Smoking in DVC Unit

[Rence]

My bone of contention was the attitude that was starting to come across that “smokers can’t help themselves”. That is just wrong. They chose to smoke, they chose to continue to smoke, they very much can help themselves. I shall shed no tears for the poor poor addicted smoker. They choose addiction every time they light up.

My argument was that if smokers where indeed incapable of helping themselves and were totally in control of nicotine, with no free will whatsoever, that perhaps it is time to save them and put an end to smoking. The argument that smokers are helplessly in control of tobacco is as extreme as advocating the total ban on tobacco.

Smokers need to realize that they cannot smoke anyplace and anytime they wish to. I am 50, I remember as a small child seeing people smoking in the grocery store, I remember smoking in doctor’s waiting rooms, smoking on airplanes (not smoking sections, no smoke anywhere you want) etc. etc. Times have changed and they are continuing to change. I am not advocating making all of WDW non-smoking, but smokers do have to accept the fact that areas that they can smoke are limited and that they must plan their day accordingly so that they can get their fix in.

I don’t think anyone here is advocating that smokers violate the smoking policies at DVC or WDW. I think we are all in agreement that someone who smokes in a non-smoking room has done wrong. A person who walks down Main Street USA puffing away in violation of the smoking policy has done wrong. Etc. etc.

Now if one watches the trends, it is quite likely that at some point in the future all guest rooms at WDW will be non-smoking. Business policies and the law are trending in that direction. It could be the result of a change in the law, or it could be WDW going along with industry trends. You can argue whether it is right or wrong, but if you look at the way things are going, you should not be surprised when it happens.

The percentage of smokers in the population continues to decline. As smokers get to be a smaller and smaller portion of the populace, businesses will fell less and less of a need to cater to them. So there will be fewer and fewer places for smokers to smoke. It will be up to each individual to decide for themselves (CHOSE) whether to continue to smoke and face these limitations, stay home and not have to deal with the issue, or kick the habit and free themselves of the limitations.

 

[boatboatboat]

We pay farmers to not grow tabbaco (land set aside programs CPR land), then we offer price supports to keep the price artificially high, so tabbaco farmers can and will continue to produce tabbaco, then we tax the product in an effort to reduce consumption, and we appropriate that tax money, "sin tax" to fund projects such as schools and hospitals, that will suffer when the high retail price (caused by the high taxes) of tabbaco products drives down consumption.........

 

[dianeschlicht]

Over and over we hear that smoking is a choice. It is a BEHAVIOR that smokers CHOOSE to participate in. Smokers choose to smoke. Smoking is addictive, but smokers know this. They don’t smoke for a period of time, they start to suffer withdrawal symptoms. These symptoms are unpleasant but not life threatening. When they start to suffer withdrawal, they have a couple of options, ride it out and be rid of the addiction, use some of the many many techniques that are available to assist with the kicking of the addiction, or they can feed the addiction and smoke again. Their choice.

When it comes to travel, a smoker knows that there will be times and places they can’t smoke. They can’t smoke on an airplane, they can’t smoke in many restaurants, they can’t smoke while waiting in line for an attraction at WDW, and they may get a non-smoking room at WDW because a smoking room is not a guarantee. Knowing this the smoker has a couple of options. They can choose to not travel and stay home where they can smoke as much as they wish in the privacy of their own home. They can choose to travel and know that there will be times and places that they can’t smoke and they will have to deal with it. Or they can choose to quit smoking and not have to deal with the inconvenience of having to step outside their non-smoking room to have a smoke.

I am not willing to give smokers a free pass and say that they are not in control and that they can’t help themselves. That is what some posters on here are implying. Since multiple posters brought it up on this thread about smoking in DVC rooms are we to infer that smokers can’t help themselves and we should look the other way when the smoke where they should not? I don’t honestly believe that anyone is saying that, but it comes close when one starts making excuses and saying that smokers are not in control of their smoking.

"My bone of contention was the attitude that was starting to come across that “smokers can’t help themselves”. That is just wrong. They chose to smoke, they chose to continue to smoke, they very much can help themselves. I shall shed no tears for the poor poor addicted smoker. They choose addiction every time they light up.

My argument was that if smokers where indeed incapable of helping themselves and were totally in control of nicotine, with no free will whatsoever, that perhaps it is time to save them and put an end to smoking. The argument that smokers are helplessly in control of tobacco is as extreme as advocating the total ban on tobacco.

