Disney bans smoking at US Disney parks

All these years and we're still learning interesting things about each other. And not like favorite color kind of things.

In my experience, the stroller rule seems pretty reasonable.

Just a few 2 cents on the smoking rule. I don’t smoke and never have so it’s hard for me to get too worked up about it. I agree that it’s a bit extreme to get rid of the smoking areas but Disney has found some benefit that’s led them that direction. I’ve been to WDW a number of times and I couldn’t tell you where a single smoking area is located. They do a good job of blending them in without impacting other guests.

The financial hit from people that don’t like it will be negligible. I work for a mostly outdoor business located inside a city park. We went to designated smoking areas around 2001. Our city passed an ordinance banning smoking in all city parks, so that eliminated smoking and vaping on property for all customers and employees (plenty of people sneak in vaping). More than 8 months in we haven’t received a single complaint or had any hit to the bottom line. It just hasn’t been an issue at all.

But to my point, yes, I would argue there is a problem that could present an opportunity for some self-reflection if you start finding your behavior...regardless of what it is...finds you doing something as absurd as cancelling a vacation simply because said behavior is not permitted there.

I enjoy taking pictures. Find it very therapeutic. Composing the shot. Getting the lighting right. Doesn't even matter necessarily the final result. Just enjoy the process. If I were to find out that a given planned vacation didn't allow cameras, would it be absurd to cancel it? You may think so but I don't. Seems to me absurdity is often in the eyes of the beholder. That you may find something absurd and I don't doesn't seem to me to make one of us wrong. Just different.

But this only applies to people who actually wish they wouldn't be trapped in the habitual behavior pattern they find themselves in (e.g., someone who smokes who wishes they could stop). If you just really dig smoking, awesome.

So in this instance, am I absurd if I cancel may vacation because of a newly adopted smoking ban?

Are you saying that if I turned to my daughters and said we couldn't go because daddy just can't handle being in a place where I can't drink for a day...much less a week...much a less every couple hours...that wouldn't be a moment where I might want to pause and ponder my life choices?

I think criticizing you for that choice would be just as judgmental. However I expect the response may well be different because alcohol is socially acceptable while smoking is not. If you took a poll and asked people which would they be more likely to do (or which would be less absurd), cancel a trip because of a newly enacted smoking ban or alcohol ban, I would expect the alcohol ban to win in a landslide.

And ultimately, maybe my hang-up here is over the use of the word "moral." Not a label I would use. Judge me all you want for that view. ;)

FWIW, I never mentioned prejudice, sexist, intolerant or racist in connection with your post.

Banning smoking isn't going to hurt Disney's profits. Ohiostater's little scenario of parents denying their kids a trip to Disney because they can't smoke is not realistic at all. The actual end result of this policy will be twofold: a giant smoke cloud just outside the front gate where the hundreds of hardcore smokers will gather at any given time; and hundreds of smokers inside the park with extremely short tempers because they haven't smoked all day.

I smoke about a half pack a day (and I don't give a damn what anyone thinks about it, I enjoy it). When I'm at parks though I really don't feel the need because I'm too busy having fun. That being said I think designated areas was a fair compromise. How does that bother anybody?

Perhaps Disney was having too many problems with people breaking those rules or finding butts all over the place ruining those nice clean pathways. The Asian tourists especially have a reputation for smoking and being rude/disrespectful of rules in places like these.

GoBucks89, if you were to cancel a vacation because a certain place didn't allow photography, depending on the context, that might also be a bit extreme. If you're going somewhere by yourself, then sure, if photography is that much of a pastime to you and that important a hobby, I think it's perfectly reasonable to pass on a trip there, at least for a while. In my opinion, that's not much different than me having spent years prioritizing destinations based on whether or not they had parks I wanted to visit. People might think me nuts for putting places like Seattle on the back burner while Kansas City became an early selection, but interests are interests, and I think that's fine.

If you're talking a vacation where you're taking your family, though, and a lack of photographic options is enough to force you to cancel it, then yes, I think that absurd could be an appropriate adjective, although perhaps selfish might fit better. If my family wanted to go somewhere and I said no simply because I couldn't indulge in something, I think that's a bit selfish of me.

All this said, I think likening hobbies and smoking is a bit of a stretch. I'm no addiction expert, but if an inability to light up means you won't take your kids to see Mickey Mouse, calling that absurd may come off as a judgmental way of saying it, but I certainly would call it unreasonable.

For my example, it wasn't necessarily middle-aged parents denying kids a vacation, but the grand or great-grand parents that wouldn't be there to see the little ones. If BTMRR to the front-gate seems like a hike to smoke, imagine doing it when 90, with frail legs, diagnosed with some terminal cancer and given 12-18 months to live. Our case wasn't quite that extreme, but for my nephew's Disney wedding, we did have elderly grand-relatives on scooters who have smoked since long I was born. That kind of hike isn't something you can do on a busy day and maintain any type of value for your park day.

We paid for the Disney After Hours at MK the other night, and got more accomplished in 3 hours than we could in a 12 hour regular weekday. Before this trip, that is something we swore we'd never spend money on.

