PKI going smoke free

crazy horse said:

Hell yea, I would call $55 billion a year a big deal. Also, I know a lot of wealthy people that smoke, its not just a poor or minority thing.

I didn't say smoking was limited to just one group or another. If you look at the majority of cigar smokers, they don't come from the lower-middle class. Are there some there, sure, but the majority comes from the upper class. The same with cigarrettes. There are rich people who smoke cigarrettes, but there are far more in the lower classes who smoke cigarrettes than in the upper class. Why, well they don't have the same access to aids to quit that someone with a decent healthcare plan would have.

As for your numbers (55 billion) - those are based of a report given to congress over 10 years ago. They were also based on the passage of an act which was rejected by congress (I need to do a little more research to see if this was eventually passed in some form, but its original form was not passed). This would have created a national health care system, and we don't have that so my best guess is that it did not pass, which rather nullify's his numbers. Am I saying that smokers don't account for more health problems? No, they do, but that doesn't mean it puts a major drain on you. As a non-smoker, you enjoy lower health and life insurance costs as well as lower doctors costs because you wouldn't need to visit the doctor as often as someone who does smoke.

Unless your going to a restaurant or park means trying to inhale every bit of second-hand smoke that you can get, then the little amounts that you would breathe in are not going to severely affect your health. Does it smell nasty? Yes, and I don't blame you for not wanting to smell it (I'm a smoker and don't much like the smell of second hand smoke), but that doesn't mean it is severly impacting your health.

And yes, smokers do get scape-goated. When the taxes went up, people said, "Why are you complaining? If you don't want to pay it then quit." But why should someone have to stop doing something to not be singled out on a tax? Why not increase the taxes on Foreign cars? They are a drain on our economy (by taking jobs away from us) so why not charge an extra 9,000 dollars in taxes to any consumer who chooses to buy foreign? Or increase the tax specifically on fast food? Or low grade gas? Doesn't make much sense does it?

Im not around industry very often, so it does not effect me as much . smoking does....every day of my life. Yes, it is a list of chemicals......chemicals that I have no choice to inhale around smokers. Shouldent I have the right not to breath them in? Why should I just bend over and except it?

That $55 billion was 10 years ago, can you imagine what is is today? So to say it dont put a strain on me is crap!

I am not trying to inhale the smoke.....where did I say that? The only thing that I want me and my kids to inhale is clean air. Unlike some people, we care about our health.

Comparing taxes on smokers and the auto industry is like comparing apples to oranges. The point of this post is not to talk about taxes, but about the act of smoking.

Cars are a necessity in everyday life for most people, smoking is not a necessity.......its a disese brought on by the smokers own actions.

You can keep comparing it to whatever you want.....but it all comes down to peoples rights. I should have the right to breath in fresh air......and you should have the right to polute your lungs.......just as long as your not invading my rights.

Hense deignated smoking areas.

crazy horse said:

Me not smoking in a restaurant does not effect annyone.

You smoking does.

My point exactly. If a smoker goes to a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking, they're still at liberty to go smoke outside or in their car or someplace where they don't affect other's with their second hand smoke. A non smoker doesn't have that choice. What it boils down to is that smoking negatively impacts non smokers, but non smokers do absolutely no harm to anyone by chosing not to smoke.

The fact that an amusement park is outside doesn't matter to the people who are affected by it. Such as what I mentioned earlier with the ride hosts at entrance getting smoke blown in their face every time a smoker enters their line.

[url][url]People are pushing for a smoking ban[url][url] in restaurants as a state law. So CP's restaurants might be affected slighlty. Also a lot of zoos have banned smoking in the park, because it is a family environment and to protect the animals! While CP does not have any animals (excluding some guests!) it still is a "family" park. At least that is were a lot of the money is. So PKI made a smart move, and I can see CP doing it/not enorcing it in a couple of years. A lot of places I know receive a lot of complaints about smoking and still do nothing. For PKI this is free press and makes them look good to the regular family person. Something I'm sure CP is always looking for!

Dr.Tim?
*** Edited 3/17/2005 8:54:30 PM UTC by newt***

crazy horse said:
Its called progress.

