No more smoking or vaping in the parks

[Magical2017]

I encourage every smoker to boycott Disney.

Disney can be an expensive vacation that many families save and plan for, sometimes for years. As a non-smoker, I still get why it would be irksome to have to leave and re-enter each park multiple times per day. I am not without empathy. I am wondering why you would boycott? Is it the short notice, or are there other factors? Disney has made a lot of recent changes, and I am wondering if this I a last-straw issue, on top of price increases.

FTR, I do not think smokers are "deplorables." I don't wish to smell any cigarette smoke and prefer non-smoking enviornments, but it is nothing against the smokers, per se, nor a judgment on anyone else's lifestyle.

 

[ronandannette]

The way I see it, smoking is a disgusting and dangerous habit, it has been widely known for decades how addictive and dangerous it is. There is no reason to start smoking, it's not like a heroin addiction that may start with nessecary prescription painkillers.
Now in the US it may not matter, but here it is a serious drain on our public health dollars, and I think I that money should be spent on more deserving patients rather than people who have chosen to poison their own bodies (same thoughts I have about alcoholics and the morbidity obese as well).
It also has a negative impact on others.
So no, I have no compassion or consideration for those that choose to smoke.

May have, but you know relatively few actually do, right? So heroine addicts are definitely OK, but what about skanky meth heads and mean drunks? Do they deserve health care?

 

[luvsJack]

The way I see it, smoking is a disgusting and dangerous habit, it has been widely known for decades how addictive and dangerous it is. There is no reason to start smoking, it's not like a heroin addiction that may start with nessecary prescription painkillers.
Now in the US it may not matter, but here it is a serious drain on our public health dollars, and I think I that money should be spent on more deserving patients rather than people who have chosen to poison their own bodies (same thoughts I have about alcoholics and the morbidity obese as well).
It also has a negative impact on others.
So no, I have no compassion or consideration for those that choose to smoke.

Gee whiz. Doesn’t sound like you have mich for anyone.

 

[luvsJack]

No smoking on the premises at all, including "open" areas.
In fact the govt has.a goal of 2025 for the entire cou try to be smoke free.

Ok?

I was pointing out that at the bars here it DID have a adverse reaction to their business. They couldn’t change the law so they improvised.

 

[luvsJack]

Most hotels have both smoking allowed rooms and no smoking rooms. The degree of separation between the two types of rooms depends on the hotel. Excalibur had little separation and people booked non smoking rooms and then smoked in the stairway anyway. On the other hand, Aria seemed to have a good bit of separation and better ventilation. Although for 70 bucks vs 250 bucks, of course Aria is going to be better in a lot of things. The two completely non smoking hotels are Vdara and Mandarin Oriental. Neither has a casino but several casinos are close by to both.

Wow. Did not know that. Don’t have a lot of interest in going to Vegas but I just assumed all hotels were all non smoking rooms.

Have not smoked in a hotel room since well, ever I guess. Don’t smoke inside anywhere so never actually thought about it.

 

[Colleen27]

That is within your right to do so. Keep in mind that in the US smokers are only 14% of the population.

And more importantly, from Disney's perspective, smokers are concentrated in the lower income segments of society... and we all know Disney is aiming mainly for the luxury market these days, rather than trying to be a destination with something to offer families of (almost) every income level. So a smoker-boycott is probably more than okay with them. It is probably desirable, because their resorts consistently have very very high occupancy and they'd really rather the construction worker and his family stay home, leaving another room open for a white-collar professional with more disposable income.

Well in Michigan plenty of bars have closed since no smoking in public including bowling alleys...

I forgot about that! I mentioned up-thread that a lot of "hangout" bars (as opposed to restaurant-bars) and "dive" bar/clubs closed after the ban went into effect, but forgot about the bowling alleys and pool halls that went away too. A lot of the places and ways that blue collar guys socialize changed with the smoking ban.

 

[Sandeep1]

That is my choice... I don’t to expose you to anything and won’t. Just the vehemence towards the people that do is frankly appalling. We are human too.

Yes it is your choice, a poor one. Accept the consequences.

 

[mummabear]

May have, but you know relatively few actually do, right? So heroine addicts are definitely OK, but what about skanky meth heads and mean drunks? Do they deserve health care?

