For you smokers out there......

[yitbos96bb]

Actually, NO, you're not right in thinking that at all.

Maybe you don't follow politics. If 80% of the senate leans in a certain direction (yeh or neh) on a certain issue from the get-go, they're NOT going to compromise AT ALL with the 20% minority. There would be no reason to compromise.

Even more interesting is that we're on the same side of this issue, and yet you're also picking a fight with me. Remember, I'm the one, and only one, who offered a compromise at all. Now where's your compromise?

No I am not picking a fight with you. I was pointing out that there are VERY few issues 80% of congress leans one way toward. Many of the bills you see pass with an 80% majority or higher get that way through compromise. But rarely will you even see a bill pass with 80% of the vote, unless it is a spending bill. In order to get that bill passed, compromises take place. These compromises take place behind the scenes and will include compromises between members of the same party and opposing parties. It is most prevalent in the senate, where neither party has enough support to automatically overide a filibuster with 60 votes... meaning COMPROMISE is necessary.

As far as compromise for your plan, I have addressed it in a previous post. Please go back and look. I suggest putting smoking rooms at the end of the hallway on all floors. Then have two non smoking rooms on each side with Smoking optional balconies. The rest can be nonsmoking with non smoking balconies (although I am against balconies being included at all) and if more smoking balconies are needed, then the entire top can be included as well.

 

[CarolMN]

In my experience, most smokers are considerate of non-smokers and will not smoke in a non-smoking room unless an employee specifically tells them that it is OK.

FWIW, I think most complaints about getting a non-smoking room that has been smoked in by the previous occupant are due to the FRONT DESK CMs and HOUSEKEEPING! They tend to tell any smoker who complains about getting a non-smoking room that it's OK to smoke in their room anyway. Housekeeping even brings them ashtrays. I have personally observed this happen at the front desk and I have found ash trays in a non-smoking room.

If Disney would just CUT THAT OUT, the complaints on this issue would significantly decrease. So no need for detectors, fines and inspections.

JMHO. YMMV.

Best wishes -

 

[disney-super-mom]

I am not in disagreement with you there, but how can you honestly say that your compromise is an 80/20 split even? You are limiting smoking to no rooms and barely any balconies. That isn't 80/20... that is like 95/5.

In reality a fair 80/20 split would be make 20 percent of the rooms smoking and 80% non-smoking. But I actually think that would be way to many rooms and the smoking rooms would sit unfilled. In reality, I would say that the chances of the balconies being declared off limits are slim, especially if all rooms are non-smoking.

I personally like the Jet Blue approach. For those of you unfamiliar, Jet Blue puts seat with the most leg room in the back. So if you want to get off the plain quick you get less leg room. If you want more leg room, you have to get off later... a fair compromise.


Here is a plan if you have to take away smoking on balconies.
So I say the smoking rooms be in the less desirable rooms. The rooms farthest from the elevator or with lesser views. Instead of doing a top row all of optional, do all the rooms in a vertical row as smoking rooms. So using boardwalk as an example, maybe the 4 rooms farthest from the elevator on each floor are smoking rooms (two on each side of the hall) from top to bottom. The 4 rooms next to these rooms (two on each side) can be no smoking but smoking balconies. You can add rooms if you need to have more smoking rooms. This way you eliminate the smoke up effect. The only people who would be bothered are the non-smoking balconies next to the smoking optional balcony and that would only be a limited amount of time.

I think this is a fair solution to the problem and goes the farthest in being a compromise for most people.

Ah ha! I found it. Somehow I missed it yesterday.
Actually, this isn't a bad plan either. I could easily live with it.

 

[EdTreo]

I am not in doubt of the effect of smoke on some people. I am not sure why you think I am but you are mistaken and misunderstood something I said. My statement on the peanuts and shellfish was a serious one.

Actually peanut allergies can affect people even if they don't ingest. Severly allergic can touch peanuts and have a reaction. Yes, It is rare but it does happen. I know someone personally who it happened to. I also point to the person who died recently after kissing someone who had eaten peanuts earlier.

I am not sure if this is possible with shellfish or not. If not, then it is withdrawn.

Common things are common and rare things are rare. Inaccurate reports are another thing. Kissing would have the same same mode of transmission which is oral.

As far as smoke, yes people can have asthma attacks from a room that someone has smoked in. But one must also say that it is not a large segment of the population with this issue.

What would you consider a large segment? It is one of the most common health issues. Asthma is more common than you think.

