Geauga Lake & Wildwater Kingdom Announces Numerous New Offerings

I think if we learned anything from SF is that dumping a mass load of money into the park will bring in record numbers of guests.

Secondly, I love how they've recycled two old ideas and tried to pass them off as new. The Jukebox is the same concept that was there when I started at the park 12 years ago, only then we also did BBQ. Second, don't we all remember KFC? and before that we did an in house deep fried chicken. Don't get me wrong, the jukebox needs an upgrade desperately (after all part of the stand used to be a public restroom) and it's good to see that kind of investment. Also using the old stand for a real meal option is something we fought to do for years after the original top dog was bulldozed. Great moves both of them.

It would have been nice to see a small kiddie ride or some other flat to show some new ride options, but that's just being nit-picky.

Finally the whole smoking thing. There are actual scientists that argue that second hand smoke isn't a significant health threat to anyone. It's out there if you want to look for it. It's not like they get a whole lot of press. But the W.H.O. actually did a study some time back and found that the statistical data they found showed no statistical evidence that second hand smoke was more or less of a threat to causing lung cancer. It's funny that they almost immediately ignored those findings and jumped on the smoking is evil campain.

I'm not saying that smoking is good for anyone. I am saying that in an outdoor environment the threat from second hand smoke is darn near zero.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/etsfrau.htm

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20030515/secondhand-smoke-study-raises-ire

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html
*** Edited 3/2/2007 3:47:10 AM UTC by gener***
*** Edited 3/2/2007 3:47:37 AM UTC by gener***
*** Edited 3/2/2007 3:53:16 AM UTC by gener***

I am not going to get into the smoking thing again, but even common sence tells you that inhaling the chemicals from a cigerette is not good. Nuff said.

The jukebox cafe is getting a remodel. I thought for sure that they would put in a coasters restaurant in that spot.

I think most of us can agree that the ride side has been ignored, and that the focus has been on the wet attractions.That said, I think that the ride side is due for something.

Well, 70% of Ohio said they didn't want it, so that's what we have to deal with wether we like it or not.

Me personaly. I love it. However, it will only work if they enforce it. There are many places that have no smoking policies where people simpley ignore it. Unless I'm mistaken, it's always been against the rules to smoke in line, yet I smell people doing it all the time. Another place where I see it all the time is at Professional Baseball and Football Games.

I have no problem with people smoking, and I can actualy occasionaly enjoy being around cigars on occasion. But cigerette smoke is just rancid. Out of the 30 or so people I know who smoke, I can honestly say only one of them actualy does it out of enjoyment. He smokes about a Pack a year. Everone else I know wishes they could quit. Probably about 10 of them have quit successfuly over the past 10 years or so.

Jason Hammond said:
They said they were doing extensive Track work to make for a much better riding experience.
*** Edited 3/2/2007 12:03:58 AM UTC by Jason Hammond***

Thats good to hear...

who said this?

and can annyone confirm?

You said so, so nuf said?

Come on, at least read the links i posted.

I have several issues with the whole smoking ban. Number one we are being lied to. The EPA report 'Respitory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders' (1993) is the document that much of the statistics in this country is based on. The US Federal Court, in a decision in '98, dismissed that study in that it showed no link between second hand smoke and cancer. Furthermore it was found that the EPA ignored data that conflicted with their prefered study conclusion. I believe the term used to describe their actions was "cherry-picked".

The World Health Organization's study in '98, 'Multicenter Case: Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe', found in its study that there was no link between second hand smoke and disease in children Secondly it stated that

"Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure." p.1445

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/19/1440

Still they issue a report saying that second hand smoke is conclusivly harmful to others.

And let's say that the EPA with their fraudulent stat of a 25% increase in risk for lung cancer for those living with second hand smoke IS accurate. Let's look at where that number comes from:

EPA claims that the risk of lung cancer for those living and working with second hand smoke is 1:80,000. Those living without second hand smoke have a cancer rate of 1:100,000. Do the math and you will see that 12.5 out of a million people exposed to second hand smoke would get lung cancer while 10 out of a million people not exposed would die of lung cancer. Two and a half people (2.5) out of a million is not a statistically relevent result. Sure it's 25% greater, but come on.

