just back/ about smoking

[BWVDee]

Second hand smoke has been proven to be worse then dirrect smoking.

So you are saying that inhaling second hand smoke is more dangerous to one's health than it is to the person's health that is actually smoking the cigarette/cigar and inhaling the smoke directly into their lungs?????
I find this very hard to believe.
Please site references that prove this!!!!

 

[Nick@ VB+OKW]

Originally posted by Chuck S
Actually, little legislation is passed simply to "protect public health", most is passed because legislators believe it will be to their benefit when election time rolls around.

Chuck
That is probably true. At least the politicians are smart enough to want the 75% of the population (voters )that don't smoke on their side instead of the 20-25 % or less that smoke

.

 

[3DisneyNUTS]

Originally posted by tinkerbee
Yes but the people cleaning the room are not in the room when people are smoking so I don't see how this would harm someone unless they are highly allergic to it. To be second hand smoke don''t you have to be around someone when they are actually smoking?

Actually no the carcinogens get trapped in the fabric,rugs,clothing etc that is why even babies who have parents that smoke (outside the home even) are at higher risk for asthma and sids.

 

[3DisneyNUTS]

Originally posted by BWVDee
So you are saying that inhaling second hand smoke is more dangerous to one's health than it is to the person's health that is actually smoking the cigarette/cigar and inhaling the smoke directly into their lungs?????
I find this very hard to believe.
Please site references that prove this!!!!

Ask any doctor...I have been told this from day one especially since I grew up in a house with terrible smokers. Pm if you want links this has gotten way OT.

 

[BWVDee]

Originally posted by Chuck S
Actually, little legislation is passed simply to "protect public health", most is passed because legislators believe it will be to their benefit when election time rolls around. IF legislator were concerned with "public health" they'd simply ban the sale of tobacco and raise taxes to compensate for the big bucks they make on every pack.

ITA, smoking/banning smoking etc. etc., is right up there with all the biggie issues that are used when election time is here and then just as quickly are dropped and forgotten until the next important Nov comes around.

 

[3DisneyNUTS]

I have posted an informative link on the debate board since I think this is where this thread belongs now.

 

[eileenfk]

Originally posted by GAIL HAYDEN
It is only 5%, take the number of buidings at OKW, for instance, and take the number of smoking optional buildings and do the math. I did not do the math, but relied on the Member services satisfaction manager to tell me.

One can do the math you suggest, OR they can rely on what you were told by Member services, but the two will not lead to the same answer.

Step 1: Take the number of buildings at OKW
49 (based on counting the buildings on the map)

Step 2: Take the number of smoking optional buildings
6 (based on an earlier post by someone who gave the specifics for each OKW building mentioning that the smoking optional buildings are 12,19,21,25,41 and 50)

Step 3: Do the math
I am pretty certain the answer is over 10 percent, but sometimes I am wrong.

There are other factors that effect the formula (such as number of rooms per building and the possibility of non-smoking rooms in smoking optional buildings), but per the steps you suggest, the answer does contradict what member services told you.

- Eileen

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by 3DisneyNUTS
Oh Gail it does post a risk to me. If there is a posibility of getting a smoking room then I am at risk not to mention what drifts in the hallway. Second hand smoke has been proven to be worse then dirrect smoking.
And again smoking is a choice and it kills. Until cars are made safer which is a totally another topic as to why that is happening so slowly then we have no choice but to drive to get to places especially when in requires making a living society is set up that way. Smoking is not or never will be a nessessity.

Getting a smoking room if no one is smoking provides no risk.
Smoke wefting in from outside will not kill you once in awhile.
Smoking, unfortunately, is an addiciton, not really a choice.
Going to Disney with the fear of being in a smoking room is a choice.
Smoking does kill, but not everyone. Second hand smoking is a large health risk in enclosed areas, not outside and it does not kill everyone who happens to take an occasional whiff.
But, you need not worry about me contributing to your early death from second hand smoke. I only stay at OKW and the smoking buildings are totally separate.
Society at one time thought nothing of smoking, all of a sudden it has become a band aid cure to all diseases, the vetch of all asthma sufferers and the one thing anti smokers can control.
The quality of air still leaves a great deal to be desired and it is NOT from smokers. It is from the cars that people chose to drive and emit noxious fumes. You have a choice to find alternative methods for getting to work. Ride a bike, car pool, etc.
Try and think out of the box, what one legal activity do you participate in that you would hate some rabid anti fan for trying to control. I dislike mini vans and SUV's, however, I don't feel I have any right to go on a tangent to control the choices of those that drive them and guzzle gas. Smoking is legal, the taxes from this activity support your schools, is taxed very heavily and without it you would have to pay a huge chunk in increases, certainly far more than the upkeep of a smoking unit.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by jaysue
Your experience of course is your own - IMO segregating the smokers is the best choice amongst the bad choice in general of allowing smoking that WDW/DVC continues to execute

