfortunately was what was the cause of his death. He was clean of
the bladder cancer for several years, then it turned up in another part of his
body. By the time it was found it was too late. And the second doctor said it
was tobacco related as well. But he had a good life. Seventy Nine is not a bad
age for a man.
>My dad also smoked since age 13 - until age 63, when he quit. It's been 14
>years now.
Good for your father. I hope he remains healthy.
bicker
allowed in the parks?
--
¤bicker¤ 263/158
fit...@brianandrobbie.com BP: 130/80 -> 100/60
See web site for Total Cholesterol: 256->186
before and after photos. Waist: 46 -> 34
http://brianandrobbie.com BF%: 39% -> 13%
People are, of course, welcome to place whatever irrelevant
limitations on their ability to enjoy something that they wish.
lesa
Rusty Martin <rusty...@aol.comBATSPAM> wrote in message
news:20021213133838...@mb-cf.aol.com...
> Dave in TX wrote:
>
> >I do not consider smoke in an encloses environment, such as a
> >restaruant, bar or nightclub "casual" secondhand smoke. It's excessive.
>
> Fine, that's your definition. That still doesn't change the fact that
such
> exposure is not shown to be unhealthy.
If you believe that there is no evidence that second-hand smoking is
unhealthy, I sugggest you do some reading. here's some places to start:
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/etsbro.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2053840.stm
http://www.healthri.org/disease/tobacco/secondhandsmoke.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/may97/smoking_5-20.html
https://www.yourhealth.com/ahl/1842.html
http://www.cleanlungs.com/education/features/facts.html
http://www.oma.org/phealth/2ndsmoke.htm
lesa
Brian <drmorri...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sbclvuskpod5p07p6...@4ax.com...
> Cozit / Liz <co...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> >-Liz (who'd be happy as a clam to hit a dance club/bar that was
> >non-smoking... and won't go to one that is, for health reasons...
> >limiting choices a lot)
I also cut back on bars/clubs several years ago. For many years I'd take
extra doses of my asthma inhaler to reduce the immediate effect the smoke
had on my lungs and be able to keep breathing. Then I noticed that I had a
lot more headaches, colds, sinus infections, etc when I did this. When my
Dr confirmed that the smoke-filled rooms were likely the cause, I just
stopped going.
Carol Kennedy
> My parents quit smoking several years ago.
You, and of course they, are fortunate. Both my parents died of
smoking-related diseases (throat cancer and emphysema).
Carol Kennedy
> I gave up going to bars years ago. I'd like to go, listen to music
> etc. but I like to breathe more.
Same for my husband and me, and several other people we know. We'd love to
go out when friends of ours play music in bars, but can't risk the health
consequences.
Carol Kennedy
> He and my mother both quit when he developed bladder cancer, which the
> doctor said was smoking related. So smoking can effect more of your body
than
> just your lungs, throat and mouth.
Since the bladder constantly filters all the blood in the body, it is a
common site for smoking-related cancers, but one that people don't hear much
about. My father stopped smoking and drinking after he developed throat
cancer, but it was too late. My mother didn't stop smoking even after she
developed emphysema (COPD)--in its early stages, it doesn't seem that bad;
late in her life she said that no one ever talked much about it as a smoking
consequence, just lung cancer, and she had had no idea what a dreadful
disease it is.
Dabmusic57
>this smoking regulation in restaurants and bars a try. It's really been only
>3
>or 4 years, hasn't it>>>
Regarding state and other public buildings (post office, etc) it's been
sometime in the early 80's. I was a state employee working downtown and had to
go outside to smoke at that time it was banned inside.
Restraunts? At least 10 years I think. It's been way way longer that 3-4
years. I've been gone 5 and it was banned long before I left. They had just
passed the bar one when I left 5 years ago.
James
> How about just having Goofy dumping a bucket of ice water over the
> head of anyone caught smoking in a non smoking area?
Thinking about it more:
Goofy & Chip 'n Dale in fireman garb drive up in a cartoony mini
firetruck, bells clanging, siren wailing, frantic music playing. Chip
'n Dale start struggling and fumbling with the hoses, tangling them
and falling over each other. Goofy puts his hands at the side of his
head, shaking his head in that "oh no, I can't believe what a couple
of idiots they are!" way, then jumps, turns and with big-footed,
knees-up strides runs back to the cab of the truck, grabs a waiting
bucket of water and douses the offending smoker. Chip 'n Dale
alternate between high-fiving each other and doing that "knee slapping
belly laugh motion" while Goofy puts one hand on his hip, the other
hand wagging a finger at the soaked, sputtering, disbelieving
carcinogen addictee - in the background you hear the "Wah-wah
wa-wah-wahhhhh" music.
Then you hear over the PA the voice of the monorail announcer "Ladies
and gentleman, Chief Goofy and the Walt Disney Company would like to
remind you that smoking is permitted ONLY is designated areas. Please
consult your park map or ask guest relations to direct you. Thank
you..."
You listening Disney?
Dabmusic57
>smokers would grumble but they'd be back
That would have been me years ago in CA LOL But, you get use to going outside
even in the rain every once in awhile.
I think until FL passes the no smoking in any building law, Disney has every
right to allow one club to remain a smoking club for those patrons. It's their
money and if they have the business, why change it until they have to?
This all started with someone saying if WDW was smoke free the smokers had the
choice to go or not go but when it comes to a club that is smoking, it seems
the non smokers don't want the same choice the other way.....non smokers choice
to go or not go in.
I know I've tried to quit (so do a few others on here when I had a few rough
days when I stopped LOL) and I appreciate the smoking sections in WDW and DL.
It's really not easy to stop and I thought it would be. I just wish they would
designate them better and keep them out of the flow of traffic.
As a heavy smoker and a CA person, even I now find it offensive to me to have
someone smoking in a building or a group of non smokers. the laws made me wake
up I think and realize whereas before I was just going along.
Barry L. Wallis
news:4e5a357c.02121...@posting.google.com...
Put them in Park Ranger costumes and their perfect for DCA. I wonder if they
can get the rights to Smokey Bear's voice for the announcement?
--
- Barry as TDC Sorcerer, Magical Manager of the Mysteriously Missing Main
Street Magic Shop
- Unofficial RADP Defender of DCA ( http://members.cox.net/barry.wallis )
- "Sorry Mr. Eisner" - Chernabog