I don't know about you but i don't like being lied to.

And to claim that the voters spoke. Well, couldn't we all agree that it really isn't to accurate of a poll if the people were voting based on faulty information?

The thing i really love is that while we dictated to smokers that they couldn't smoke, even in private establishments; the people of Cuyahoga County turned around and said that they could fund the arts. What a joke. How's that for majority exploitation in a democratic system?

Topics like these drive me nuts because the anti side of the arguement goes way out and overstates the issue without ever wanting to even acknowledge that there is a legitimate couter arguement out there. Just like the global warming crowd.

Finally i'm not to big of a fan of government dictating behavior. Don't get me started about trans fats. It is especially infuriating when the data supporting an arguement is suspect at best. Just because people say it's so doesn't make it true. Even if it is a lot of people.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5811

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2713
*** Edited 3/2/2007 5:55:19 AM UTC by gener***

*** Edited 3/2/2007 6:02:52 AM UTC by gener***

Being lied to?

The studies that you list were all funded by the tabbaco industry.

"Involuntary exposure to second-hand smoke results from non-smokers breathing air containing second-hand smoke. Involuntary smoking involves inhaling carcinogens, as well as other toxic components, that are present in both mainstream and sidestream smoke. Carcinogens that occur in second-hand smoke include benzene, 1,3-butadiene, benzo[a]pyrene, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone and many others (IARC Monograph, Volume 83. Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. 2002).

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in its 2002 Monograph on tobacco smoke and second-hand smoke that that "there is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to second-hand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans” and makes the overall evaluation that “Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."

There are thousands of conclusive reports that confurm shs causes cancer. Evere hear of lung cancer or throat cancer? Hell, there are even warnings on every pack of cigerettes and even pictures on canadian cigerettes.

Even the tabacco companies have came out and said that shs is bad.

Second hand smoke contains over 4000 differant chemicals and you want to tell me its all a lie?

Tell me how breathing in any shs is not going to have a negetive efect on anyone?

The hazardous health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke are now well-documented and established in various independent research studies and numerous international reports. The body of scientific evidence is overwhelming: there is no doubt within the international scientific community that second-hand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), asthma and middle ear infections in children and various other respiratory illnesses. Second-hand smoke exposure is also causally associated with stroke, low birthweight, spontaneous abortion, negative effects on the development of cognition and behaviour, exacerbation of cystic fibrosis and cervical cancer.

During the past two decades, numerous scientific bodies have concluded that second-hand smoke is dangerous to health:

• noted that the only way to protect non-smokers from the dangerous chemicals in second-hand smoke is to eliminate smoking indoors.

Since 1986, more than 100 major studies have examined the health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke, and most (about 63%), have found evidence of harm, from respiratory problems through to lung cancer (. Barnes Deborah E. and Bero Lisa A. Journal of the American Medical Association 20 May 1998; 279:1566-1570). The following are the seven most comprehensive reviews of the health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke to be published in the last six years:

• [/url="http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/ets.htm"]

This study, published in the , reports the dangers of second-hand smoke may not be as significant as previously thought. It has been admitted, however, by the authors that the study was largely funded by the tobacco industry. And there have since been several rebuttals and responses to the study, which point to the various flaws with both the study design and its conclusions.

For every study saying one thing, there's another study saying another thing. For instance, the majority of scientists in the World could present an overwhelming amount of evidence regarding human-induced global warming, because the evidence supports their needs. At the same time, there are scientists who disagree, and interpret the evidence in a way that suits their needs. It's a simple fact of life that people will disagree, and will base their opinions on their interpretation of the information they have. At some point, common sense has to come into play, and it's obvious that people prefer hysteria over common sense.

But, none of that is relevant to the topic at hand, at least with our current laws with regard to tobacco regulation. Currently, tobacco can be legally consumed by those over the required age. That's the law. It's also the law that those people are not allowed to come into your home/car/yard and smoke around you. Certain private businesses choose to not allow smoking, because it fits their needs (that is, it fits their customers' needs), and they see a benefit to adopting that policy. On the flip side, there are businesses that see no benefit to adopting such a policy, and therefore choose not to, and in doing so choose to accept the consequences of that policy. Such places would be bars, restaurants and so on.