Smokers need to realize that they cannot smoke anyplace and anytime they wish to. I am 50, I remember as a small child seeing people smoking in the grocery store, I remember smoking in doctor’s waiting rooms, smoking on airplanes (not smoking sections, no smoke anywhere you want) etc. etc. Times have changed and they are continuing to change. I am not advocating making all of WDW non-smoking, but smokers do have to accept the fact that areas that they can smoke are limited and that they must plan their day accordingly so that they can get their fix in.

I don’t think anyone here is advocating that smokers violate the smoking policies at DVC or WDW. I think we are all in agreement that someone who smokes in a non-smoking room has done wrong. A person who walks down Main Street USA puffing away in violation of the smoking policy has done wrong. Etc. etc.

Now if one watches the trends, it is quite likely that at some point in the future all guest rooms at WDW will be non-smoking. Business policies and the law are trending in that direction. It could be the result of a change in the law, or it could be WDW going along with industry trends. You can argue whether it is right or wrong, but if you look at the way things are going, you should not be surprised when it happens.

The percentage of smokers in the population continues to decline. As smokers get to be a smaller and smaller portion of the populace, businesses will fell less and less of a need to cater to them. So there will be fewer and fewer places for smokers to smoke. It will be up to each individual to decide for themselves (CHOSE) whether to continue to smoke and face these limitations, stay home and not have to deal with the issue, or kick the habit and free themselves of the limitations."

Those previous two quotes are some of the best arguements I have ever seen on this web site! Hip hip HURRAY, Rence!

 

[DVCconvert]

My bone of contention was the attitude that was starting to come across that “smokers can’t help themselves”. That is just wrong. They chose to smoke, they chose to continue to smoke, they very much can help themselves. I shall shed no tears for the poor poor addicted smoker. They choose addiction every time they light up.

Rence--

I take it from that, that you are or have been a smoker? and therefore have first hand knowledge and experience that leads you to these judgements? And that you experience (if existent) cannot be different than someone elses? Is that correct?

My argument was that if smokers where indeed incapable of helping themselves and were totally in control of nicotine, with no free will whatsoever, that perhaps it is time to save them and put an end to smoking.

"Are there no prisons... and the Union workhouses, are they still in operation?"....." And if they are likely to die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

Scrooge: Referencing the way in which the early Victorians dealt with the problems of homelessness, debt and unemployment. {undesireable traits by the holy masses}
Dickens uses this as an example of Scrooge's miserly inhumanity and lack of charity. Are there any similarities in these positions?

 

[Rence]

Rence--

I take it from that, that you are or have been a smoker? and therefore have first hand knowledge and experience that leads you to these judgements? And that you experience (if existent) cannot be different than someone elses? Is that correct?

I previously mentioned that I am 50. As a young child the addictiveness and harmful effects of smoking were well known and well communicated. I was capable of looking at this information and realizing that smoking wasn’t something that I wanted to get involved in.

Now I have had a number of friends, relatives etc. that have smoke or have smoked and quit. Those that quit, decided to take quitting seriously. They went out and learned about smoking, how it is addictive, how it affects the body etc. They educated themselves about the different smoking cessation methods that were available and selected the one that they felt would work best for them. In these cases they were able to quit and the comment I hear most frequently was “It wasn’t nearly as hard as I thought it would be” Others I know who just throw their hands up and say “I can’t” have no success quitting. They may make a half way attempt at quitting but never get serious.

My mother is a perfect example. She started smoking at the age of 14. Was always a heavy smoker and got real mad if anyone suggested that she quit. I know that a number of times she tried to quit, but she always did it the same, wrong way. She didn’t tell anyone (in effect admitting to herself that she was probably going to fail anyway, so keep it a secret), she didn’t do any research, talk to her doctor, nothing. She just made a feeble attempt and it didn’t even last a few hours.

Finally at the age of 69, after 55 years of heavy smoking, she decided that she was really going to quit. She announced her decision to her family and friends, the first time she ever did this. She went to her doctor and talked to him and went to a number of seminars and classes on quitting smoking. I don’t think she ever understood the effects that smoking had on the body and what was happening to her when she tried to quit. Once she understood what was happening and methods that could be used to ease the process she quit. I still can’t believe that she did it after all those years. But the reason it worked this time is that for the first time, she was serious about quitting.

