For you smokers out there......

[Joe&Peg]

WaltFan1957's excellent commentary was wrongfully attributed to Joe&Peg, giving the illusion that we are smarter than we really are.

 

[arminnie]

You know, I've never seen or heard of an official policy from Disney in this area EITHER WAY, but I'll take my super soaker just in case.

Smoke where you want to. I won't have a super soaker.

BUT - don't complain if I spray air freshener or perfume. And I might use a LOT of it. Some of it smells worse than smoke.

If I have to have a stinky balcony then it might as well be the stink of my choice.

It's really quite fun to apply a very, very feminine perfume in large quantities when macho men at the next table are smoking (obviously not in FL). I would never spray it directly on someone but it wafts just as much as smoke. It's really quite funny to see the smokers start choking on the perfume - which also makes their food taste awful! I do it way before my food arrives.

Hair spray is good too.

 

[DVCconvert]

It's really quite fun to apply a very, very feminine perfume in large quantities when macho men at the next table are smoking (obviously not in FL). I would never spray it directly on someone but it wafts just as much as smoke. It's really quite funny to see the smokers start choking on the perfume - which also makes their food taste awful! I do it way before my food arrives.

I know your post was substainly in jest -- but honestly-- it's a HUGE problem for very many people! The stench that comes from bodily perfumes CAN create as bad of a reaction to some peoples breathing as any 2nd/3rd/4th hand smoker could! -- yet the chest pounding activists refuse to address this real, creditable, substantial issue!?

 

[arminnie]

I know your post was substainly in jest -- but honestly-- it's a HUGE problem for very many people! The stench that comes from bodily perfumes CAN create as bad of a reaction to some peoples breathing as any 2nd/3rd/4th hand smoker could! -- yet the chest pounding activists refuse to address this real, creditable, substantial issue!?

You are correct. I lived in Northern California until 4 years ago, and virtually no one wore perfume for that very reason.

A friend was visiting and after she had packed she said she'd forgotten to put on perfume and asked to borrow some. I felt like such a social misfit because I didn't have any.

 

[Dean]

I know your post was substainly in jest -- but honestly-- it's a HUGE problem for very many people! The stench that comes from bodily perfumes CAN create as bad of a reaction to some peoples breathing as any 2nd/3rd/4th hand smoker could! -- yet the chest pounding activists refuse to address this real, creditable, substantial issue!?

In jest or payback? Tobacco smoke is certainly a larger problem overall in terms of number of people affected, overall health issues and dollar costs than vasomotor (not allergic) reactions to perfumes, cleaning agents etc. But both can be important.

 

[DVCconvert]

In jest or payback? Tobacco smoke is certainly a larger problem overall in terms of number of people affected, overall health issues and dollar costs than vasomotor (not allergic) reactions to perfumes, cleaning agents etc. But both can be important.

"In jest or payback?"
Dean--either I'm confused or perhaps the same should be asked of each of us?

"But both can be important"
This was the point I was making--and commenting to the fact that it's fashionable to be in on the anti-smoking posse,
but God help those's whose inflictions aren't in vogue dispite the fact that they are put in pain, suffer and also die from being exposed to other more 'acceptable' toxins.

 

[Dean]

"In jest or payback?"
Dean--either I'm confused or perhaps the same should be asked of each of us?

"But both can be important"
This was the point I was making--and commenting to the fact that it's fashionable to be in on the anti-smoking posse,
but God help those's whose inflictions aren't in vogue dispite the fact that they are put in pain, suffer and also die from being exposed to other more 'acceptable' toxins.

I think it as the "taste of their own medicine" approach being touted much as my joking (or am I) about the super soaker. Certainly tobacco smoke is a much larger problem and more important health issue than perfume or similar smells. To equate them as equally important would not be reasonable. But if you're one who is severely affected, I guess it doesn't matter to you. Much like the peanut police on the airplanes. If you have a child that has life threatening allergies, you'd better be proactive.

In general, I don't have much respect for the approach of using other issues to deflect criticism. With my kids, it's the "others are doing it or worse" approach. With DVC members it's things like the guide said it's OK, there are more important issues in this world like the War, MS will allows it so it's OK, other things also increase wear and tear so rooms stuffing is OK, etc. All generally true to an extent but frequently have little or no bearing on the situation at hand.