But remember, people with asthma can have reactions to things other than smoke. Perfume, pet hair, etc. So do we tell people they can't wear perfume? People can't have pet hair on their clothes when they stay at Disney. Yes it is extreme, but where do you draw the line? This is why I advocate the smoking rooms and am not in favor of a ban that will lead to more smokers smoking in non-smoking rooms. Of course Disney should guarentee non smoking rooms as well.

Again, you're missing my point. This is a case where you've been informed that the occupant is already allergic to smoke and the previous occupants had smoked in a non smoking room.

As to the ban or not to ban issue, I don't think we have enough data to suggest either way is effective.

 

[EdTreo]

Since when do Ethics and politics and money mix

Right, there can be an oral compulsion as well with smoking. But nicotine IS the main addictive factor in cigarettes.

There are recent data suggesting it may not be. I'll link you to that study if I find it.

 

[paults]

we are staying in St. Augustine, Fl in May before going to BCV and when looking at hotels I saw that some are all non-smoking rooms and they charge a $200 fee for smoking in a room.

Get on board DVC

 

[yitbos96bb]

What would you consider a large segment? It is one of the most common health issues. Asthma is more common than you think.

Again, you're missing my point. This is a case where you've been informed that the occupant is already allergic to smoke and the previous occupants had smoked in a non smoking room.

As to the ban or not to ban issue, I don't think we have enough data to suggest either way is effective.

Actually, you are right I did miss your point about Disney being informed that someone would have an attack if placed ina room where someone had recently smoked. That is a fair point that it could be easily prevented on Disney's part.

I know asthma is a common ailment, and it has grown over the last 30 years... much in the same way other things have grown in occurence like puberty starting earlier, more people needing to wear glasses due to being near sighted, etc. Not sure what is causing this (some blame food preservatives, others pollution, some blame PCs and TVs for the glasses increase, and I am sure some will even blame Disney since they are a common scapegoat.) but that is a discussion for another time.

What I was saying is not Asthmas is uncommon, but that not all asthma sufferers have reactions to rooms where people have previously smoked. Of all the asthma sufferers I know, only 2 have this particular issue. Now many of them have a problem when people are smoking right next to them... My sister is this way... the smoked in room from a day or two ago won't bother her, but smoke around her and she has issues. Further wierd, of these 2 people, neither are affected by pet hair, but some of the others who the smoked in room doesn't bother have an issue with the pet hair. My point was simply that while a lot of people probably don't like the smell of a smoked in room (I am that way), those who have a severe reaction to the smoked in room are a much smaller number. Hopefully this clarifies for you like your last point clarified for me.

 

[yitbos96bb]

The problem with smoking is that it tends to directly affect those immediately close to the one smoking. And close can be 100 feet or more downwind. Any "compromise" needs to totally separate that. It means enforcing not smoking in NS units and a fine or banning for those that violate. It means TOTALLY separating any smoking activity out of nose shot of those who have problems with it. including out front or on the balcony. For OKW and SSR, that would mean smoking buildings, but only if they weren't adjacent to NS ones. For the rest, unless you take a whole side of the building for smoking (too many units to be reasonable), you just couldn't do it. Regardless, I think we're within a few years at most of banning smoking in hotels and all public areas other than designated, specially ventilated areas and hefty state fines for violators, at least for FL.

I am against these types of policies. Mainly because I think that private businesses should have the choice on whether they want to allow smoking. My points on this forum have all been made to the viewpoint of why Disney SHOULDN'T ban smoking altogether. I do acknowledge they have the right. These types of laws that are passing in some cities and states are government interference run amok... but this is not the time for that discussion so I will jump off that soapbox.

I am curious what you mean by public areas. Do you mean indoor areas? Or are you talking parks, etc?

While I am against this, I do think Dean is right. The wind is blowing toward more government interference in our lives and this is just one more example.

 

[yitbos96bb]

In my experience, most smokers are considerate of non-smokers and will not smoke in a non-smoking room unless an employee specifically tells them that it is OK.

FWIW, I think most complaints about getting a non-smoking room that has been smoked in by the previous occupant are due to the FRONT DESK CMs and HOUSEKEEPING! They tend to tell any smoker who complains about getting a non-smoking room that it's OK to smoke in their room anyway. Housekeeping even brings them ashtrays. I have personally observed this happen at the front desk and I have found ash trays in a non-smoking room.

If Disney would just CUT THAT OUT, the complaints on this issue would significantly decrease. So no need for detectors, fines and inspections.

JMHO. YMMV.

Best wishes -

I had no idea Disney is telling smokers they can smoke in Non-smoking rooms. I agree that this shouldn't happen AT ALL. I know they want to please the guest, but that is wrong.

 

[Nanajo1]

I had no idea Disney is telling smokers they can smoke in Non-smoking rooms. I agree that this shouldn't happen AT ALL. I know they want to please the guest, but that is wrong.

I glad someone pointed out this is a blended thread because that fact that Disney tells smokers that they can smoke in a N/S unit was mentioned many times in previous postings.

 

[waltfan1957]

I absolutely have NO issue with not smoking in a non smoking unit. As to penalties, I have no problem with that either.

sorry, but, my allergies to perfume are very serious and I literally cannot breath, whiile you may not think it as iimportant as second hand smoke, I sure do. Second hand smoke INSIDE is a health risk. No arguement. However, I asked for a link to prove that outside second hand smoke can cause lung cancer.
I do believe there should be a more equitable distribution of smoking and non smoking rooms. The more they decrease the smoking rooms, the more smokers will ignore the non smoking room definition and smoke anyway. They already do, I can only see it escalating.
I agree, the rooms should be guaranteed, one way or the other.
Like a non smoker, I feel I should enjoy the comfort of knowing I will have a smoking room. That seems reasonable to me.

I take it from reading all your arguments pro smoking that if you are smoking on your balcony and the smoke is going up into the above balcony you would have no objection if they spayed perfume onto yours??

 

[kritter]

After reading all of the posts i must say as a person with a lung condition who can not ever be around smoke...I think Disney should ban smoking and I think it is rude and uncaring if you smoke in a Non smoking room if that is all they have avaliable to you then smoke in the smoking areas at the resort but why wreck a perfect room with that smell and then make others suffer..If disney is telling you it is ok to smoke in a non smoking room this is wrong and If I ever heard a Cm telling a guest that I would report them to a manager...Smokers need to face a reality the rest of the world who does not smoke does not want to shorten their life span due to second hand smoke....Smokers need to have respect for those who do not smoke..Even if you are smoking on a balcony and my room is ns underneath yours I still get stuck breathing in your second hand smoke which to someone like myself can be deadly with my condition...I have never smoked and have lung problems you smokers are slowly killing yourself but donot do it to the rest of us..
sorry just my two cents..I understand this is not a smoking thread but I would love to DVC be all non smoking or make one builind at each resort smoking so the rest of us do not have to suffer...last year I was put inot a n/s room and someone had smoked in it..what a shame....I had to be moved asap...it is gross and was unfair to my family for someone else who was so inconsiderate....

 

[SueOKW]

I would say that within the next 30 years we will see a huge difference in where people smoke, if they smoke at all .... We have entire buildings and complexes going smoke free - and I mean not outdoors, not on the sidewalk.... no where near the building. We have companies refusing to employ smokers - even if they smoke at home. I'm glad my kids are growing up now.... as opposed to the 60s when I did. totally different world. Some new cars don't even have cigarette lighters anymore, do they?

NYC, Boston and soon London - and a great number of other cities have banned smoking in public areas.... it's fading fast....

 

[T.E. Yeary]

I agree with disney-super-mom about making the third floor balconies being designated "smoking optional".

We must NOT let our rights as human beings be governed by a few who squeal the loudest. Every person I know that smokes has tried to quit numerous times, to no avail. If it is as addictive as heroin, as stated earlier, why don't they have a smoking rehab? If the tobacco companies were banned, then the "black market" would take over. Just like prohibition, people who have an addiction are going to find a way to get or do what they want. What we as intelligent human beings have to do is come up with a "compromise" so that we all can get along and enjoy our personal rights and freedoms as citizens of the US.

Tom

 

[Dean]

I am against these types of policies. Mainly because I think that private businesses should have the choice on whether they want to allow smoking. My points on this forum have all been made to the viewpoint of why Disney SHOULDN'T ban smoking altogether. I do acknowledge they have the right. These types of laws that are passing in some cities and states are government interference run amok... but this is not the time for that discussion so I will jump off that soapbox.

I am curious what you mean by public areas. Do you mean indoor areas? Or are you talking parks, etc?

While I am against this, I do think Dean is right. The wind is blowing toward more government interference in our lives and this is just one more example.

By public areas, I mean areas where many people would be including the parks, entrances to malls and other business, balconies near non smoking units and the like. Basically anywhere a reasonable person would go and might be exposed to passive smoke when they need not be. Of course they'd have to be enforced, and I mean more so than me and my super soaker.

 

[MrsNick]

Some items I'd like address:

For those people compariing pet hair on a pet owner's clothes in the smoking argument...the argument is comparing apples and oranges.
Pets are banned from Disney resorts altogether, including public areas, all rooms and balconies (with the exception of service dogs). Smoking has not yet been banned from resorts altogeher. If it were, then the proper comparison would be the pet hair on one person's clothes, and the particulates from smoking on the other person's clothes.

I sympathize with smokers, but the argument that DVC owners bought in with the knowledge that they could smoke in their rooms, so you can't play bait and switch on them and make all rooms N/S doesn't really make sense to me. Rules of society (and of condominiums and private organizations) change with the times. DVC doesn't replace the VCR's in rooms with VCR's. They replace them with DVD players because that is the prevailing standard today. For those DVC members who only own VHS and want to play VHS in their rooms, should we say that they are entitled to VCR's in the room because that is the equipment that they thought would be in the rooms when they bought into DVC?

Drunk driving used to be considered not to be serious. But, as times have changed, laws have toughened up to protect the members of our society.

Sadly, yes, smokers are the ones who will be forced to make more compromises in the future. Non-smokers will get their way more and more frequently. Is it fair? Maybe not, but that is the direction in which our society is headed.

 

[kaytieeldr]

~
We booked a grand villae OKW a few years back and ordered non-smoking. They only had smoking available and it was dreadful - they brought in a machine to clean the air.

Also feel that all apartments now should be no-smoking for the health of everyone.

Now, THAT'S going too far. I've lived in my apartment for fifteen years. I expect (barring a lottery windfall) to live here another fifteen years, minimum. WHY should I not be able to smoke in my apartment?

I think this is a good solution, although an occupant would probably have to sign something at check in stating they are aware and accept a $200 cleaning fee for smoking in a non-smoking room, and they'd have to give an imprint of a credit card to put on file. Also, a solution like this should help keep dues unaffected, as the costs of everything should be taken out of the cleaning fee.

Well, that makes sense. I stayed in a hotel (yes, I know - different from time share) in California that required this. The problem with doing this at DVC properties is that housekeeping doesn't visit every room every day.

What if, after occupants who don't smoke checked out of a non-smoking room, and a housekeeper who does smoke decides to light up in the room for a little smoke break (after all, who would know or find out)?

Or not even that. What if the housekeeper happens to be a smoker and therefore not sensitive to the smell? Then she or he wouldn't report anything because nothing was smelled; but the next Guest only stays one night, and the subsequent housekeeper (yesterday's housekeeper having today off) doesn't smoke, smells cigarette smoke and reports the non-violating Guest as having smoked in the room?

I think that's about it. Am I missing anybody?

Otherly-abled Guests?

This made me think, maybe all rooms could/should be non-smoking, and all top floor rooms could have smoking optional balconies. That could help curb the problem for everyone don't you think? (at BCV, BWV and VWL)

Now, that's not a bad idea! Except then DVC would probably get complaints from non-smoking Guests who want to be on the top floor.

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.

No. Starting to smoke is a choice; smoker continue to smoke because it's an addiction.

Please provide a link and a source for your stats.

I found http://www.usfa.fema.gov/about/media/2005releases/092205.shtm "WASHINGTON, D.C. - In 2002 alone, cooking-related fires caused an estimated 185,600 structure fires, 80 civilian deaths, 3,875 injuries, and $481 million in property damage, according to a new report issued today by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's U.S. Fire Administration." and http://www.usfa.fema.gov/about/media/2005releases/072005.shtm "WASHINGTON, D.C. - In 2002 alone, lighted tobacco products caused an estimated 14,450 residential fires, 520 civilian deaths, 1,330 injuries, and $371 million in residential property damage"

It should also be noted that there are no covered outdoor smoking areas in the MK, Epcot, MGM or DTD. So the 'right' of smokers is conditional to weather conditions--whereas the 'right' of "clean air breathers" in bad weather is 'guaranteed'.

Actually, there is! In Epcot, one of the Designated Smoking Areas is outside Mouse Gears, facing SpaceShip Earth. This area IS covered - although the roof is about forty feet off the ground...

Anyway your comment is not quite applicable here. We are talking about a known substance that has an IMMEDIATE and SERIOUS effect.