I never said heroin addicts were ok, my point is no one accidentally starts smoking, there is no slippery slope, and everyone starting up is told the risks of doing so.
On your other question do mean drunks that need a replacement liver deserve my tax dollars on a new one...no.

Gee whiz. Doesn’t sound like you have mich for anyone.

There is only some much money from the budget (taxes), I dont want money wasted on treating people who are choosing to literally poison themselves when it should be going to kids with leukemia. Funding is finite, we need to be careful on who and how we choose to spend it.

 

[MLA95]

And more importantly, from Disney's perspective, smokers are concentrated in the lower income segments of society... and we all know Disney is aiming mainly for the luxury market these days, rather than trying to be a destination with something to offer families of (almost) every income level. So a smoker-boycott is probably more than okay with them. It is probably desirable, because their resorts consistently have very very high occupancy and they'd really rather the construction worker and his family stay home, leaving another room open for a white-collar professional with more disposable income.

That is sad. What I loved about it from childhood was that it was for everyone of all incomes. I am not low income but I guess I am a minority in a minority. Just sad that people are so mean about others in these posts, complaints about smokers, obesity, stroller sizes, scooters, perfume, deodorant etc. it is just sad the country has become this way.


I forgot about that! I mentioned up-thread that a lot of "hangout" bars (as opposed to restaurant-bars) and "dive" bar/clubs closed after the ban went into effect, but forgot about the bowling alleys and pool halls that went away too. A lot of the places and ways that blue collar guys socialize changed with the smoking ban.

 

[MLA95]

Yes it is your choice, a poor one. Accept the consequences.

You don’t have to mean about it. You don’t know
me, so don’t judge.

 

[MLA95]

I never said heroin addicts were ok, my point is no one accidentally starts smoking, there is no slippery slope, and everyone starting up is told the risks of doing so.
On your other question do mean drunks that need a replacement liver deserve my tax dollars on a new one...no.


There is only some much money from the budget (taxes), I dont want money wasted on treating people who are choosing to literally poison themselves when it should be going to kids with leukemia. Funding is finite, we need to be careful on who and how we choose to spend it.

Not everyone is told, younger people yes but 30-40 years ago you were not told that.

 

[ronandannette]

I never said heroin addicts were ok, my point is no one accidentally starts smoking, there is no slippery slope, and everyone starting up is told the risks of doing so.
On your other question do mean drunks that need a replacement liver deserve my tax dollars on a new one...no.


There is only some much money from the budget (taxes), I dont want money wasted on treating people who are choosing to literally poison themselves when it should be going to kids with leukemia. Funding is finite, we need to be careful on who and how we choose to spend it.

There are a number of medical services provided in Alberta by my tax dollars that I find morally repugnant, so I agree with your sentiments there.

 

[dish rag]

Not everyone is told, younger people yes but 30-40 years ago you were not told that.

I was.

 

[ronandannette]

I was.

30 years ago when I started, the idea of smoking as a health-hazard was just starting to emerge (think about your Surgeon General's report in the late '80s). Although it wasn't encouraged, smoking was totally not presented as the huge, stupid risk we now know it to be. Certainly many people opposed it but mostly on moral or visceral grounds.

 

[luvsJack]

I never said heroin addicts were ok, my point is no one accidentally starts smoking, there is no slippery slope, and everyone starting up is told the risks of doing so.
On your other question do mean drunks that need a replacement liver deserve my tax dollars on a new one...no.


There is only some much money from the budget (taxes), I dont want money wasted on treating people who are choosing to literally poison themselves when it should be going to kids with leukemia. Funding is finite, we need to be careful on who and how we choose to spend it.

Well, I don’t reserve my compassion for those I deem worthy of the almighty dollar. But that’s just me.

I would hope that as many dollars as can be would go to children with leukemia but as for the rest, well until I walk a mile in their shoes, I choose not to judge. I don’t know what got the mom of two young children hooked on heroin but I do know she needs help. Because, ohI don’t know, just seems like the human thing to do.

 

[Sandeep1]

You don’t have to mean about it. You don’t know
me, so don’t judge.

Telling you to accept the consequences is "being mean?"

And I'm not judging you personally, I'm judging the disgusting habit of filling your lungs with nicotine. There is a difference.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

30 years ago when I started, the idea of smoking as a health-hazard was just starting to emerge (think about your Surgeon General's report in the late '80s). Although it wasn't encouraged, smoking was totally not presented as the huge, stupid risk we now know it to be. Certainly many people opposed it but mostly on moral or visceral grounds.