I know many others with similar stories. Life long smokers who made feeble attempts at quitting who finally kicked the habit. They all acknowledge that prior to the time they actually quit, they had never really been serious about quitting. And once the put their mind to it, announced their intentions and sought some help, they found that quitting wasn’t as rough as they thought.

Now a person who believes themselves to be a slave to demon nicotine is not going to be able to quit. A person who feels that they have sold their free will to the tobacco companies has no hope. This view is just plain sad. I do not believe this. I believe that smokers are perfectly capable of making the choice to continue smoking or to quit smoking. And there is not a smoker out there who could not quit if they put their mind to it.

 

[rogerram]

This speaks to a point of my contention. No one should be allowed to walk all over someone else's CHOICES. By no means am I saying that the right of freedom of choice should negatively impact another person who holds a oppositing desire or need. All reasonable (and legal) positions should be accomodated in such a manner to allow for the quiet enjoyment of each group.
Should there be seperate but equal rooms? Clearly there should. Should those who don't cook meats in their units have vegan-only rooms? Some would likely argue they should.

The 'ban-all, damn-all' who oppose my needs and desires attitude is not condusive to empathic and harmonious existence. In it's worst form history has shown it as dictatorships, censorship and fascism.

There is no comparison with smoking to cooking meat in a room. Smoking is a health issue with non smokers. If someone cooked meat in their room and cleaned up after themselves, then there is no issue there. Not like a smoker in a non smoking room. It will still be there after you leave. That is a real stretch for a comparison. Choosing to smoke around other people who don't smoke and don't want the 2nd hand smoke is a violation of their rights. You are free to do what you want , as long as you put no physical harm onto another person. natural law.You are putting potential harm onto another person. There is no harm done by a person who does not smoke to a smoker. There is no health issue there. There is a place to smoke now, very limited, but it exists, but in the near future that may also be gone. I again stress that people who break the rules on where they smoke should be subject to fines. You should not go into your non smoking room to find out a very rude person violated these rules who was there before you.

 

[Maistre Gracey]

It's just a matter of time before all of the WDW/DVC Resorts go totally non smoking.
It just happened over in Disneyland.

MG

 

[DVCconvert]

Rence-

I'm exceptionally happy for your life choices, and your mother's as well.
I also totally agree with your observations about how having the correct state of mind in shedding an addiction is extremely critical to sucess. However, your own observations confirm that not everyone can muster that edge to sucess. I've known dozens of people who have had other substance addictions who over their entire lives had ridden a rollercoaster of committment to quit, and the addiction ultimately won over and continued itself. I believe that at least for some, once the choice has been made to start the use of a given substance, their chemistry and psychology makes so difficult to alter the behavior that on a practical level they have no choice but to continue it. And yes, it is sad.


Rogerram-

There is no comparison with smoking to cooking meat in a room. Smoking is a health issue with non smokers. If someone cooked meat in their room and cleaned up after themselves, then there is no issue there. Not like a smoker in a non smoking room. It will still be there after you leave. That is a real stretch for a comparison

The allegation that it's no comparison is simply not true. While some people do have physical reactions to residual smoke (and that's why it's necessary to offer accomodations to them that are free of it) many others do not have a physical reaction to oders but it is their preference not to be subjected to it. And that, is their choice - just as it is a choice for someone to smoke, or to be so committed against eating animal flesh that desire to not cook with or on or in a place or use pots and pans that have been used to do so.


MG -

The same maybe true for what you put in your armpits:

________________________________________________


Cape Cod high school proposes going fragrance free


BOURNE (AP) -- Colognes, perfumes, scented deodorants and body sprays may soon be a thing of the past at a Cape Cod high school.

The Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School committee met last night to discuss a fragrance ban for staff and students first proposed by Superintendent Barry Motta.

Motta says the proposed policy will be sent to a subcommittee for review and will likely become part of the student handbook.

Strong fragrances can irritate people with asthma, trigger headaches, and cause respiratory and neurological symptoms. Motta became aware of the potential problems when a staff member said they were chemical sensitive.

School nurse Lisa Schmitt says most people have reacted favorably to the proposed fragrance ban.

Motta is not aware of another school in Massachusetts with a fragrance-free policy.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press.