Pet dander has an immediate and serious effect on persons allergic to it. The post you quoted does make absolute sense. Granted, only service animals are allowed in Disney rooms, but even service dogs have/shed dander.

Originally Posted by yitbos96bb
As far as smoke, yes people can have asthma attacks from a room that someone has smoked in. But one must also say that it is not a large segment of the population with this issue.

What would you consider a large segment? It is one of the most common health issues. Asthma is more common than you think.

Yes, asthma not uncommon. But how many people have asthma attacks from spending time in a room in which somebody smoked in the past?

Again, you're missing my point. This is a case where you've been informed that the occupant is already allergic to smoke and the previous occupants had smoked in a non smoking room.

You might have missed this post

And a nitpick, no one is allergic to cigarette smoke - it lacks the protein to be an allergin. You can be sensative to it, and it can trigger asthma attacks, but you aren't allergic.

There are recent data suggesting it {nicotine} may not be {addicting}. I'll link you to that study if I find it.

Yeah, there's pretty much a study to prove and to disprove anything.

If disney is telling you it is ok to smoke in a non smoking room this is wrong and If I ever heard a Cm telling a guest that I would report them to a manager

I truly don't think this is a decision made by a CM, without prior approval from management. I mean, feel free to report the CM, but any decent manager would already know that this option is being given to smokers assigned to non-smoking rooms.

Smokers need to face a reality the rest of the world who does not smoke does not want to shorten their life span due to second hand smoke

Is there documented proof that second-hand smoke actually shortens lives? I'm not saying it's not dangerous (on the other hand, I'm not agreeing that it is) but where is the PROOF that anyone's life was shortened specifically due to second-hand smoke?

Even if you are smoking on a balcony and my room is ns underneath yours I still get stuck breathing in your second hand smoke which to someone like myself can be deadly with my condition

So, smoke rises AND smoke sinks? It can only go in one direction. Yes, the direction can change (up to the northeast, suddenly directly west if the wind blows, etc) but unless the wind is blowing straight down, it's highly unlikely that cigarette smoke will affect anyone below.

I understand this is not a smoking thread but I would love to DVC be all non smoking or make one builind at each resort smoking so the rest of us do not have to suffer.

But almost half the DVC resorts only have one building. So the fair thing is to make that one building at each of those resorts smoking, right? I realize that's not what you mean, but that's what you're saying. And as somebody has pointed out, DVC members who bought into those properties did so with the understanding they would be able to smoke. How do you resolve that?

 

[lenshanem]

A local hotel burned down recently, one person died, twenty had to be brought down by ladder. Guess where the fire started? The smoking section.

 

[MrsNick]

Is there documented proof that second-hand smoke actually shortens lives? I'm not saying it's not dangerous (on the other hand, I'm not agreeing that it is) but where is the PROOF that anyone's life was shortened specifically due to second-hand smoke?

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_1986/

Check out the US Surgeon General's Report on second hand smoke that was published in 1986. Lots more information on the hazards of second hand smoke is available from many reputable sources.

Here's the second paragraph of the introduction to the report:
"The issue of whether or not tobacco smoke is carcinogenic for humans was
conclusively resolved more than 20 years ago when the first report on smoking and health was issued in 1964. Based on the current report, the judgment can now be made that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke can cause disease, including lung cancer, in nonsmokers. It is also clear that simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same airspace may reduce but cannot eliminate nonsmoker exposure to environmental tobacco smoke."

 

[salmoneous]

I'm curious if anyone out there calling for a full smoking ban is willing to make any sacrifices of their own. Let's face it, there are a lot of things that can bother people, be dangerous or run up maintenance costs. Somebody is much more likely to get hurt by a car than second-hand smoke. Pollen causes more medical problems than some guy smoking 100 feet away. And kids do far more damage to the rooms than smokers.

So is there anyone out there willing to give up something they enjoy in order to make DVC a better, safer place. Anyone who enjoys having a car on-site who is willing to have them banned before somebody gets hurt in an accident? Anyone who enjoys the grounds who is willing to have all plants ripped out so the allergy sufferers can breather easier. Anyone who brings kids to DVS willing to ban kids so that the maintence costs can stay low?

Look, I think everyone agrees that DVC needs to put a stop to smoking in non-smoking rooms. And that non-smoking rooms should be guaranteed. But to completely ban all smoking in all units is going too far for the existing properties. If you buy into the concept that DVC isn't a pre-paid hotel, but a HOME, how do you tell somebody they can't smoke in their own home?