For you smokers out there......

[disney-super-mom]

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.

The compromise has to heavily favor the non-smokers because they are the BIG majority. It can't be an equal 50/50 split compromise.

If 80% of DVC members are non-smokers, then a compromise should be 80% in favor of them.

I also want to say that I hope you were kidding about smoking indoors in a non-smoking room because it's the place where you're least likely to be caught. If you want a compromise AT ALL with the MAJORITY, making a statement like that certainly doesn't do you any favors. As a matter of fact, you just made the non-smokers point about this debate!

 

[EdTreo]

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.

I'm glad you explained. Because otherwise it is quite offensive to medical profession. I agree with your health impact assesment.

 

[yitbos96bb]

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.

Serious fires seems to be a subjective definition. But again I do want to point out that Cooking equipment still causes more injuries... just not deaths.

The point is if this is such a big big concern, why are you not advocating taking out the stoves as well. They can be dangerous as well.

Besides, I still fail to see how your point that the non-smoker should be entitled to breathe clean air (a funny statement given the pollution levels in our air but I digress) relates to smoking rooms. The whole point of the smoking room is so that the non-smokers don't have to smell the smoke.

Smokers are confined to designated areas in OUTDOOR park sin an effort to respect your right to breathe clean air. Smoking is banned in all indoor public areas in the resorts. Restaurants are divided into different sections in an effort to respect this. Yet you keep pushing for more. You and the other fanatical non-smokers who feel the same way about smoking as many fundamentalists feel about pornography are obsessed with completely having your way. How about being a bit tolerant and try being pragmatic on the situation? If you really look objectively at the situation, you have to admit that smokers have made MANY MANY more concessions than non-smokers and have done it without a lot of complaint. Please keep that in mind. Having some smoking rooms and allowing them to smoke on their own balcony outside isn't all that much to ask. If you want to put in detectors in non-smoking rooms and fine someone if those detectors go off, then that is a possibility (as it insures no one gets unfairly charged) as well... one I am sure most smokers would agree too if they are allowed to smoke on the balcony.

 

[DVCconvert]

If 80% of DVC members are non-smokers, then a compromise should be 80% in favor of them.

And should the senate, if the US were made up of 80% perfume wearers, or obese people, or people with nose rings, or people with a certain lifestyle also be divided up in such a fashion?

Smokers are confined to designated areas in OUTDOOR park sin an effort to respect your right to breathe clean air.

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'.

 

[disney-super-mom]

And should the senate, if the US were made up of 80% perfume wearers, or obese people, or people with nose rings, or people with a certain lifestyle also be divided up in such a fashion?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point.

I always thought of a compromise as being a positive thing.

In the senate, there is no compromise. If 80% of the senate votes a certain way, then that's it - no compromise for the 20% of the minority votes.

 

[EdTreo]

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.

I'm responding to your safety issue question not relating to DVC, since you're in doubt of it's deleterious effect.

Anyway your comment is not quite applicable here. We are talking about a known substance that has an IMMEDIATE and SERIOUS effect. Let say somebody with an alergy to tobaco who requested a non smoking room and walked into a non-smoking room with the smell of cigarette and had an reaction. BTW, allergy due to shelfish and peanuts are produced after ingestion and not inhalation so not applicable to DVC here as well. Cleanliness is quite a stretch in this regards.

 

[carriep1657]

I will be calling soon to reserve a room at BCV. I notice that all of the smoking villas are on the 4th floor. Have any of you non-smokers stayed in a non-smoking villa on the 4th floor? If so, did you notice any smoke smell in your room or the hallways?

 

[yitbos96bb]

The compromise has to heavily favor the non-smokers because they are the BIG majority. It can't be an equal 50/50 split compromise.

If 80% of DVC members are non-smokers, then a compromise should be 80% in favor of them.

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.

 

[grumpydad]

from what i can tell i have not seen a reply from an actually smoker.
first let me say i do not smoke in non smoking rooms and i think the solution is NOT banning smoking or NON smoking rooms, but NON smoking buildings
that way all smokers are together and vice versa

but frankly, i am getting sick and tired of you non smokers,sorry but
you have touched a nerve with me



first you get seperate smoking sections in resturants
than no smoking in public buildings
than no smoking within 50 ft of public buildings
than no smoking in resturants at all
than no smoking no bars

where does it stop!!!!!

i do not drink, but what would you rather have, maybe getting cancer from secondhand smoke, or someone getting drunk and hitting you with their car right now. why doesn't anybody complain about drinking.

as far as health issues and medical costs go, smokers don't get sick because of smoking we get sick because you make us stand out in the cold and rain

as far as non smokers rights, i paid the same money and dues as you so i have ALL the same rights as you.

 

[Pamjr]

My family stayed in a Grand villa in SSR early January. The downstairs bathroom, just off the kitchen, was so smelly from smoke we were unable to use it. Obviously, we called guest services but there wasn't anything they could. Perhaps the people who used the villa before us stowed away in there to smoke because I understand it was rather cold before we arrived. Whatever the problem, it was very upsetting. we had to keep the bathroom door closed the entire time we were there.

I'm not opposed to having some smoking rooms in each villa but if the problem was caused by the previous residents and not some ventillation problem, then perhpas a ban would be necessary.

 

[yitbos96bb]

I'm responding to your safety issue question not relating to DVC, since you're in doubt of it's deleterious effect.

Anyway your comment is not quite applicable here. We are talking about a known substance that has an IMMEDIATE and SERIOUS effect. Let say somebody with an alergy to tobaco who requested a non smoking room and walked into a non-smoking room with the smell of cigarette and had an reaction. BTW, allergy due to shelfish and peanuts are produced after ingestion and not inhalation so not applicable to DVC here as well. Cleanliness is quite a stretch in this regards.

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.

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.

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.

 

[yitbos96bb]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point.

I always thought of a compromise as being a positive thing.

In the senate, there is no compromise. If 80% of the senate votes a certain way, then that's it - no compromise for the 20% of the minority votes.

By your comment, am I right in thinking you don't follow politics all that much? In Congress many of the bills are passed through compromise. This is how Washington has worked for years. Even members of their own parties need to compromise to get what they want.

So while your statement is true, the compromise happens long before the vote.

 

[yitbos96bb]

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.



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.

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.

 

[DVCconvert]

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, exactly.

 

[DVCconvert]

hey!!!?????

what happened to this thread???

 

[yitbos96bb]

hey!!!?????

what happened to this thread???

They combined it I was amazed that it jumped to this many pages in 1 day. Then i looked at Post #1.

 

[disney-super-mom]

By your comment, am I right in thinking you don't follow politics all that much? In Congress many of the bills are passed through compromise. This is how Washington has worked for years. Even members of their own parties need to compromise to get what they want.

So while your statement is true, the compromise happens long before the vote.

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?

 

[DVCconvert]

I'm the one, and only one, who offered a compromise at all. Now where's your compromise?

and what was that exactly? And is it (or this disscussion actually) even relavant since presumably none of us govern DVC?

 

[disney-super-mom]

and what was that exactly? And is it (or this disscussion actually) even relavant since presumably none of us govern DVC?

The compromise that I came up with was to make ALL rooms at attached-to resorts (BCV, BWV, and VWL) non-smoking, to make ALL the top floor balconies at BCV, BWV and VWL smoking optional balconies (because of the complaints that smoking on the balconies bothers non-smokers because smoke rises, so obviously if you're smoking on a top floor balcony, there's nobody above you to smell the smoke), and basically keep OKW and SSR the same (since smoking buildings and non-smoking buildings are already seperated).

As to whether this discussion is relevent or not - well probably not.

 

[Dean]

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.