regards
jaysue

Ah, segregation, somehow I don't think that is legal anymore.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by 3DisneyNUTS
Another thing it does pose a hazard to the people that have to work in those rooms. That is why alot of legislation has passed to make public establishments smoke free, to protect the employees who have to work in the smoke filled environment.

If a room is vacated there is no smoke. People who chose to work in an enviornment with smoke have the choice of not working there. We don't need the government stepping in to protect us from our ignorance. You seem to like legislation, do you actually ever take responsibility for yourself? Not trying to be nasty here, but, you do seem to rely heavily on government.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by 3DisneyNUTS
Yeah right but who is going to agree to continue to put bar/food workers in danger because of disagreeing with the ban KWIM? It is a baby step imo but again good point because we are so reliant on the tax revenue.

Yes, you do rely on the tax revenue and if you get your wish you will have to start to foot the bill, how will you like it then?

Casinos are exempt, and why, mainly because the revenue lost would be enormous. Bars in NY who sell lottery tickets can get a waiver to allow smoking if they can show loss. Now, tell me, is it the bottom line or the health the legislature cares about.
The danger is there, but, it is the choice of the person working there.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by tinkerbee
Yes but the people cleaning the room are not in the room when people are smoking so I don't see how this would harm someone unless they are highly allergic to it. To be second hand smoke don''t you have to be around someone when they are actually smoking?

Generally speaking that is the way it works for most people.

 

[jcm_dis]

How many carcinogens get pumped into the air so we can enjoy the theme parks (that power isn't generated by the wind,) get to the theme parks (those buses aren't hydrogen powered,) or power the units we stay in?

Unless you are in the presence of a smoker in the act of smoking, all you get is the smell. Look at the studies, read the science. Basic physics should do just fine.

For those of you just too offended by smoking, I'm sure you can find a timeshare that is willing to accomodate your wishes. No need to change Disney to meet your new standards.

And I'm an ex-smoker. This would have been far longer if I still smoked.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by Nick@ VB+OKW
Chuck
That is probably true. At least the politicians are smart enough to want the 75% of the population (voters )that don't smoke on their side instead of the 20-25 % or less that smoke

.

Actually Nick, the want the voters that vote. That would be the only time doing something to please one faction would count.
I could happen that enough smokers get pissed off enough to outvote the non smokers. And, I am not sure your stats are correct re: smoker vs non smoker numbers.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by eileenfk
One can do the math you suggest, OR they can rely on what you were told by Member services, but the two will not lead to the same answer.

Step 1: Take the number of buildings at OKW
49 (based on counting the buildings on the map)

Step 2: Take the number of smoking optional buildings
6 (based on an earlier post by someone who gave the specifics for each OKW building mentioning that the smoking optional buildings are 12,19,21,25,41 and 50)

Step 3: Do the math
I am pretty certain the answer is over 10 percent, but sometimes I am wrong.

There are other factors that effect the formula (such as number of rooms per building and the possibility of non-smoking rooms in smoking optional buildings), but per the steps you suggest, the answer does contradict what member services told you.

- Eileen

Member services did not tell me this, the Manager of Member Satisfaction did, perhaps she (since replaced, btw) was wrong. The number of buildings is fine, but, each buiding does not have the same number of units, does it? I feel secure that the number of units is at 5%.

 

[GAIL HAYDEN]

Originally posted by 3DisneyNUTS
I have posted an informative link on the debate board since I think this is where this thread belongs now.

Unfortunately, it was not posed in debate form and has been locked.

 

[3DisneyNUTS]

Oh Gail I didn't even know you were a smoker but I guess that is why you defend it so much. Continue to do so if you want I cannot tell you to stop smoking but I can try to assure that my non smoking family is not subjected to it from second hand or affected rooms. A typical defense for anything is to divert the subject to something else like driving or pollution. An individual is in direct control to chose to smoke or not, it is that simple it is not a necessity.

