For you smokers out there......

ban smoking

  • yes

  • no


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
My DH is a smoker and we stayed at BWV in May and had requested a smoking room. We were told there were not any available but that DH could smoke on the balcony.

What I find interesting is that there are no smoking rooms at BWV. and only 2 at VWL. Is this correct? Why can't DVC be upfront about this instead of saying there were non available? We certainly would never have at stayed at BWV had we known and will never stay at VWL because of this as having a smoking room is top priority to DH and we would like to avoid the hassle of having to smoke on balconies and risk the wrath of non smokers.
 
Originally posted by lovesdisney
What I find interesting is that there are no smoking rooms at BWV. and only 2 at VWL. Is this correct? Why can't DVC be upfront about this instead of saying there were non available? We certainly would never have at stayed at BWV had we known and will never stay at VWL because of this as having a smoking room is top priority to DH and we would like to avoid the hassle of having to smoke on balconies and risk the wrath of non smokers.

No, not correct.

There are smoking rooms available at BWV, and I'm sorry that you could not secure one.

Smoking on balconies is permitted, and until Disney PUBLISHES a rule which denies that, your DH does not have to feel "hassled" about it.
 
Originally posted by GAIL HAYDEN
With the continual decrease in smoking rooms, the increase of smoking in non smoking rooms is now a reality.

CT has very strong non smoking laws and as much as I dislike them, I follow them. (I definitely have a problem with government interferring with private businesses. ) But, with these new laws, I have saved a bunch of money. :) I simply don't go out as much.
Florida has actually seen an increase in restaurant revenues since they went all non smoking a year ago. As for Smoke as a trigger for allergies, it is a controllable one. So the idea there may be non controllable triggers is not applicable. Actually smoke is not as much a trigger for allergies as for Non Allergic issues to include vasomotor rhinitis, which are FAR more common than allergies and can affect breathing similar to asthma. It is also a trigger for ture Asthma whether the patient is allergic or not, 10% of the US population is asthmatic though many don't even know it.

I have no problem with having smoking rooms. I have a problem with people smoking in a non smoiking room and also a great problem with Disney allowing smokers to smoke in a non smoking rooms, no matter what the reason.
 
The subject of this thread is "Smoking at DVC Resorts".

This thread has been heavily edited to weed out smoking debate posts and those unrelated to DVC Resorts.

Please keep on topic here, as we would like to keep the thread open for DVC discussion. Thank you all.
 

At risk of being flamed, I need to ask this for my MIL.

We have yet to stay at a DVC property yet... Use Year starts Aug'04... My DW and I both do not smoke but her mother does.


From what I gather in the 6 pages of this thread is that Smoking is allowed on balconies... But are their any grand Vilas that allow smoking in them? We are interested in any of the places that offer GV's OKW, SSR, BWV.

Thanks and sorry, but I need to know the answer, so I had to ask :crazy:
 
Originally posted by Dean
Florida has actually seen an increase in restaurant revenues since they went all non smoking a year ago.

The tourist economy has also gotten better. I'd think that would be a better correlation than the non-smoking ban unless you have some good scientific evidence.

Just a few thoughts having found time again to read this thread:

1) Based on this thread alone, it would seem everyone who owns DVC is either asthmatic or a smoker. I think the vast majority of non-smokers are probably annoyed by smoke, but not militant about it.
2) Concentrating smokers in a small number of smoking units causes a concentration of residuals, potentially making a smoking unit more hazardous for the truely affected.
3) Why don't they put the smoking units on the top floor in the 'hotel' dvc resorts?
4) Would it make sense to put people who requested smoking but got non-smoking in a top floor room (assuming 3 doesn't happen) so that smoking on the balcony is less likely to annoy other people who sit on the balconies?
5) Medical need is very likely going to be abused, just like the handicap placards/plates.
6) Until WDW management changes what I think of as their unofficial policy of 'never actively PO the guests', punishing those who break or bend the rules will never happen...WDW management wants people to come back because they had a happy memory, not avoid the place because they were given a fine. That's my take on why we (as a whole) pay for rooms and resorts that are not well taken care of by the "guests".

-Joe
 
/
I am all for smokers being assigned smoking rooms and non-smokers being assigned non-smoking rooms. If Disney can do that 100% of the time, great! If a smoker has to be assigned to a non-smoking room I very much appreciate it when s/he smokes on the balcony instead of in the room. As a non-smoker, I know I can always move away from someone if I am outside and do not wish to smell the smoke. If I am on a nearby balcony, I can always move inside. I don't think the answer is to inconvenience smokers so much that they have nowhere within a reasonable distance from their room to go. Smoking is a habit, but it is also an addiction, and an addiction must be fed. I wouldn't want someone having to get dressed in the middle of the night, walk for 10 minutes, and stand around outside in the dark just to be able to smoke a cigarette.