 

[DVCconvert]

a much larger problem and more important health issue than perfume or similar smells. To equate them as equally important would not be reasonable. But if you're one who is severely affected, I guess it doesn't matter to you.

While I don't personally have any reactions to any airborne substances -- I'd agree with you. If something is possibly lethal to you personally, you'd likely wish to avoid it. That is why I do think it is equally important. As many who are at risk of dying from a whif of smoke, others are at a similar risk of lossing their lives from a whif of a strong chemical.

With DVC members it's things like the guide said it's OK, there are more important issues in this world like the War, MS will allows it so it's OK, other things also increase wear and tear so rooms stuffing is OK, etc. All generally true to an extent but frequently have little or no bearing on the situation at hand.

If I understand you correctly -- basically saying that the entire "issue" is in the bigger picture irrelavant and insignificant--as there are much large issues society in general has ignored or woefully responded too -- then I agree.

 

[Dean]

While I don't personally have any reactions to any airborne substances -- I'd agree with you. If something is possibly lethal to you personally, you'd likely wish to avoid it. That is why I do think it is equally important. As many who are at risk of dying from a whif of smoke, others are at a similar risk of lossing their lives from a whif of a strong chemical.

I don't think either are an acute risk as you describe, at least not enough to be reasonable to consider just from a casual exposure for acute issues. Sure, anyone can have their first asthma attack and drop dead on the spot, it has happened more than once, but it's not something that is enough risk to govern decisions overall. it's the long terms issues and morbidity that is more the question. But if anyone were to equate the two issues in questions as equal risk and health hazards, would be right from fantasy land.

 

[rinkwide]

...if anyone were to equate the two issues in questions as equal risk and health hazards, would be right from fantasy land.

Probably from a very specific "area" of Fantasy Land - South side of Tinkerbell's Treasures, under the overhang.

 

[DVCconvert]

I don't think either are an acute risk as you describe, at least not enough to be reasonable to consider just from a casual exposure for acute issues.

But is that not the contention of many who argue in favor of an outright ban?
Do they not infer that such a ban is necessary in truth because of said casual exposure? It seems reasonable that the majority of DVC member may spend 5-10 nights in a DVC unit over a 12-24 month period. Given that a room may or maynot have ever harbored a smoker-and/or the amount of time one might be on their balcony (with the 'correct' wind direction prevailing) so as to create an exposure of concern which would reasonablly justify a ban is not present as the 'exposure'-- is all very casual.

But if anyone were to equate the two issues in questions as equal risk and health hazards, would be right from fantasy land.

Perhaps in the situation you cited:
"Sure, anyone can have their first asthma attack and drop dead on the spot, it has happened more than once" --those effected would beg to differ?


Rinkwink--

Probably from a very specific "area" of Fantasy Land - South side of Tinkerbell's Treasures, under the overhang

I was thinking perhaps more like under the Liberty Tree

 

[Dean]

But is that not the contention of many who argue in favor of an outright ban?
Do they not infer that such a ban is necessary in truth because of said casual exposure? It seems reasonable that the majority of DVC member may spend 5-10 nights in a DVC unit over a 12-24 month period. Given that a room may or maynot have ever harbored a smoker-and/or the amount of time one might be on their balcony (with the 'correct' wind direction prevailing) so as to create an exposure of concern which would reasonablly justify a ban is not present as the 'exposure'-- is all very casual.

I don't think so. The issue is that there are health effects from smoke exposure but they are indirect and over time and they are CUMMULATIVE. That doesn't mean that a casual contact can't cause health problems, it can. Think asthma and related issues. The issues with perfume or other similar agents is totally different and infinitely less likely and far less of a health problem overall.

Perhaps in the situation you cited:
"Sure, anyone can have their first asthma attack and drop dead on the spot, it has happened more than once" --those effected would beg to differ?

But it could happen due to anything. nuts, seafood, cleaning agents, etc. But the point was more related to the fact it was dramatically unlikely while acknowledging that is was POSSIBLE to happen.