Driving past a steel plant?...lol. Thats a weak comparison. I may drive past a steel plant maybe once a year.......I am always surrounded by smokers.

What if you had to drive by that steel mill every day?

Ralph Wiggum said:

tambo said:

I don't feel sorry for you. Like you said, you chose to go to a restaurant where you knew there would be people smoking and now you say your rights were violated?

If you had gone to a smoke-free restuarant and that had happened, yes, I would agree with you.

So rather than eating at an establishment I enjoy you're saying I should be forced to seek out a smoke free restaurant whose food I probably wouldn't enjoy as much? Still sounds like the smokers are affecting my rights in that situation.

How can you enjoy a restuarant where people smoke? If you have always been so anti-smoking you would never have enjoyed that restuarant in the first place. Still sounds like weak argument to me.

But I dont.

Even if I had to, I would only be subject to the fumes(if any) for a few seconds. I am subject to smoking fumes all the time. I would have a choice to take a differant route......I cannot take a differant route when it comes to smokers.

Your reaching.

Ok crazy-horse we don;t need all the stats.

Smoking in a restaurant and smoking in an amusement park are two totally different subjects. I'm not going to go to a restaurant for 13 hours in a day, but I will go to CP for 13 hours. I'm not sure if any of you have been to Universal Orlando but the desiganted smoking areas are just plain stupid. Their location is right in the middle of the midway in most cases and in order for anybody to go by they have to walk through the smoking area. Besides the smoke in your face, how many cigatette butts do you see on the midway at CP. NONE. The sweeps do a great job of keeping it clean.

Smoking is obviously not a big concern to CP. I stayed at Hotel Breakers last year and was surprised to see ash trays on every table in the hotel and at the entrances to the elevators. The ENTIRE building with exception of the non-smoking rooms is smoking permitted.

How are they differant?

I dont have a choice in either of them places. In a restaurant I want to injoy my meal without smoke in the air. In an amusement park, I want to enjoy my day without having smoke blown in my face or getting my jersey burnt. Where are my choices? Not go at all?

I am all for designated smoking areas. That way smokers can still puff down on there cancer stick, and I dont have to be subject to it. Its a win win for everyone.

Also, why dont we need stats? Do they lie?
*** Edited 3/17/2005 9:23:51 PM UTC by crazy horse***

Please, all of you just STOP. This has become b*tching for the sake of b*tching.

Some people choose to smoke, others don't. Both have co-existed for decades and will continue to do so.

And, yes, I smoke. But I'd like to think of myself as a considerate smoker who is aware of those around him. I've been in line behind people who choose to release a gas giant. What's next? Banning people who fart in public?

MrScott

And we can continue to co-exist.

But when someone tells me to "deal with it", I am going to say something. I am not b*itching just for the heck of it, I am standing up for my rights as a non smoker. Rights that have been violated so many times I cant count.

Like I said above, smoking areas are a win win for smokers and non smokers. Smokers have the right to smoke, non smokers get to breath fresh air.

Mr scott..........I have been behind somone who busted an O ring. Its not a pleasent thing.

crazy horse said:

I am standing up for my rights as a non smoker. Rights that have been violated so many times I cant count.

And my rights as a smoker are becomming extremely limited. Dont talk about rights to a smoker becasue their right are violated more than yours.

In michigan there was just a $0.75 per pack raise in the tax totaling $1.50 in the last three years. Dont you think our right to smoke is being hindered by a government trying to rape up of our money. Thank god ohio is so close because they aren;t as big of a**holes as Michigan
*** Edited 3/18/2005 1:59:22 AM UTC by cptroublemaker***

gener said:
Poppycock, smokers more than pay for their way in the economy. They pay higher health benefits and insurance costs.

You should probably hit the economics books, my friend, because even in the case of higher premiums, insurance is still designed to spread the burden on payouts. If that weren't true, then someone like me that hasn't had a doctor bill in ten years would be getting a refund for all of those "wasted" premiums.

In michigan there was just a $0.75 per pack raise in the tax totaling $1.50 in the last three years. Dont you think our right to smoke is being hindered by a government trying to rape up of our money. