For you smokers out there......

[yitbos96bb]

please vote ...i will be sending this to dvc management

If you are sending this to Disney then please be fair and send all the comments as well. This would be a better poll if it wasn't a simple all or none proposition... This is a black and white question in a gray world. Including options of Guarenteed non-smoking rooms, smoking optional balconies on the top, non-smoking balconies, etc would make this a much more useful and accurate poll.

 

[Judique]

In response to Judique




Sometimes we make comments on things that we don't understand. I am 59 years old and remember "back in the day", when no one knew the risks of smoking. If I remember correctly the warnings were not on cigarette packs until sometime in the late 60's or 70's. I also remember when there was no chemotherapy, antibiotics as we know today....I remember getting polio shots. A dear friend's mother died of cancer.....there was no treatment back then, so she was left to die. The medical community and the pharmaceutical companys have made such great strides, thus all the treatments, etc. that we are able to obtain, which extends our lives.

I am sure that you are much younger than me, but I really had to respond to your comment.

I do think that the young people of today who chose to smoke are doing themselves a great disservice---they know all the risks, whereas some generations did not!!!!

I am younger then you, but we are in the same decade. I have no tolerance for smoking, as I think I've made obvious. Smoking has always been a choice. I disagree with you about people of our generation not knowing the risks years ago. It was nasty then and it is still nasty now. Ban smoking.

 

[skibum]

Maybe so, IF the same numbers of people were smoking than using an iron or stove. However, given that most high estimates place smokers at 20% of the population, that would lower the odds of a fire at a Disney villa being started by a smoker vs an iron or stove

Sorry, but statistics do not bear your premise to be true, because across the whole population, smoking materials start more fires than stoves and irons.

 

[DVCconvert]

I have no tolerance for smoking, as I think I've made obvious. Smoking has always been a choice. I disagree with you about people of our generation not knowing the risks years ago. It was nasty then and it is still nasty now. Ban smoking.

Interesting word choice--"tolerance"

 

[skibum]

It would solve one problem, but completely decimate an entire industry, laying off hundreds of thousands of people who work for the cigarette companies. It would also decimate the tobacco farmers and all the workers they employ. Don't forget the cigar shops and discount cigarette stores who would be put out of business. Not to mention the probable rise in organized crime as criminals start bootlegging and dealing cigarettes in the same way they sell pot, coke, X, Heroin, etc. And it would probably also require a massive tax raise to make up for the taxes that are currently placed on tobacco sales as local, state and federal governments scramble to pay for various items that they can no longer pay for.

But even with smoking losing popularity, there is too much money being thrown congress's way by big tobacco for this to ever happen.

Those in the medical profession consider smoking as job security.

 

[WOW]

I am younger then you, but we are in the same decade. I have no tolerance for smoking, as I think I've made obvious. Smoking has always been a choice. I disagree with you about people of our generation not knowing the risks years ago. It was nasty then and it is still nasty now. Ban smoking.

I agree with you, it was nasty then and it is still nasty now. I don't know where you were raised, but from where I come from (NJ) my statement stands about not knowing about the risks years ago......Your statements about the social standing of smokers and your choice of words (tolerance) seem a bit harsh......This thread is regarding smoking/non smoking DVC accommodations NOT about saying inappropriate/insulting comments about those of us who are posting on these boards.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Sorry, but statistics do not bear your premise to be true, because across the whole population, smoking materials start more fires than stoves and irons.

Please provide a link and a source for your stats.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Those in the medical profession consider smoking as job security.

Not the point. Tell me how you ban tobacco without seriously hurting the economy? You are talking about a product still used by 22% of the population over 18. A loss of that magnitude would hurt the economy immensely.

Until prevalence of smoking reaches less than 10% (probably 5%) then I don't see a ban on tobacco as a feasible possibility.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Sorry, but statistics do not bear your premise to be true, because across the whole population, smoking materials start more fires than stoves and irons.

I would love to see a link to your stats. I am wondering what you are citing... Smoking materials vs Cooking Equipment over all catergories, or smoking materials vs Cooking Equipment in catergories that actually are relevant to the situation.

Here is what I found from the NFPA.

In Residential Structure Fires, the stats agree with me. The DVC villas could be considered in this catergory given that they are designed to be like an apartment.

The most current figures which tracks fires from 1999-2002 lists Cooking Equipment as the #1 cause with 121,000 incidents. Smoking Materials comes in #6 with 22,000. So in this case the stats actually do support my argument. Here is a link below:

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?...URL=Research & Reports/Fire statistics/Causes

Home Structure fires could also be a relevant comparison. "Homes" are defined as dwellings, duplexes, manufactured homes (mobile homes), apartments, rowhouses, townhouses, and condominiums.

In this catergory, the stats again bear out my statement.

#1 is again Cooking Equipment at 114,000. Smoking Materials comes in tied at 6 with 21,000.

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?...URL=Research & Reports/Fire statistics/Causes

Or we can check Non-Residential fire stats.

Cooking Equipment is #2 with 17,300. Smoking Materials are at #10 with 5900.

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?...URL=Research & Reports/Fire statistics/Causes

Our last major catergory is structures. Yet again, Cooking equipment is #1 at 140,000. Smoking Materials are #7 at 28,000.

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?...URL=Research & Reports/Fire statistics/Causes

So by these stats, my statement was right. So I'd love for you to send me a link to the stats you are citing in your statement saying I am wrong.

Now what you might actually be confusing is that smoking materials cause more fire deaths than anything else... not more fires. In Dec, Jan and Feb Heating equipment was tied with Smoking materials for fire Deaths. However overall, Cooking equipment cause more fires and more fire injuries.

Here is a link to those trends.

