PKI Smoking Ban?
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
EDIT: Gonch beat me to it. Must be he types faster.... *** Edited 2/27/2005 7:47:20 PM UTC by ShaneDenmark***
But then again, what do I know?
Lord Gonchar said:
Oooh, oooh! Are we going to get into the smoking debate again? Yippee!!!The irony I see is that the one place (amusement parks) that serve some of the least healthy most damaging food available for human consumption - the same foods that are processed and contain just as many damaging chemicals as cigarettes or tons of heart stopping fats or little to no nutritional value are worried about outdoor smoking.
The same place that has acres of cars that you must navigate spouting things much worse, much more damaging and in much larger quantities than any cigarette ever could.
If the biggest health issue you have in life is that someone might smoke a cigarette in an open outdoor area in your general vicinity - then I wish I had your life (or at least was blind enough to ignore the more obvious things that kill me everyday) :)
While I agree with much of what you say here, I don't think this has anything to do with health issues, and everything to do with the parks giving people what they want. Paramount probably got alot of feedback on the issue through thier surveys and decided that they would make more people happy if they changed the policy.
And then their are the people like me who are allergic to something with cigarette smoke and have an Asthma Attack whenever I get to inhale somebody's smoke.
Well that sucks too. But (and this is just argument for debate's sake) - why is it other people's responsibility to make sure you're not affected rather than yours to stay away from offending smoke?
Between these debates and the lawsuit ones, I think I paint a pretty clear picture on my approach to life.
As for the "right to smoke..." Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say you have that right?
The same place it says you have the right to stop me. :)
And another way to look at it, and something I believe in... Your rights end where mine begin.
And the flip side is that your rights end when you try to stop me from doing things based on an activity I choose to partake in.
Trust me, I do understand where most of you are coming from - I'm not oblivious.
But when we come to those crossroads where someone has to give the right of way, why is it always the smoker who's expected to cave?
Like you say - COMMON COURTESY - don't be disrespectful to me and tell me I have no rights because I smoke. I'll do my best to keep it away from you and you do your best to avoid it. We're courteous and we both win.
That means, yeah, you can smoke all you want. But when it hampers my ability to breathe fresh air and not smell like an ashtray, well, that's where your "rights" end.
So you own an electric car or a hybrid or walk or bike everywhere? You live nowhere near a manufacturing plant of any kind. You personally went down to said factories and ask them to please move their operations to some other town? You've forced the local municipality to serve you only virgin water from the most remote alpine locations?
Roughly 1 in 4 or 5 people smoke nowadays. In a park full of 25,000 people you think the risk of those 5000 killing you slowly is one of the greatest threats in your life?
Wow. Those stupid 'truth' commercial are getting to someone at least.
That's why I wanna kick queue smokers in the balls when I see them.
And it's foolproof because the smoker won't be able to catch you. He'll be coughing and hacking 100 feet into the chase. :)
Who do you trust - a non-profit organization with a personal agenda (Truth) or the world's leading health organization (The World Health Organization)?
I'd choose the latter.
And here's what they had to say :)
(in case you're afraid or too time consumed to check it, the article is titled "Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official")
Here is a great thread from two summers ago - nice POV's from both sides.
The funny part is this thread is slowly going the same direction. Want to see into the future, just read this thread from the past! ;)
It may be because those "people" didn't take the ACTION of lighting up. Therefore, they shouldn't have to REACT by moving. If someone wants to smoke well then fine. If they decide to do it though, they should ALSO move. So what I'm asking is, why is it the NON-smokers responsibility to "get out of the way" when a smoker lights up.
That'd be fine if I said that. However, I suggested in the spirit of common courtesy (courtesy from each party toward the other) that we both move.
I find many of the non-smoker reaction just a 'rude' as many of the smoker reactions. Let me requote myself:
"Like you say - COMMON COURTESY - don't be disrespectful to me and tell me I have no rights because I smoke. I'll do my best to keep it away from you and you do your best to avoid it. We're courteous and we both win."
Where's the problem? In my eyes it's with rude, self centered types. I don't like it so you have to move.
Just as easy for me to say, I do like it so you move, but it's not right - from either angle.
*** Edited 2/27/2005 8:24:57 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
If not, time to learn a little about politics & big business.
I still trust the agendaless third party with nothing to gain or lose.
Also, again let me make myself clear. I do think there's be a difference between you sitting next to me in my living room for 10 years with me exhaling directly in your face and you visiting an amusement park every day for 10 years and participating in a normal way where an average percentage of smokers are roaming the midways.
The first just can't be healthy. The second just can't be harmful.
*** Edited 2/27/2005 8:36:09 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
The smokers are expected to cave, simply because a nonsmoker standing there minding his business isn't making the smoker uncomfortable. Has a smoker ever been standing in line for a rollercoaster or whatever and started complaining that the nonsmoker behind him should light up because its making him uncomfortable?