Personally, I have no problem at all with CP (or ANY private business, for that matter) adopting a no smoking policy. What I don't want to see is the government trying to impose other people's will on the rest of us. If the non-smokers were so agitated by the smoke-filled bars and restaurants, why did they continue to go to these places? Obviously, the benefit outweighed the risk, so what's the problem? I can guarantee that if the non-smokers had spoken with their wallets, this "problem" would have been resolved long before it needed to be voted on. Private businesses are funny like that - they enjoy making money. Go figure.

crazy - all the studies you've linked have been funded by groups that want to ban smoking. Whats your point? Could it be that groups will fund studies to "prove" their foregone conclusion?

There is no question that SHS contains harmful chemicals. I'm not disputing that. What has not been shown is that the couple breaths that you may inhale in an amusement park will have ANY long term detriment to your health. You simply are not receiving enough of the chemicals to cause a problem.

djDaemon said:

If you go somewhere else often enough, the private companies like CP will take notice, and ban smoking altogether, which is 100% fine, and 100% American. Having the government step in to appease some whiny big-government cry babies is un-American.

It's not the big-government cry babies that passed the Smoke Free Ohio initiative. This was voted on by the citizens and passed by a large margin. It is obviously what the majority wants.

Lots of cases can be made about big brother, etc., but the point is that second hand smoke causes enormous costs to society each year and therefore should be banned.

Why are drugs like cocaine illegal? Because of the cost to society in crime, health problems, etc. have a huge economic impact. The economic impact of illness and death from second hand smoke is comparable. That is why it is appropriate for government to have a smoke free law on the books.

The argument of "just don't go where there is smoking" is lame. I want the freedom to stay healthy and go to all the places that smokers go to. To me that seems more like the American Way then restricting my freedom or harming my health. I want equal access.

Also, what if I'm working in, let's say, a bowling alley. I need my job, and circumstances are such that I would have a very difficult time finding another job. No guarantee that the new job would be smoke free either. Of course, I could choose not to work until I found a smoke free job, and declare bankruptcy if my job search took a long time. Nice.

In any case, what Cedar Fair is doing outside on the midway has nothing to do with the Smoke Free Ohio law. That law only regulates what goes on indoors. Cedar Fair is doing this to attract families who don't want children exposed to smoke, and for the benefit of all their guests. I think it is a great decision and I applaud them for doing it.

Of course, the criminal "cost" of cocaine is only because it is illegal. Make it legal, you make a profit (taxation) and remove the costs of law enforcement, courts and incarceration.

No, the law enforcement costs of drug enforcement are an unfortunate side effect of trying to remove the problem.

The real costs to society are social and economic, costs that are totally outside the realm of the costs of enforcement and incarceration.

We've been over all this before, but the costs to society due to SHS are quite exaggerated, and mostly unfounded, depending on who you ask. As has been stated previously, different organizations' studies find different results, and reach different conclusions. Neither is definitive.

As for the job situation, people have the power to change that. If you're working in a bowling alley, you've chosen that path, and can choose another if you find it to be unsuitable. The service industry (where you'll find smoking sections, in most cases), is teeming with high-turnover, low-qualification jobs. Don't make it sound as if there aren't any bowling-shoe-rental-agent-level jobs out there, just for the sake of bolstering your argument.

And to say that you should be free to wander anywhere in the US, and not be exposed to things you feel may cause you harm is silly. There are plenty of places - strip clubs, high-crime areas, karaoke clubs - that all pose "health risks", so you don't go there. If private enterprises want you there badly enough, they will adjust accordingly. You are not free to go wherever you want, if it infringes on other peoples' rights.

This reminds me of the Wal-Mart argument. People whine all the time about the unfair practices of Wal-Mart, yet its still the nation's leading retailer, and largest private employer. If the same people who complain about their business practices actually spoke with their wallets, Wal-Mart wouldn't exist as we know it.

^ - why do you think I don't shop there and have been trying (vainly it seems) to keep my wife from shopping there. Of course, if I'm in the car, we go to Meijer instead.

