Just curious to see what everyone thinks of the latest move by Disney, in which smoking will no longer be permitted in any Disney hotel rooms or vacation homes, even including room balconies. Personally, I am a non-smoker...so it doesn't have an effect on me at all. But I'm not sure that I like the decision. Obviously the world is moving closer and closer to making smoking illegal, and if everyone in the world stopped smoking tomorrow, I'd be a happy camper. But until it is illegal, I don't really endorse supression of free choice...so I don't like an action like this. And while smoke does affect more than the person smoking, with its ability to travel in the air we all breathe, I think the previous smoking policy where smoking was restricted to particular buildings and particular rooms was fair and sufficient in keeping my air clean. I also know my opinion is in the minority - moreso because I don't agree with the more politically correct stance of banning all forms of smoking in all places at all times...but I also don't agree with smokers who want to light up anywhere they please. I'm a non-smoker caught up in the middle - I don't like smoking, but I don't like rights being trampled either! Besides, there's always the other panic side of me that worries that smoking is just the first step - next they ban unhealthy foods, then they ban candies, then alcohol, then who knows what? If it's appropriate to discuss here, I'd love to hear everyone else's take on it. Keep it civil, of course - we aren't here to offend a smoker or a non-smoker...the issue is about more than smoking - it's about whether or not you agree with the policy and think it is fair too. And if this is not appropriate here, I apologize. I saw the 'anything WDW' category, and assume the discussion didn't have to be photography related. I always love a good debate and interesting current-event discussions!
I don't have a problem with it since I did hard time in the People's Republic of California, where it's illegal to smoke almost anywhere. (anywhere where there are paid employees, which covers almost everything outside your home and car) Now it's even illegal to smoke within 20 feet of a government building. I wonder if the law applies to the Cal-OSHA staff member who has a dream incredibly toughjob of being able to respond within minutes to anywhere on the Disneyland resort property. Because anyplace he/she goes would be under the Cal gov't....
Yeah...there is a bit of irony about California - thought to be the land of the hip and cool and wild people - being the most restrictive with regards to smoking! I lived there myself, but before the rules had gotten so stringent - at the time people could still smoke in restaurants and bars. Let's hope they don't ban drinking & talking in bars next! Tim, Yep...I'm too slow to respond and too infrequent on the web to keep on the current topics...I only heard about it this past weekend! I haven't paid attention to the podcasts - are they something I can listen to without a 'pod'? (I don't have an iPod or music player device). I have avoided these because I assumed it was something for people with iPods.
you bet you can listen without an ipod. all you have to do is go to podcast.magicialdefinition.com and where it says current podcast, right click and save and download the show to listen to on your computer. similarly, you can download itunes and subscribe that way (it actually helps us a lot if you subscribe thru itunes). you don't need an ipod to use itunes. its a database/player similar to musicmatch jukebox but a whole lot better. hope this helps, let me know if you need more assistance.
Was that an Eddie Izzard reference? I'm sort of on the fence about the move. I'm completely for the banning of smoking overall, the city I live in just banned smoking and I'm overjoyed. But to me that's different than hotel rooms. Smoke in restaurants moves around. And you've always got those border seats that are practically in smoking territory anyway. I'm all for no smoking in that situation. But a hotel room.. is kind of like a home away from home. You should be able to be at home in your room. That's with the stipulation that rooms are segregated into smoking and non smoking so non smokers can stay in clean rooms. It's kind of like the old cliche.. as long as they can do it in the privacy of their own room, with the added concept of "and it can't flow into MY room". Personally I think smoking IN the parks is more of an issue that should be addressed. No, it should still be allowed (although I'd like to explore the idea of more restrictive cigarette banning, at the current moment concessions have to be made for smokers, suddenly forbidding their drug of choice without any warning wouldn't exactly be fair), but.. I'd like to see some effort made to restrict people to smoking only in the designated smoking areas, and I've seen some debate about the logic of some of the placement of the smoking areas being too close to child intensive areas and that sort of thing. It just doesn't seem to make sense that smoking isn't allowed in a private room where it effects no-one else (since the room is already a smoking room it shouldn't effect other people who stay in it afterwards), but it would still be allowed in the open where it effects non smokers. Also, for the record, I really don't see this as a slippery slope issue. It's being done as a protection for public health, for people in general, not just to target smokers. It's not like a drunk person gives the people around him secondhand intoxication, if someone sits down next to you with food fried in trans fats it doesn't effect your health. Or even if you ignore the health aspects.. it's just unpleasant for a non smoker to be exposed to cigarette smoke. Consider it a matter of public courtesy. Public drunkenness is still forbidden, but the intoxicating drug is legal. I've always found that a little odd.. but considered as a similar matter of courtesy, I can understand it. But anyway, I'm unsure of the wisdom of the no smoking in the rooms move. As I said, to me the room is your home away from home, and even in places where smoking is banned in public spaces it's still accepted "in the privacy of your own home". I can only guess that maybe it's been done in an attempt for Disney to make some sort of bold statement against smoking, but.. I'm not sure it's appropriate. I mean I'm all for them introducing healthy meal options, but if they stopped selling the less healthy but more delicious options there'd be a public outcry, and rightly so.