I was thinking perhaps more like under the Liberty Tree

Hardly. One does not or at least should not have the right to infringe on others rights by exercising their own. This is a common idiocy in the argument for freedom of smoking, one can smoke as much as they want, they just should not be allowed to do so around people that don't want to be affected by it or in places that would affect them such as smoking in a non smoking room. You and I can come up with innumerable situations where our individual rights are reduced for the common good. The absence of rules "controlling" our rights would be anarchy.

 

[DVCconvert]

I don't think so. The issue is that there are health effects from smoke exposure but they are indirect and over time and they are CUMMULATIVE.

I believe that what I said. The amount of casual exposure while staying in a DVC resort in comparison to the vastly larger amount of time a person has while not staying at a DVC resort confirms that an exposure (if any) is not meaningful enough to contribute to a CUMMULATIVE realistic worry.

That doesn't mean that a casual contact can't cause health problems, it can. Think asthma and related issues.

I, again, agree.

The issues with perfume or other similar agents is totally different and infinitely less likely and far less of a health problem overall.

But no less important to someone who has a real problem with other toxins,
that do not share the 'fashionable' status.

Hardly. One does not or at least should not have the right to infringe on others rights by exercising their own.

I do not believe I said that, and I certainly did not intend to inferr that I agree with anyone infringing on anyone's rights.

Just as a side observation, today makes this thread 2 years, 1 week and 1 day old. Actually Dean, you posted on the first page of this thread back in 2004. Isn't it remarkable that with all the learned scholars who wax so pathetically and with conviction on this topic over such a period of time--that it is still capable of producing such fervor.

If we all just respected each other, and played by mutually established, and mutually accommodating rules--then the fervor might not be so prevailing.

It reminds me of an old saying:
If you kick the backside of the person responsible for your problems you won’t be able sit down for a week

 

[arminnie]

Since it seems that I started this perfume vs. smoke thing, let me add some more fuel to the fire.

I have asthma. I am affected by cigarette smoke - no I don't stop breathing, but it does make my lungs hurt to breathe. Who know if it is going to give me cancer? I certainly hope not.

There's probably a smoker or two out there who is allergic to perfumes although they seem to tolerate cigarettes. Would it bother me if my perfume gave the smoker (not an innocent by-stander) an asthma attack? Quite frankly - No. They aren't concerned about my health so why should I be concerned about theirs.

 

[Dean]

If we all just respected each other, and played by mutually established, and mutually accommodating rules--then the fervor might not be so prevailing.

A point I've made many times including on this thread I'm sure. If that happened, smokers would only smoke in specifically designated areas, inside smoking units or in their own home or car.

 

[cruise-o-matic]

Since it seems that I started this perfume vs. smoke thing, let me add some more fuel to the fire.

I have asthma. I am affected by cigarette smoke - no I don't stop breathing, but it does make my lungs hurt to breathe. Who know if it is going to give me cancer? I certainly hope not.

There's probably a smoker or two out there who is allergic to perfumes although they seem to tolerate cigarettes. Would it bother me if my perfume gave the smoker (not an innocent by-stander) an asthma attack? Quite frankly - No. They aren't concerned about my health so why should I be concerned about theirs.

OT...We have a 14 1/2 year old Cocker Spaniel named Cody too. Our other one, Lady, will be 2 tomorrow.

 

[CarolMN]

.....(snip).......

Rinkwink--


I was thinking perhaps more like under the Liberty Tree

RinkWINK Is this a Freudian slip or just a case of "if the shoe fits.....

Best wishes -

 

[DVCconvert]

A point I've made many times including on this thread I'm sure. If that happened, smokers would only smoke in specifically designated areas, inside smoking units or in their own home or car.

With all due respect...well 'daaah' -- that's a given!

 

[DVCconvert]

rinkwide

RinkWINK Is this a Freudian slip or just a case of "if the shoe fits.....

Why CarolMN!!!! -- in your lofty, exalted and omnipotent position on these boards...I would think you'd know!!

 

[Dean]

With all due respect...well 'daaah' -- that's a given!

You'd think. Fortunately most people, smokers included, are courteous people. But like anything else, it's the lowlife's that ruin it for everyone.