Ignorance is why smoking was not a "target" in the past. Now with the knowledge that thousands of people are killed each year including people who don't smoke, I think it is a right we have also not to be affected by it. What right does a smoker have to put my family at risk even if it is a minute risk? What right does a smoker have to put employees at risk even if it is minute? IMO none.

Dvc is considered "homes" to alot of people. Just as I would expect you not to smoke in my full time home why would it be ok for you to smoke in my vacation home when there is an undeniable risk to my family. I don't think smoking should be totally banned on the entire property just inside where there is a chance it would pose a risk to my family.

 

[Chuck S]

Originally posted by 3DisneyNUTS

Dvc is considered "homes" to alot of people. Just as I would expect you not to smoke in my full time home why would it be ok for you to smoke in my vacation home when there is an undeniable risk to my family. I don't think smoking should be totally banned on the entire property just inside where there is a chance it would pose a risk to my family.

So should DVC be considered "homes" only to people that do not smoke? They pay the same amount for their membership and upkeep. They don't have the right to smoke in their own "homes"? What if a smoker owns substantially more points as an individual than you do as an individual; for examaple, say Gail own 1500 points and you own 500 points; is it more Gail's home or your home? Really, with OKWs basic design, smoking buildings are isolated. Even people that smoke on balconies of non-smoking buildings are very rarely a problem, and I doubt I'll keel over from an occasional whiff of smoke. If that were true, we'd all be in serious trouble from all the other smoke and pollutants already in our air...try living in Texas when the farmers in Mexico are burn-clearing their fields. You actually smell the smoke North of San Antonio.

I agree smokers should not smoke inside a unit that is designated as smoke free, no one is denying that the odor "clings".

Again, unless "holier than thou" politicians stop using "sin taxes" as major tax revenue and outlaw the activity completely, it is a legal activity that, like it or not, does help financially support our society. Now do you see politicians doing that? No? Why? Possibly because their concern for their jobs (raising taxes AND alienating smokers and the entire tobacco growing region of our country would be mighty unpopular) outweighs their concern for public health. Let smokers smoke in their rooms, request a non-smoking room for medical reasons if you feel it endangers your health to get an unpleasent odor, and move on with your vacation.

 

[todsue99]

Ok...OK...I must get in on this one. It looks like a nice heated topic.

Gail, I am sorry but most of these comments or going to be related to you. Only because you are pretty much the only one in this topic that really smokes, not because of you personally. So let me say right now.....I am Sorry.

First off let me just that I do not have a problem with DVC having smoking rooms, but even though (in you words) there are only 5% of smoking rooms they can't guarantee me a non smoking room. If this is the case then maybe they should cut down on the 5%, because obviously there are not many smokers that own DVC. I would just like the to know I can get a non-smoking room. I do not want to have a smoking room and sit on the couch and have my clothes smell like smoke when I get up. And if you think they don't you are pretty naive about the whole smoking thing.

For the person who said that they have never walked down a hall of smoking rooms and has never smelled smoke must have a cold all the time. Or is just a smoker and doesn't notice it, because trust me if you don't smoke I bet you smell it everytime.

Gail, the biggest problem with smokers in my opinion is they feel it is their right to smoke if they want to and are so inconsiderate to people who don't. Yes the law alllows them to smoke, but it also allows me not to and I don't need to watch or smell you why you do. Now don't get me wrong Gail I do not know you personally so I do not know if you fit in this catergory or not, but most of the smokers I know are just that way.

Now when I go into a bar or casino or what ever I know the majority of people smoke and I understand that and I fully expect to walk out of there smelling like some foul _______ (fill in the blank). Now that is my choice and trust me the first thing I do when I get home is take a shower. However as stated above smokers does not seem to be the majority at Disney or DVC. Food for thought.

Lets face it smoke from smoking gets everwhere and people smell when they are around smoke. Just try and be more considerate to us non-smokers. Please.

Sorry. Flame back if you must Gail, but I am sorry.

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

I really hate it when people smoke on the balconies. One trip I stayed at AKL and I usually like to sit outside for a bit in the morning or the evening. Not long...maybe 15 minutes. I couldn't do it. My neighbors were constantly out there smoking. With the deep balconies it was the equivalent of smoking inside.

I've had a similar but not as bad experience at BCV. There at least the balconies are staggered.

That said...most hotels segregate smokers so I don't see anything unusual about this.