Disney Difference S/NS Policies at other resorts

[Dean]

I'll agree with you if the converse is true as well. Smoking optional should be a guarantee as well. Otherwise this is just imposing one's will on another....kinda like the early 40's throughout most of continental Europe.

-Joe, tired of well intended people trying to take away anyone's choices in life.

Smoking optional should be guaranted on both sides as long as they have smoking rooms. They should also institute stiff fines of at lesat $250 per occurance if anyone smokes in a NS unit.

 

[kathleena]

Smoking optional should be guaranted on both sides as long as they have smoking rooms. They should also institute stiff fines of at lesat $250 per occurance if anyone smokes in a NS unit.

I like the idea of a fine, but wonder how it could ever be enforced/proven. "Oh, that wasn't us smoking in the room, it smelled like that when we got there".

And I agree with the guarantee. I just can't understand why Disney won't guarantee the non-smoking rooms. I've thought it might have something to do with total points and membership etc - room availability. Plus they would have to make the ressie system have NS/S room types.

 

[FLYNZ4]

So is the report by the EPA on 2nd hand smoke. It's scientifically/statisically invalid but accepted as it is politically correct.

Joe,

It is not too clear to me why the EPA should have an opinion on the health effects of second hand smoke. I would be much more interested in the opinion of the AMA, which as far as I can tell, feels that the detrimental effects of SHS are clear.

/Jim

 

[DrTomorrow]

[...] I just can't understand why Disney won't guarantee the non-smoking rooms. I've thought it might have something to do with total points and membership etc - room availability. Plus they would have to make the ressie system have NS/S room types.

I suspect that's the issue - room types. And whenever they "guarantee" someone a S or NS room, it would have to lock that room / room-type as unavailable for booking. The problem is that every room type that is guaranteed makes it that much harder to fill the place. The logical extension of this is that when you call MS to book, you could be told "Sorry, all we have is Smoking [or Non-Smoking] rooms left for that time". That's why I also agree that the whole place will go NS - just because it makes resource management easier on MS / resort front desks and will probably end up pleasing a net postive number of guests (assuming that more NS people will be happy to get a NS room than S people will be unhappy that there are no S rooms). Should Disney set up rules just to make things easier? Should they have almost no rules, to make everyone happy? The answer lies somewhere between the two....

IMHO - YMMV

 

[FLYNZ4]

As long as they continue to allow smoking (and I hope it isn't much longer)... they would need to create new room types for smoking and non-smoking across each property. This is not too hard to do, and they should implement it. The current situation is horrible for all involved... especially for non-smokers who get stuck with a smoking room. My understanding is that MS receives a lot of complaints... and they deserve to.

Having a "smoking section" of the resort, is like having a "peeing section" of a swimming pool.... except that the smoking is a lot more disgusting... and a lot more harmful to your health.

/Jim

 

[Dumbo]

As long as they continue to allow smoking (and I hope it isn't much longer)... they would need to create new room types for smoking and non-smoking across each property.
/Jim

DVC has already done this. There are little stickers next to each villa that tells you if the villa is smoking optional or non-smoking.

Dumbo

 

[FLYNZ4]

DVC has already done this. There are little stickers next to each villa that tells you if the villa is smoking optional or non-smoking.

Dumbo

I should have been more clear. Yes... they have the "room types", but they need to extend that and include "reservation types" so that reservations are made against the available inventory. Sorry for being imprecise.

/Jim

 

[disworldnum1]

Our family is very sensitive to smoking issues being my son has severe asthma and allergies.I have actually had more trouble at the BWV with the rooms stinking of smoke then when I stay off property.I have stayed at the vistana and had great rooms and no hint of smoke.I also have started renting a vaction home every year because they have a zero tolerance for smokers.They will hold a deposit and if the house cleaners smell smoke your not getting your deposit back.If it's one thing thats gong to start our vacation off on the wrong foot its a so-called non-smoking room smelling of smoke.I know this subject is like whipping a dead horse but unless the non-smokers make an issue about this with ms they will continue to let guest smoke in any room they want.

 

[Sammie]

Even if the resorts and DVC go to totally NS, it will never prevent people from smoking in the units. It happens all the time now. In fact I think by reducing the number of smoking units it will only make the situation worse.