And to answer Pete's argument - Alcohol kills far more people, and affects far more families, than cocaine. Yet its legal, we regulate it, tax it and have laws restricting what you can do under its effects. When we tried to make it illegal to sell, possess or consume, the VIOLENT crime rate skyrocketed. Why? Those who were just getting a drink or two couldn't turn to the police when the really bad men came down on them. Prohibition of any substance does not work. *** Edited 3/2/2007 4:19:02 PM UTC by JuggaLotus***

But... but... where else can you get a $5 toaster that's worth $1.50???

djDaemon said:

Don't make it sound as if there aren't any bowling-shoe-rental-agent-level jobs out there, just for the sake of bolstering your argument.

Well, if smoking in public place should be allowed, all the bowling-shoe-rental-agent-level jobs would probably have smokers. You just gave proof why indoor public smoking should be banned.

There are plenty of places - strip clubs, high-crime areas, karaoke clubs - that all pose "health risks", so you don't go there.

Strip clubs and karaoke clubs hardly pose a health risk, if they are non-smoking. What health risks are you talking about? Can a stripper trip and fall on somebody? The only health risk associated with a karaoke club would be the listeners mental health if I'm on stage singing!

The mental health risks could be the depreciated value placed on women, or you may just be scared of boobs. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawsuit claiming mental anguish from someone who visits their first strip club, especially if it's the "Vu". ;)

And, yes, the karaoke club reference was with regard to mental health risks due to Cowell-pleaser wannabees. :)

And a bowling alley isn't public - that's a very important distinction that needs to be made here, in my opinion. These are private businesses, which are open to the public. A public place is one that is open to everyone, while private places are allowed to refuse someone.

ADDED lame comedy.

*** Edited 3/2/2007 4:28:38 PM UTC by djDaemon***

djDaemon said:
As for the job situation, people have the power to change that. If you're working in a bowling alley, you've chosen that path, and can choose another if you find it to be unsuitable.

That's a common, but shortsighted, argument. I could use that argument to remove all labor, public health, education, and transportation laws, and much more.

Your employer physically beats you because you're late to work. Too bad, you choose to work there. You get food poisoning from the restaurant that didn't want the government intruding on their sanitary procedures. I guess you won't eat there again! You went to the hospital to get treatment, but they said they're not taking food poisoning cases this week. Go find another hospital. Your kid's school dropped math as a budget cut. You choose to live in that city. Move to a city with a better school. But watch what roads you take when you move. There are no speed limits. If you're not responsible enough to be on a road where some cars go 100 MPH, then I guess you just won't drive.

Ridiculous, right? But an appropriate response for the argument presented.

The argument may sound good on paper, but it doesn't work in the real world without checks and balances. There's a well-defined line between limited government and anarchy.

Aside from the restaurant and abusive boss (which actually falls under a different type of protection altogether), the examples you made there are public-service institutions, and are admittedly regulated, but with good reason.

Public service or not, it demonstrates the flaw in the argument.

"Supports there needs"?

What are you talking about?

So the fact that 3,400 people DIE each year from lung cancer, has no weight in any study? I have not ever read a news report/study that can hide that fact. Also, more than 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths are linked to smokers every year. This is not only proof of the impact of smokers, but it also raises the cost of health care by billions of dollers every year. So how can you tell me that the costs are exagerated?

All those deaths....is that difinative enough for you?

Can you honestly tell me that shs has no affect on people? If so, than all these doctors and people of science must be wrong.

You keep saying that "its only a wiff". Its a lot more than just one wiff. Many times durring the course of a day, a person inhales "many wiffs" and sometimes a cloud of smoke that you can not avoid breathing in.

You keep saying that its a ploy by the government and groups that are against smoking that are spreading lies about the dangers of smoking. You coulden't be more wrong. Again, look at the amount of people that die every year due to the affects of smoking. Ask ANY doctor, and they would tell you the same thing.

Shs IS BAD TO INHALE IN ANY AMOUNT. It containes many harmfull chemicals like these.

Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.

Again, your telling me that its ok for people to inhale these chemicals and not have any side effects? If so, I think the chemicals have gotton to your head. And I dont need any study to tell me the obvious affects.