My problem comes when Disney must put a non-smoker in a smoking room, especially when that non-smoker has allergies. Time-shares are just that - shared space. I travel alot, and while I have moved away from heavily perfumed individuals in enclosed spaces, I have never checked into a hotel-setting and been able to smell the lingering scent of someone's perfume. Smoke permeates fabrics to the point where it can be very difficult to eradicate. When I leave a hotel room of any kind, I have the obligation to leave it in a condition where, with a little light housekeeping, the next person in the room does not have any of "me" left behind. Smokers who smoke in a room leave part of themselves behind for the next person to deal with. This is equivalent to someone who does not just wear perfume in a room, but takes their perfume and pours it into all the fabrics in the room. It would take alot of work for Disney to get rid of the smell, and some of it would linger. When you have to spend your entire vacation sleeping in a room with an objectional odor of any kind, you can't "get away" the way you can if you are outdoors and someone smokes or "perfumes" next to you. I can't imagine that a smoker or non-smoker would want to sleep in a room that reeks of Chanel No. 5. Non-smokers feel the same way about smoke.

So, if Disney can always guarantee me a non-smoking room, and can do that by making smoking rooms available to others, that would be my first choice. If I have to make do in a smoking room, I don't like it, but I can do it because I don't have allergies. Not a pleasant way to spend a vacation, though. For someone who has health concerns, making them sleep in a smoking room really isn't ok. ::MinnieMo
 
Originally posted by donaldbuzz&minnie
I am all for smokers being assigned smoking rooms and non-smokers being assigned non-smoking rooms. If Disney can do that 100% of the time, great! If a smoker has to be assigned to a non-smoking room I very much appreciate it when s/he smokes on the balcony instead of in the room. As a non-smoker, I know I can always move away from someone if I am outside and do not wish to smell the smoke. If I am on a nearby balcony, I can always move inside. I don't think the answer is to inconvenience smokers so much that they have nowhere within a reasonable distance from their room to go. Smoking is a habit, but it is also an addiction, and an addiction must be fed. I wouldn't want someone having to get dressed in the middle of the night, walk for 10 minutes, and stand around outside in the dark just to be able to smoke a cigarette.

My problem comes when Disney must put a non-smoker in a smoking room, especially when that non-smoker has allergies. Time-shares are just that - shared space. I travel alot, and while I have moved away from heavily perfumed individuals in enclosed spaces, I have never checked into a hotel-setting and been able to smell the lingering scent of someone's perfume. Smoke permeates fabrics to the point where it can be very difficult to eradicate. When I leave a hotel room of any kind, I have the obligation to leave it in a condition where, with a little light housekeeping, the next person in the room does not have any of "me" left behind. Smokers who smoke in a room leave part of themselves behind for the next person to deal with. This is equivalent to someone who does not just wear perfume in a room, but takes their perfume and pours it into all the fabrics in the room. It would take alot of work for Disney to get rid of the smell, and some of it would linger. When you have to spend your entire vacation sleeping in a room with an objectional odor of any kind, you can't "get away" the way you can if you are outdoors and someone smokes or "perfumes" next to you. I can't imagine that a smoker or non-smoker would want to sleep in a room that reeks of Chanel No. 5. Non-smokers feel the same way about smoke.

So, if Disney can always guarantee me a non-smoking room, and can do that by making smoking rooms available to others, that would be my first choice. If I have to make do in a smoking room, I don't like it, but I can do it because I don't have allergies. Not a pleasant way to spend a vacation, though. For someone who has health concerns, making them sleep in a smoking room really isn't ok. ::MinnieMo
ITA! The problem isn't the smokers, but DVC allowing them to use a non-smoking room. The smoke residue is the issue for those of us who are sensitive to it.
 
Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
Couldn't this aurgument be made in reverse in the exact same manner? If you know you may not get a smoking room, you shouldn't smoke in a non-smoking room? My contention is that the world is moving increasingly more smoke free. It would be consistent for DVC to do the same and to implement penalties for those who don't comply.

As for your annalogy, of course, there is not research that demonstrates that breathing second hand purfume can cause lung cancer. There is clear research evidence the breathing second hand cigarette smoke can cause lung cancer. Purfume just isn't a valid comparison to cigarette smoke. I still think that DVC should guarantee the rooms one way or the other so people know what to expect before arriving. If no smoking rooms are available, smokers will know the restrictions they face ahead of time. Non-smokers can have comfort they will get a non-smoking room. Seems reasonable to me.

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.
 
Gail, it looks like bldg #12 is the most desirable location for smokers. Does that mean smokres are put is the less desirable buildings? Don't they pay the same dues????There should be an equal amount of desirable buildings for smokers as well.
 