 

[CarolMN]

Even if the resorts and DVC go to totally NS, it will never prevent people from smoking in the units. It happens all the time now. In fact I think by reducing the number of smoking units it will only make the situation worse.

I agree with you - but that is why there must be a consistently enforced, substantial fine/cleaning fee if the occupants decide to smoke in a non-smoking villa.

Best wishes -

 

[jmminarik]

Joe,

It is not too clear to me why the EPA should have an opinion on the health effects of second hand smoke. I would be much more interested in the opinion of the AMA, which as far as I can tell, feels that the detrimental effects of SHS are clear.

/Jim

The whole histeria of second hand smoke started with a politically motivated and scientifically skewed EPA study released back under the Clinton administration. Even the federal courts have ruled it is scientifically invalid, but hey, never let science and facts get in the way of good politicking.

As for the AMA, if they can publish a good, scientifically sound study that shows a truely significant difference, let them do it. "Feels" isn't scientific enough for me.

For now, I'll still stick with the idea that banning smoking in public places is better argued that it annoys people than there is scientific proof that it causes long term health effects.

As to DVC, I also pointed out last year or so, the more you concentrate the smokers in fewer rooms, the more those rooms will reek of burnt tobacco, making it even worse for those who really do have reactions to the residue/odor who get 'stuck' in a smoking room. Given the nature of humans and the rabidity of some non-smokers, I see smoking going away even though I think it should be a garaunteed room reservation.

Happy New Year,
Joe

 

[debloco]

You know, my mother smokes and I am not opposed to sitting next to her (or anyone else) while she has a cigarette while we are outside. It's her choice and I while I would prefer she quit, I gave up pressuring or nagging her about it long ago.
That said, I don't appreciate being classified a "rabid" non-smoking type when I know that trying to sleep in a smoking room might send my husband with asthma to the ER.
Whether or not SHS is a scientifically proven health risk for the public at large may be open for debate. But I think some of the intent of this thread was to highlight the very real and significant health risk this poses for some individuals. For me, it is no longer a "room preference request" or "public safety" debate when it comes to the physical safety of someone I love. I believe a little more care needs to be taken and some distinctions made before sweeping judgements of people are handed down.

CLC Tiger Pom Mom

 

[MiaSRN62]

That said, I don't appreciate being classified a "rabid" non-smoking type when I know that trying to sleep in a smoking room might send my husband with asthma to the ER. Whether or not SHS is a scientifically proven health risk for the public at large may be open for debate.

I just wanted to add to. Recently, every time I call for reservations (both DVC and just regular WDW resorts), when I request "non-smoking", I'm asked if I or anyone has a "medical condition". Honestly, I can't say that we do, but I almost resent that someone needs to have allergies or asthma to be guaranteed a non-smoking room ? I can most certainly respect that people with these conditions should never be assigned a smoking room, but what about the rest of us ? Sadly, I took care of my dh's mother this spring/summer while she was on hospice in our home. Watching her slowly die from lung cancer, directly related to decades of smoking, makes me look at SHS in a whole new light. I don't want myself or my children exposed to SHS and wish non-smoking rooms could be a guarantee for whoever desires it. Smoking and SHS doesn't just "annoy" me, I find it a real concrete health scare.
After reading all the posts, it's really only clear that there's no easy answer. Noone knows for sure what the long-term effects of SHS can have on people. I'm sure way back when my 69 year old mil started smoking, there wasn't much concern about cigarettes at all---at least it wasn't publicized like it is now. I'd rather be safe than sorry down the road.

 

[jmminarik]

That said, I don't appreciate being classified a "rabid" non-smoking type when I know that trying to sleep in a smoking room might send my husband with asthma to the ER.

Never said you were. You might be, I don't know. :

the rabidity of some non-smokers

You either missed or decided to ignore the some qualifier. I can't fix that.

But I agree with you, the catagories should be reservations, not requests.

-Joe

 

[Dean]

Never said you were. You might be, I don't know. :



You either missed or decided to ignore the some qualifier. I can't fix that.

But I agree with you, the catagories should be reservations, not requests.

-Joe

Joe, it's OK if you include me in the rabid NS group. Now where did I put my double barrel heavy duty super soaker?

 

[jmminarik]

Joe, it's OK if you include me in the rabid NS group. Now where did I put my double barrel heavy duty super soaker?

Noted. You can use the SS to wash the mouth froth off.