It was in the 1960s that warnings were put on labels in the U.S. for cigarettes and health consequences. In 1966 the label read: "Caution: cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health" in the U.S. The health risk were known in the 1950s but lobbying in the U.S. prevented much stronger action especially with respects to the labels even though some states tried and failed to make the labels stronger.

In 1964 the U.S. Surgeon General had this statement:

• A cause of lung cancer and laryngeal cancer in men
• A probable cause of lung cancer in women
• The most important cause of chronic bronchitis

The Tobacco Industry held immense clout for a very long time. The health risks were known though and the packages were labeled though less labeling in the U.S. compared to other countries but of course if you have a label saying one thing and the Tobacco Industry saying another thing and you're bombarded with the image of smoking you may be less inclined to think it really is adverse to your health. Now in terms of addictiveness I haven't looked into that if that was very well presented in the past.

Now other countries did have stronger more specific labels while the U.S. continued to have the original one vastly due to the Tobacco Industry's stronghold.

But to your point I don't think the general public paid much attention to it until the mid-to-late '80s with it ramping up more and more over time especially as the Tobacco Industry began losing power. The warning labels have become more specific overtime as well.

All that being said I don't know the history in Canada.

 

[DISNEY1975]

I encourage every smoker to boycott Disney.

I would not say boycott. What you can do it send an Email with valid solutions to make everyone happy.

What I would like is for Disney to implement the ban beginning 6 months from the notice. This way smokers are not 100% tied into their reservation and most likely would not have their airfare booked. They can then chose if a Disney vacation is right for them or choose to go elsewhere.

My vacation is not until August, but my ADRs are done, airfare purchased and tix to H2O Glow and MNSSHP. If I were a smoker, Im pretty much stuck going to Disney whether I liked it or not. I got a package so the rest could be refunded, but I would still be at a $1500+ dollar loss. Thats a lot less than people who may have purchased their park tickets separately.

I also saw someone mention they did it in anticipation of the Star Wars crowd. My response to that is then Disney should have announced the ban, effective 05/01, last November.

 

[MLA95]

Telling you to accept the consequences is "being mean?"

And I'm not judging you personally, I'm judging the disgusting habit of filling your lungs with nicotine. There is a difference.

That is rude. To you it’s disgusting, your opinion!

 

[Colleen27]

It was in the 1960s that warnings were put on labels in the U.S. for cigarettes and health consequences. In 1966 the label read: "Caution: cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health" in the U.S. The health risk were known in the 1950s but lobbying in the U.S. prevented much stronger action especially with respects to the labels even though some states tried and failed to make the labels stronger.

In 1964 the U.S. Surgeon General had this statement:

• A cause of lung cancer and laryngeal cancer in men
• A probable cause of lung cancer in women
• The most important cause of chronic bronchitis

The Tobacco Industry held immense clout for a very long time. The health risks were known though and the packages were labeled though less labeling in the U.S. compared to other countries but of course if you have a label saying one thing and the Tobacco Industry saying another thing and you're bombarded with the image of smoking you may be less inclined to think it really is adverse to your health. Now in terms of addictiveness I haven't looked into that if that was very well presented in the past.

Now other countries did have stronger more specific labels while the U.S. continued to have the original one vastly due to the Tobacco Industry's stronghold.

But to your point I don't think the general public paid much attention to it until the mid-to-late '80s with it ramping up more and more over time especially as the Tobacco Industry began losing power. The warning labels have become more specific overtime as well.

All that being said I don't know the history in Canada.

Exactly. And even then, I think it took time for the message to spread, with places with a high percentage of smokers resisting the change. My husband started smoking in the mid-80s, and at that point, his high school still had a courtyard where students could step out to smoke at lunch. Teachers could also smoke in the teachers' lounge. Things like that send a lot clearer message to kids about what is and isn't acceptable behaviour than a surgeon general's statement. Was he told, as a child/teen, that smoking was bad for his health? Yeah. Health class with the chain-smoking gym teacher is something he and his friends have told jokes about even all these years later. And his (smoker) father and (smoker) grandmother both discouraged him from taking up the habit because of the price (and also let him bum cigarettes when he was out). The message may have been out there, but it certainly wasn't the clear and consistent message kids get today.