And no, I don't own a hybrid car. For that matter, the Jeep sitting in my driveway right now isn't creating ANY pollution since it's a restoration project, and doesn't run right now.
And I understand what you're saying about the WHO... I'm not worried about the second hand smoke killing me. Hey, I worry more about aliens abducting me, which is to say not at all. However, I do notice a difference in the smell of my clothes after visiting my parent's house where my Mom, her husband, and my younger brother all smoke. My clothes REEK after, and my wife can even tell I've been there by the smell of my clothes.
So long story short, I don't have a problem with people smoking. I don't understand the appeal in it, having tried it myself, but whatever floats your boat. I don't have a problem with people smoking in the midways in a park. I don't have a problem with people smoking as they walk by me on the road. But I guess someone smoking in line for a rollercoaster just doesn't make sense to me. You said 1 in 4 or 5 people smoke nowadays. So in that 2 hour line for Millennium Force, 75% to 80% of the people should be uncomfortable and have to smell like smoke so the minority can enjoy a butt? I don't agree. You argued my "Rights" idea. Okay, try this one on. In the words of Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." No, I'm not a total Trekkie, but it does fit here...
But then again, what do I know?
I develop Superior Solitaire when not riding coasters.
Oh come on... as if that's anywhere remotely the same thing. If anything, you're giving examples of things that already are regulated with regards to emission and health standards. The water in particular... I've dealt with the EPA on that one when I worked for a municipality, and even the crappiest city water is better for you than smoking (or someone smoking around you).
Lord Gonchar said:
So you own an electric car or a hybrid or walk or bike everywhere? You live nowhere near a manufacturing plant of any kind. You personally went down to said factories and ask them to please move their operations to some other town? You've forced the local municipality to serve you only virgin water from the most remote alpine locations?
What it really comes down to is that a private company can say you can't smoke on their property, and if you disagree, you don't give them your business.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
One thing that I was unaware of when I smoked is just how much the person walking behind you gets what you exhale and I have to say that it's vile. I am far from being a non-smoking nazi but I have to say that I do feel bad for the people who walked behind me for all those years.
Also though, when I smoked I did it when and where it was admissable. Smokers, to me, fall into the same category as line jumpers - you don't need to do it, you just want to.
-Jim (probably needing a good nicotine fix for trying to be sensible lol)
But I guess someone smoking in line for a rollercoaster just doesn't make sense to me.
Me either. Go back and you'll see, I understand not liking it. I'm even ok with the idea of making enclosed and confined spaces non-smoking. That's fair enough.
But when you're being told not to smoke in open outdoor areas, I start to think the line has been crossed. But I guess it comes back to Jeff's comment (and oddly enough, one I meant to include along the way but got lost in the million different thoughts running through my head) - and that is:
What it really comes down to is that a private company can say you can't smoke on their property, and if you disagree, you don't give them your business.
That's the truest statement of them all. :)
Unfortunately, I had fun at BeastBuzz last year, so my desire to repeat the event is stronger than my desire to disagree.
Sad if you think about it.
Although, I do wonder what Paramount would do if suddenly their attandance and profits at the parks dropped by 20 to 25 percent. :)
The water in particular... I've dealt with the EPA on that one when I worked for a municipality, and even the crappiest city water is better for you than smoking (or someone smoking around you).
Yeah, but that's not to say it doesn't contain chemicals that cause the same long term effects. It just kills you slower.
Besides, I was being dramatic for effect. Any good debater is 1/2 showman, 1/4 fact spouter, and 1/4 spin master...and I'm a master debater! (buh dum ching)
Still, just because those things are regulated doesn't make them safe. Isn't that why cigarettes have filters? ;)
Heck, I'm 31. This month marks my 6th year as a smoker. Yup, I didn't start until I was 25. I have infinitely more time under my belt as a non-smoker and during those first 25 years of my life I'd have been making the same arguments.
As long as it's victimless (and while that's up for debate, I'm on the side that says it is in the case of smoking on open area park midways) and it's legal, then there's no problem.
I don't (and won't) buy the ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) health issues until there is definitive proof that limited exposure to ETS as damaging (or more damaging) than anything else. I've yet to see what I consider that proof.
As far as the 'discomfort' factor. I do understand that within reason.
But I can think of hundreds of things (again see the thread I linked to for discussion in this direction) that offend me just as much or more than the smoker smell. Why is smoking the 'offense du jour' and when do people with lingering B.O. have to take their ass smell to designated stink areas or when do old ladies with gallons of $3 perfume emitting visible fumes have to be herded off?
My anticipation that comes in a form that I may never live to see payoff on (especially if I keep smoking ;) ) - is what happens when smoking is eradicated and a generation or two passes and people still get lung cancer and throat cancer and such? Then what will we blame?
*** Edited 2/27/2005 10:48:02 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Gonch is right. It's the rude smokers that do it in for the rest. Those who smoke in close quarters, such as in queue lines, or in the midst of a crowded midway are rude.
