Smoking locations to be reduced at Magic Kingdom starting today

Steel City MagicMar 02, 2015

Despite the old wives tale, cigarette smoke, though an irritant is biologicaly inert and can't cause an asthma attack. It's a shame that non smokers can't coexist. Now e cigs are being run out of town as much as regular cigarettes

photomattMar 02, 2015

Yes. I completely agree with you. Please let me give you two examples of where current smoking areas can't be avoided. 1. There is one by the entrance to Adventureland. It is near the hub and another walkway to Liberty Square. It's hard for many people to avoid that area, especially during a parade. Second, smoke does not stay in that area. It spreads out over a much wider footprint, meaning people who are avoiding that smoking area are still forced to breathe secondhand smoke. 2. There is another area somewhere in Frontierland. Every time I ride the Liberty Belle I have to go through a cloud of smoke that gathers over the river, nowhere near the actual smoking area. It's been this way for years, so it's nothing new. If Disney could make smoking areas far enough away from high-traffic areas where the smoke would not be an issue, then I would not object to their existence. The problem is that the park was not designed for smoking areas, and Disney has not given much consideration to where they put them. See! I am willing to compromise. They could make enclosed spaces, or move them to where they would not be noticed. Since that has not happened, I think smoking areas should go away completely, but I do agree there are other options - they are just not being implemented. I have just been waiting for the right time to bring this up again.

Section106Mar 02, 2015

So let's have a larger discussion about the negative health effects of perfume. I don't think this topic is as funny as most of you. That people are dying at the rate of 50,000 a year from second hand smoke is not funny and it is completely avoidable. That is not funny it is tragic. I am completely open to regulating the perfume industry to remove those dangerous ingredients. This is not an either or situation.

jakemanMar 02, 2015

Well...scientifically speak, it kind of is. There is no link to everything you posted and brief contact to secondhand smoke (brief being measured in literal seconds). Most studies would be rightfully focused on moderate to long term contact. Moderate to long term exposure, absolutely. Exposure measure in seconds? Not really. Smoking is bad. Exposure to second hand smoke is bad. With both of those clearly stated, I don't believe there is medical evidence that exposure lasting for mere seconds leads to the outcomes that you are stating. Additionally, the smoking sections are clearly labeled on the map. If this is such a concern, wouldn't the easiest thing just be to avoid those areas?

photomattMar 02, 2015

No. I'm not a genius, and I'm not even smart. A smart person would have never posted in this thread.;)

abeachchickMar 02, 2015

hahahahahahaha you must be a genius :rolleyes:

Section106Mar 02, 2015

What is your point? That minimal exposure to highly toxic carcinogens against one's will is somehow okay as long as a few addicted souls are allowed to publicly enjoy their addiction? I have repeatedly stated that I do not have a problem with the smokers employing the smoking sections at WDW. I have a problem with the notion that smokers have a right to smoke and that they aren't doing anyone any harm. I have a problem with the relativism in this thread that seeks to rank peanuts and perfume as just as dangerous as secondhand smoke. I think that we are really arguing past one another. Does anyone truly think that secondhand smoke from cigarettes isn't harmful? It is proven to kill people. That is a fact. I think what @photomatt and I are saying is that we should look to ban smoking in the parks entirely because second hand smoke is a proven health hazard and that children are especially susceptible to the ill effects of exposure. Not that those that use the Disney provided areas should be attacked while on their vacation. I am speaking on a societal level here and I am not advocating ruining someone's vacation.

photomattMar 02, 2015

This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy. This is nothing more than a personal attack, and it's usually done by those who lack the ability to debate reasonably. It's more of a last resort, a last grasp by someone who clearly knows they are defeated.

abeachchickMar 02, 2015

photomattMar 02, 2015

What hurt feelings? Don't give yourself any credit for something you clearly don't deserve.

photomattMar 02, 2015

This is an example of a logical fallacy. Fact 1. Secondhand smoke kills 53,800 people each year. Fact 2. Walking through or near a smoking area at Disney won't make you drop dead on the spot. Conclusion. It must not be harmful to walk through secondhand smoke because it won't kill you instantly. That is a logical fallacy, in that the conclusion is wrong. Fact. We know secondhand smoke is harmful, and it should be avoided. Claiming that it's OK to smoke outside because non-smokers will only be exposed to secondhand smoke for a short period of time is not a valid argument.

WikklerMar 02, 2015

I've really enjoyed this discussion ( :rolleyes: ), but it's getting boring when this thread is just turning into 12 pages of bickering so @The Mom ...

googilycubMar 02, 2015

I am not sure what happened there, it is fixed.

wm49rsMar 02, 2015

I was bored, and your lot was being sanctimonious.... And I can assure you I have the same amount of sympathy for your hurt feelings as you would have towards those you would shame....