Just saw on the news that an Indiana public school is banning peanut butter in sections of the school due to one child's extreme allergic reaction. I wonder how long until lodging organizations start requiring peanut free rooms. No, I'm not mocking though it is amazing the reported number of kids these days with peanut allergies.

Maybe we're just all better informed thanks to the Internet...maybe our fancy new 'airtight' homes with forced air heat/ac contributes to the allergy rise, maybe too many babies are fed formula these days. Maybe I'm just lucky in that no one I *know* has allergies more severe than the stereotypical hay fever. :

-Joe

 

[Dean]

Noted. You can use the SS to wash the mouth froth off.

Just saw on the news that an Indiana public school is banning peanut butter in sections of the school due to one child's extreme allergic reaction. I wonder how long until lodging organizations start requiring peanut free rooms. No, I'm not mocking though it is amazing the reported number of kids these days with peanut allergies.

Maybe we're just all better informed thanks to the Internet...maybe our fancy new 'airtight' homes with forced air heat/ac contributes to the allergy rise, maybe too many babies are fed formula these days. Maybe I'm just lucky in that no one I *know* has allergies more severe than the stereotypical hay fever. :

-Joe

The problem with peanut allergies is that they are different than essentially all other food allergies. Most food allergies are a nuisance and get better over time. Peanuts usually get worse over time and frequently lead to life threatening events. The only one that even comes close is is shellfish. Even things like dust in the air when one opens a bag of nuts can set off the patients and be life threatening. Peanuts are everywhere and since it only takes a microscopic amount, things like using the same spatula to remove cookies or not cleaning the equipment good enough can be more than enough to expose one to peanut antigens and cause a life threatening event. There are some theories around why allergies are worse now days and most center around the idea that the immune system has two sides. One fights bacteria and the like and the other runs the systems associated with allergies. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. So the cleaner we are and the less we're exposed to animals (especially endotoxin), the more likely we are to have allergies. In 1900, you would have died with some infection. But since you survived and didn't get all those infections, you will get allergies. It's called the Hygiene Theory by many.

 

[laceemouse]

Luckily no one in our family has any severe allergies, to food, smoke. or whatever. One, DH and I have no family history of allergies. Two, I nursed each of my 4 kids for a year or so (supposed to help.) Three, we have always had a house full of animals. And four, our house has always been clean enough to be healthy but dirty enough to be happy (or however that goes.) That being said, we own at Powhatton Plantation too (small world Kathleena!) and we trade through RCI every year. We have stayed in numerous condos all over, most times we do not even ask about smoking, and we have never gotten a stinky room anywhere. Maybe we have just been lucky. I hate smoking!!! The only time we ever had a bad experience was at a Marriot. We checked in late and all they had was a smoking room. It was awful. When we got home the next day we all smelled like we had been in a bar! Maybe the difference with the T/Ss is that they are so much bigger than hotel rooms. Most of them are MUCH larger than the DVC units

 

[Happy Birthday Cat]

The whole histeria of second hand smoke started with a politically motivated and scientifically skewed EPA study released back under the Clinton administration. Even the federal courts have ruled it is scientifically invalid, but hey, never let science and facts get in the way of good politicking.

Who's making it political? There are lots of studies showing that second hand smoke is unhealthy. Here's a list of bibiographies of studies. Some may even back up the point of it not being bad. Second Hand Smoke Bibliographies.

Here's an article about the study that shows no link between health and second hand smoke along with information refuting that study as false. It's an interesting read: Second Hand Smoke Article.

It is not a simple issue but there is plenty of research showing that second hand smoke is bad for adults and especially the unborn and children.

HBC

 

[crisi]

Cat, I was going to post some similar links but didn't have time. Most studies find "some" health effects from second hand smoke.

However, it is important to realize that there is a big difference between second hand smoke from living with a smoker (which is what these studies usually use, although some have used workers in smokey places - like bars) and exposure to the residue that is left behind from someone occupying a unit before you. I have no doubt that the residue can trigger allergy symptoms or an asthma attack, and I know from personal experience that it is often unpleasant and distasteful.....I don't know if that sort of exposure (even long term, much less the occational week we spend) could be linked to lung cancer, heart disease or fetal health issues in an otherwise healthy individual.

(I'm a non-smoker and can't stand the smell, either.)