But as Gonch points out, smoke dissapates so quickly in open air, I seriously do not understand why this has become such an issue, except to enforce personal views upon others.
There is no choice for many things any more. Personal freedoms are seriously becoming a thing of the past as the majority takes more and more of those personal freedoms away in what they call "democracy".
Just wait until they begin focusing on alcohol even more than they are now. Because, you know, once they've got cigarettes banned, they'll have to find something else to attack.
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
For example, someone at Disney decided that they'd make more money if they had designated smoking sections at their parks---more people would appreciate the lack of obvious smoking (and hence come/return to the parks) than would decide not to go because of the hassle of not being able to smoke conveniently. Given their target demographic (families with younger children that have the disposalbe income to drop $40+/person/day on theme park admission for four days or more) that's probably a sound business decision.
I'm pretty sure Disney doesn't care whether people smoke or not, except insofar as people who die can't buy more plush Mickeys, and that's not a "present quarter" revenue concern, so it is not important in the quest to improve shareholder value.
With PKI, the argument is less clear, as their demographic is different: a larger mix of older teens/young adults and a lower price point.
But, as more and more people come to believe that smoking is bad, more and more institutions will either ban smoking entirely or relegate smokers to out-of-the-way places. The fact that people *believe* it to be so is what matters. Whether or not it is actually true doesn't matter in the least.
It's actually stuck with me from the first time I read it.
Sometimes I'm amazed at how much people (at least some posting on these boards) generally worry about stuff. I wouldn't think twice about second hand smoke, I wouldn't be crying major foul if dragster shredded on me, I don't stress over the 20 pounds or so I should lose.
I guess "I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead" :)
Also excellent that you brought alcohol into the game. Why? That's exactly where my frustration comes from. The treatment of similar issues.
I hate how smoking has become a horrible stigma, but the general alcohol culture in this country is accepted and encouraged.
Let me make it quite clear, that I'm not anti-alcohol (we already tried that prohibition thing once and we all know how that went) - hell, we should have a drink in one hand and a cigarette in the other :) - but I see alcohol as a drug that cause as much (if not more) damage and pain than tobacco. It kills, it indirectly kills others (drunk driving is stilla HUGE issue after all these years), it can be obnoxious to be around. It has all the same characteristics in my eyes...
...and Paramount serves it at their parks. :)
I don't like being around people who've had a lot to drink. Those rude, obnoxious drinkers are very offensive and I find it a tad odd in a public, family atmosphere. But it's accepted.
The best is baseball games. I dig taking my kids to PNC Park to see the Pirates, but I hate the obnoxious assholes downing cup after cup of beer. It's not how I want my kids to see people act in public. But then again, they don't have to see much of it because we have to keep walking out to the public areas of the stadium to smoke - because I'm a bad guy. ;)
And god forbid you get me started on the hypocritical travesty that is illegal marijuana...
I dunno, seems like so serious double standards across the board as to what's right and wrong.
And you're right, CPLady. After we've vanquished the evil cigarettes and taken away one choice, what's next?
Cyclonic said:
Lord Gonchar; the Paramount parks are going to have designated smoking areas like Holiday World set up, the park will not totally ban smoking.
I understand that. Did I word it wrong somewhere? If so, my mistake.
I don't see any reason someone shouldn't be able to catch a quick smoke between Vortex and Beast without circumventing to a thrid location that may or may not be convenient.
I'm even the type of guy that doesn't drop butts on the ground. I'm the most ridiculously courteous smoker I know. :)
Brain Noble said:This is a simple matter of economics and perception. Whether something is actually bad for an individual who smokes, is near a smoker, or society at large is entirely beside the point. (followed by a lot more ;) )
If I had to make a list of my perceived impression of various peoples' intelligence based on their posts around here alone, you'd probably land in my top 3, Brian. Your last post only makes that more evident.
Well said. :)
*** Edited 2/28/2005 12:05:28 AM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Cyclonic said:
I heard that on the tour of PKD last week they announced that that park is going smoke free this coming season, so it would stand to reason that the whole chain may do that.
I'd love to see them ban smoking at a park that hosts the Phillip Morris company picknicks many years. Not saying people at Phillip Morris smoke (they know better), but it'll hurt their business. And before anybody comes and says I'm some mean person for saying that, my grandmother died of second hand smoke little over a year ago and my grandfather now has both of this legs amputated because of smoking (his high blood pressure mixed with the effecs of tar in your system cut of ciculation to his legs.)
As for the smoking in the queue thing, most people I've asked to stop have done so. I did have one nasty incident though at Great Adventure (imagine that) with a soccer mom while waiting in line for Skull Mountain. She wouldn't cooperate and things got heated (I was not having a good day due to operations, again-imagine that), and she threatened to put out the cigarette on my face. Nice.
So out of all the parks I've been to, which park do you think had the worst rate of smoking in line? Cedar Point by a landslide.
Closed topic.
