I have no problem criticizing Disney. Banning selfie sticks is not banning "people" no more than banning smoking in the park is banning people who smoke from going to WDW or DL. It will be a strong deterrent for some and they can make the choice to go elsewhere. They can also come together and lodge a complaint to get the decision changed. You keep using words like removed or banning millions. It is not semantics. No one is banned.
Debating possible reasons without facts means people will simply pipe in with their personal opinions and speculation. Correlation does not imply causation. I have no idea if the smoking ban is a direct goal to attract a higher income bracket, or if it could be an indirect result based on the number of smokers who are upset. Neither do you.
Thank you for the well thought out reply. You are very correct that it is difficult to debate without facts. I’ve also considered the thought this might be their solution to eliminate or minimize use of 420. Many people in smoking spots use a type of toking, and some of it is similar to vaping.
I’m stunned by how this news has been taken. I believe that if any other group was targeted by banning something they need, there would be an uproar, however, as evidenced here, smokers are somehow less than human and it’s somehow socially acceptable to treat them that way.
Just look at the rationalized idea that out of secure area smoking areas are ok, better than ok, they should be grateful for them, take it or leave it. Not one smoker would agree, not one. But technically it’s supposedly not a ban on the person but the action. Therefore it’s ok.
What if it were breastfeeding? Mothers can go outside the parks to special areas. It’s only a 10 minute walk to, oh, we don’t know yet. This would not fly would it? Same action, different group. Technically both are a need and a choice, so let’s ban formula too just to make it even. Could a mother still enter the park? Yes, but would she be able to enjoy herself knowing that every so often she has to leave the park, do something, then go back through the entire entry process and then go back to where she was? I seriously doubt it, but it would effectively make them unwelcome inside the parks by making it very difficult, if not impossible, to enjoy the parks. I know you think this is absolutely absurd, and I agree, I hope it remains simply a hypothetical, but perhaps if enough people complain about screaming infants, seeing human body parts, and make some outlandish claims, it could happen. (I’m not endorsing this idea, it’s only something to think about, and a different way of seeing the action without the prejudices associated with smoking)
It’s sad to see so little compassion, especially when you consider that the vast majority have been found by the courts not responsible for the initial addiction (Tobacco companies were), which lead to over half of the states to enact smokers rights laws prohibiting employers from punishing and enacting discriminatory policies.
Unfortunately these laws were never turned into broader protections. Then we have been flooded with anti-smoking propaganda funded by taxes on cigarette packs. These were passed to fund research to find better ways to help people quit, and to start education programs that would help lower the amount of new smokers. These programs now just fund scare tactic commercials that are often counterproductive.
Smoking is way down, but instead of celebrating and embracing the reason this happened, then focusing on helping those still addicted to quit, we vilify them, make funny faces at them, call them names, send them away, out of sight and out of smell, then we blame them and put unrealistic expectations on them, and shame them for failing.
What a difference 25 years can make. Victim to villain.