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?...URL=Research & Reports/Fire statistics/Trends

I can't find any stats on how many of the fire deaths caused by smoking materials were also alcohol or drug (including medication) related, but my bet would be a VAST majority. I would welcome the stats if you have them.

 

[DVCconvert]

So by these stats, my statement was right. So I'd love for you to send me a link to the stats you are citing in your statement saying I am wrong.

"Game, set and match"

 

[EdTreo]

It would solve one problem, but completely decimate an entire industry, laying off hundreds of thousands of people who work for the cigarette companies. It would also decimate the tobacco farmers and all the workers they employ. Don't forget the cigar shops and discount cigarette stores who would be put out of business. Not to mention the probable rise in organized crime as criminals start bootlegging and dealing cigarettes in the same way they sell pot, coke, X, Heroin, etc. And it would probably also require a massive tax raise to make up for the taxes that are currently placed on tobacco sales as local, state and federal governments scramble to pay for various items that they can no longer pay for.

But even with smoking losing popularity, there is too much money being thrown congress's way by big tobacco for this to ever happen.

People die from smoking not to mention the millions maybe billions of tax dollars on health related issues caused by smoking.

There's gotta be a middle ground here to lessen the impact to the economy if people are willing.

 

[EdTreo]

Where is the safety issue?

Allergy. People with asthma and emphysema - yes even ex-smoker can have acute exacerbation of their symptom which can be serious and fatal.

 

[disney-super-mom]

Well, even this poll is indicating that about 20% doesn't want to ban smoking, and therefore, I don't think Dinsey would entirely ban it.

I still think that making ALL rooms non-smoking and declaring top floor balconies as "smoking optional balconies" would be the best compromise for everyone (at BCV, BWV, and VWL). You could also make all rooms at OKW and SSR non-smoking as well, but have certain buildings with smoking optional balconies.

Does anyone have a problem with a compromise like that, or does that sound like a good compromise?

 

[EdTreo]

Those in the medical profession consider smoking as job security.

Would you care to clarify?

 

[yitbos96bb]

People die from smoking not to mention the millions maybe billions of tax dollars on health related issues caused by smoking.

There's gotta be a middle ground here to lessen the impact to the economy if people are willing.

Yes but those health dollars are partly subsidized in the tobacco taxes and also a large amount was subsidized in the tobacco settlement. Of course our wonderful politicians pissed a lot of it away instead of putting it in a healthcare fund.

One middle ground would be the regulation of nicotine. You force tobacco companies to lower the nicotine levels and that should help people not smoke as much as the addiction won't be as prevalent.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Well, even this poll is indicating that about 20% doesn't want to ban smoking, and therefore, I don't think Dinsey would entirely ban it.

I still think that making ALL rooms non-smoking and declaring top floor balconies as "smoking optional balconies" would be the best compromise for everyone (at BCV, BWV, and VWL). You could also make all rooms at OKW and SSR non-smoking as well, but have certain buildings with smoking optional balconies.

Does anyone have a problem with a compromise like that, or does that sound like a good compromise?

I like it better than some of the other choices but it still isn't really a compromise as it HEAVILY favors non smokers. To me the balconies being outside should not even be on the table in regards to a ban. I'm sorry some people are bothered by it, but wouldn't they rather have someone on the balcony rather than a smoker smoking in the non-smoking room.

Now if you make the top floor ALL smoking rooms, or a majority smoking rooms then maybe we head more toward the compromise. While your idea is a good start, it is still way too skewed and not that reasonable to me. If I am a smoker and I can't smoke on the balcony and the room is non-smoking... unless one of those detectors that were posted is installed, I can tell you where I am going to smoke.. in the place I am least likely to be caught... indoors.

 

[skibum]

Sorry, but statistics do not bear your premise to be true, because across the whole population, smoking materials start more fires than stoves and irons.

I mis-spoke - should have said smoking materials are responsible for starting more serious fires than any other cause - and is the NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF FATAL FIRES!!! I did refer to life safety issues in that original post.

http://www.nfpa.org/itemDetail.asp?...atistics/Causes

An oven/microwave/iron fire that is out before the fire department arrives is still reported as a fire. A fire started by smoking materials often is involved with a mattress or couch, which are highly combustible, and not likely to be put out.

This is obviously a very emotional issue for some, and I personally feel that if anybody has "rights", the non-smoker should be entitled to breathe clean air.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Allergy. People with asthma and emphysema - yes even ex-smoker can have acute exacerbation of their symptom which can be serious and fatal.

Well yes, but then you have to make the argument that anything that might cause allergies or asthma needs to be banned. People with pets bringing in pet hair (not sure if youc an have pets stay in a room). People having any shellfish or peanuts as well. If the place isn't clean enough then there is the potential there as well.

That is why I am advocating smoking rooms. As I have said all along, smokers should not smoke in non-smoking rooms. But getting rid of the smoking rooms will increase the number of people smoking in non-smoking rooms. And banning it on most balconies will further increase those numbers.

 

[skibum]

Would you care to clarify?

Yes, it's a joke! But the fact is that smoking does make our population more sick at an earlier age due to lung disease and cardiac problems.
If you want to live longer, stop smoking.

 

[EdTreo]

Yes but those health dollars are partly subsidized in the tobacco taxes and also a large amount was subsidized in the tobacco settlement. Of course our wonderful politicians pissed a lot of it away instead of putting it in a healthcare fund.

I wouldn't call it a subsidy. Anyway, the amount is insignificantly small considering the other use of tax dollars. Beyond economic reason it's just unethical - you just can't pay back somebody's health that you help to destroy.

One middle ground would be the regulation of nicotine. You force tobacco companies to lower the nicotine levels and that should help people not smoke as much as the addiction won't be as prevalent.

That's a good one. Cetainly I hope doable both scientifically and politically. BTW, it has been studied that it is not just nicotine that causes addiction in smoking.