Actually, I am rather fond of building 41 and then 19. As to the rest of your post, I absolutely agree.
 
Originally posted by jmminarik

3) Why don't they put the smoking units on the top floor in the 'hotel' dvc resorts?

I remember a thread that was about smoking at the Poly. Someone was VERY upset that they wanted a non-smoking room but they were limited to the 1st and 2nd floors, 3rd floor was smoking. She felt that the 3rd floor should be non-smoking, but then other would complain about the smoke rising. Bottom line is you can't please everyone, someone's going to b*tch about something.
 
Originally posted by GAIL HAYDEN
I absolutely have NO issue with not smoking in a non smoking unit. As to penalties, I have no problem with that either.
Excellent.
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.
I'm not discounting your perfume allergies. I'm just not aware of studies indicating the danger of cancer as is with smoking.
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.
"A new study just published in JAMA [the Journal of the American Medical Association] (2001;286:436-63) shows that after just 30 minutes of exposure, secondhand smoke had "abruptly reduced the CFVR" [coronary flow velocity reserve] of nonsmokers. "This provides direct evidence of a harmful effect of passive smoking on the coronary circulation of nonsmokers," the researchers said"
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/cdnr/cdnr_fall0103.htm
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. [/B]
Me too.
Originally posted by Dean
Florida has actually seen an increase in restaurant revenues since they went all non smoking a year ago.
Excellent. Good health winning out could also be a win for DVC and Disney.
 
Originally posted by jmminarik
The tourist economy has also gotten better. I'd think that would be a better correlation than the non-smoking ban unless you have some good scientific evidence.

Possibly, no way to tell one way or another. The main point in my head was that the revenues didn't go down as some complained they would. Plus the areas that don't depend on tourism mimick the increases of the tourism areas.

Gail, it's unlikely that the perfume issue is a true allergy but more likely the vasomotor issues I was mentioning. If you and are fine within minutes of being away from the perfume, that is not allergic. That's actually more common and more difficult to treat. I have the same problem with amonia products.
 
Originally posted by CaptainMidnight
Excellent.

I'm not discounting your perfume allergies. I'm just not aware of studies indicating the danger of cancer as is with smoking.

"A new study just published in JAMA [the Journal of the American Medical Association] (2001;286:436-63) shows that after just 30 minutes of exposure, secondhand smoke had "abruptly reduced the CFVR" [coronary flow velocity reserve] of nonsmokers. "This provides direct evidence of a harmful effect of passive smoking on the coronary circulation of nonsmokers," the researchers said"
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/cdnr/cdnr_fall0103.htm

Me too.

Excellent. Good health winning out could also be a win for DVC and Disney.

Again, you provide links to inside second hand smoke, it does not address smoking outside.
Considering all the other toxic elements in the air, I would think it impossible to measure the risks.
 
Originally posted by Dean
Possibly, no way to tell one way or another. The main point in my head was that the revenues didn't go down as some complained they would. Plus the areas that don't depend on tourism mimick the increases of the tourism areas.

Gail, it's unlikely that the perfume issue is a true allergy but more likely the vasomotor issues I was mentioning. If you and are fine within minutes of being away from the perfume, that is not allergic. That's actually more common and more difficult to treat. I have the same problem with amonia products.

Dean,
I am fine with the exception of a massive headache and stuffy nose.
I guess you could say some non smokers issues listed as allergies are the same vasomotor issues you mentioned.
I am happy to hear it is not a true allergy. :) That means I don't have any allergies at all, just a vasomotor issue and I simply cannot wait to look that one up. LOL :)
 
Originally posted by GAIL HAYDEN
Actually, I am rather fond of building 41 and then 19. As to the rest of your post, I absolutely agree.

Can you tell me why you are fond of those buildings? We are going Labor Day weekend (six adults)in a GV; my DH likes to smoke cigars and another member in our party is a smoker (they willl not smoke inside); as a matter fact, I have a cigarette sometimes when I have a cup of coffee; are those buildings close to traffic noise on the outside (i.e. Buena Vista Drive) :confused:
 
Originally posted by bz8bls
Can you tell me why you are fond of those buildings? We are going Labor Day weekend (six adults)in a GV; my DH likes to smoke cigars and another member in our party is a smoker (they willl not smoke inside); as a matter fact, I have a cigarette sometimes when I have a cup of coffee; are those buildings close to traffic noise on the outside (i.e. Buena Vista Drive) :confused:

I like 41 because it is quiet and we can see Illuminations from the balcony. It is also beside the pool.
I like 19 for the above reasons, however, sometimes you can hear traffic, no big deal with the doors closed.
We will be there at the same time as you and Dee smokes cigars and so does the guy who will be with us. They do smoke inside, as long as it is a smoking unit, that is. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.











New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top