Uhhhh, so long as you mean "bars" are someplace that is your primary residence,.... They'll get there. After they start hitting Disney for excess CO2 emissions. http://www.sacbee.com/391/story/171289.html (this is their next step)
That's weird, I found it through Google, and I've never been to their site from work before. From home, yes, but not from work.
Dan...that was indeed an Eddie Izzard reference. I put the 'wink', but I wasn't sure if anyone knew him. Quite a witty comedian! Sounds like you're generally of the same opinion as me. Good to know other non-smokers feel a little unsure of the move - I thought my only allies in that way of thinking were the smokers! You're right...it's probably not yet a slippery slope issue - I just look far ahead, and worry that once smoking has been put down rightfully or wrongfully, those types of people who feel they should dictate what is right and wrong to others may start looking at other areas to focus their efforts on. While healthy food alternatives are an excellent introduction to food outlets, it shouldn't mean less healthy choices should be taken away! Some people really don't believe in letting people take their own responsibility for themselves anymore, so they make blanket decisions for everyone. Rlongenbach, funny you mention the CO2 emissions! I was sarcastically thinking about a future where smoking and drinking were banned, and wondering if fireworks at the parks would be banned because of the pollutive residue. I know that Disney is generally just a glimpse of where world attitude is going, so it isn't like this is the only place taking a stance against smoking in rooms. I believe two or three major hotel chains have done it too. I don't mean to sound like I'm only questioning the move by Disney. But I'm a huge Disney fan my whole life, so I pay more attention to what moves they make! Since Disney has always stood out as an inclusionary place in the world - even when the rest of society was not (Disney was always equal to blacks before the civil rights movement, has always supported the rights of gays and lesbians, and has always been a handicapped-friendly location)...I guess my biggest disappointment with the no-smoking-in-rooms rule is that it is one of the few steps Disney has taken to be non-inclusionary - specifically restricting a group of guests and fans who are doing nothing illegal. But, it doesn't affect me, so I don't let it get to me that deeply. I still love the place, and I'll still be there in 3 more weeks! Thanks everyone for voicing your opinions on the matter. Oh, and Tim - thanks for the info on the Podcasts! I will now have to go back and give a listen...and now I know when new ones come out, I can listen too.
I love the new policy!! The only problem I see with it is enforcement. What are they going to do if someone decides to smoke in a non-smoking room? There have been several occasions where we were given a non-smoking room only to walk in and it was obvious that the previous occupants had been smoking. Several times I have seen people walking in the parks who were smoking in non-smoking areas and the cast members ignored them. So, who is going to enforce this new rule and how are they going to enforce it? I can't remember what state it was, maybe TN or KY, where the hotel manager told us that if you were given a non-smoking room and it was obvious that the previous occupants had been smoking, they were fined a certain amount which was charged to their credit card. Is Disney going to do something like this? Should be very interesting as to what type of enforcement policy they implement.
Umm uh anyone know why DL's Remember has less shells than Wishes, but is based on Wishes to begin with? Because they have limits on fireworks, which is based on their clean air credits from those Natural Gas trams they made. Which is why they figured out how to use lasers and displays on the castle and the Matterhorn for part of the show. Cuz they don't pollute the air. Also why they Subs actually closed before - those old fashioned diesel engines polluted too much. They had planned on replacing it at some point, it just needed a little push from upper management willing to spend money on anything other than shops.
Yes, Remember is around 22 mins long. But there are lots of breaks in the fireworks, especially in the transitions. (My favorite trans. is the one after the Adventureland/NOS section, right after the Pirates section). But to summarize: DL can't do everything they want in a fireworks show, so they have to be creative. Bring in Remember. And if I'm correct, Believe was also the first Disney FW show with the comets (mid air fireworks lighting) in order to reduce emissions. Think how long they are in the air. Wishes started at least 1 or 2 years after Believe. And I'm probably wrong about this one: Believe was the first regular FW show shooting fireworks from the/a castle.
just recieved my dvc mag in the mail, inside was a notice about the nonsmoking regs, states if policy violated guest will be charged a total cleaning fee, up to and including carpet and drape replacement if necessary, not to be passed on to other vacation owners as someone maried to a person with severe smoke allergies i'm all for it, anything that reduces the chance of losing my beloved spouse to an asthma attack i'm down with it