Ken P said:

...imagine doing it when 90, with frail legs, diagnosed with some terminal cancer and given 12-18 months to live.

I honestly promise that I'm not trying to be insensitive here, but if someone is in this condition, doesn't it make smoking even more of a terrible decision than it already is?

This week I've sipped a carbonated beverage, partaken in red meat, consumed more than 3 eggs, and had a meal where a chef dared to use salt. Depending on the study, the health harm of any of those is on a similar scale of smoking.

I worked in a nursing home for a bit, and there is a portion of the elderly who develop an "F You, I'm not changing my lifestyle for an extra 2-3 months of life" attitude. As George Carlin opined, those are the crappy years at the end anyways. Especially among veterans and Rosie the Riveter/early women's rights advocates, there is quite a sense of not giving up what they have fought for, including controlling what few things they can in later stages of life.

Ken P said:

This week I've sipped a carbonated beverage, partaken in red meat, consumed more than 3 eggs, and had a meal where a chef dared to use salt. Depending on the study, the health harm of any of those is on a similar scale of smoking.

Well, on the plus side, you don't have to walk from Big Thunder Mountain to the front of the park to indulge in those activities. ;)

I think Dumbo is a farther walk to the front gate than BTMR....

Red meat, soda, eggs, and salt aren't harmful to the people around you. Smoking is.

GoBucks89 said:

I enjoy taking pictures.

Yikes, this is a straw man argument if I've ever seen one. You're comparing a hobby to a self-destructive behavior.

GoBucks89 said:

And ultimately, maybe my hang-up here is over the use of the word "moral." Not a label I would use. Judge me all you want for that view. ;)

FWIW, I never mentioned prejudice, sexist, intolerant or racist in connection with your post.

I never used the word "moral", either ;) I know you didn't...but intolerant and prejudice were mentioned by another poster....I tossed in racist just for fun.

Snarkiness aside, Tekwardo's point is it for me, really.

This thread makes me want to start smoking again.

Gonch to the rescue!

sirloindude said:

Ken P said:

...imagine doing it when 90, with frail legs, diagnosed with some terminal cancer and given 12-18 months to live.

I honestly promise that I'm not trying to be insensitive here, but if someone is in this condition, doesn't it make smoking even more of a terrible decision than it already is?

No. Quite the opposite. In nearly every scenario I'd say that quitting smoking is the better choice. However if you're elderly, terminally ill, and you only have a year left? I say light em up. Die happy. Get a bottle of bourbon and some hookers while you're at it.

Agreed. Just don’t smoke around me ;-).

While I'm all for a smoke free world, I also understand that an outright ban is not a perfect solution.

As an example, I work in airports and cannot tell you the amount if times I've smelled smoke coming from the far stall in the mens room. Or worse, in the Family Restroom when travelling when our son was little.

Not saying it happens all the time, but it does happen. Designated smoking areas do cut down on this. As no one wants to walk all the way outside of a park, or (far, far worse) go through the TSA again. Therefore, people will try and cheat the system.

There's no right answer. For Disneys ban to work, there would have to be no "cheaters." And you'd get far fewer "cheaters" if there were no ban, but designated areas.

I don't know...

Yikes, this is a straw man argument if I've ever seen one. You're comparing a hobby to a self-destructive behavior.

Back in the day when Ohio had the smoking ban on the ballot and since then though less often, I recall having discussions with people (who were otherwise quite rationale and reasonable) about smoking/smoking bans & restrictions and coming away from those discussions thinking the other person must have been speaking a different language and possibly been from another planet. Your response above takes me right back there.

I was responding to a post by Kevin (which was responding to an earlier post of mine). Kevin never used the words "self destructive behavior" in what I quoted. He did use "self" and "behavior" but not together and not with the word "destructive." Looking back at his entire post I do not see the word destructive being used. Now it does look like all of the letters in the word destructive were used at least once in his post. So maybe the idea is now people can respond not to what is actually said but what could have been said with the letters used in a post. That could be fun, right? Talk about tangent potential. LOL

Looking back closer at what I quoted, Kevin referenced "your behavior" (again note the lack of reference to "self" or "destructive") and then "regardless of what it is" (certainly not bringing us to "self destructive behavior"). Had he said "your self destructive behavior" or "regardless of what self destructive behavior it is" (or something limiting his statement to self destructive behavior), you would have had a straw man point. But he didn't so you don't. Other than that, thumbs up. Not sure what that means though as to whether you have actually seen a straw man argument. LOL

I did ask Kevin a couple questions which could have been interesting in terms of how limited the views here are to smoking (that was the purpose of the taking pictures reference not comparing a hobby to self destructive behavior). He elected not to respond to them but maybe that was out of concern for your word scramble approach to responding to posts. Thought ultimately its not of much interest given what I said about the Ohio smoking ban ballot initiative.

I don't know how all of that explaining is relevant. Whatever Kevin did or didn't call it seems irrelevant for the apples to zebras analogy you were making.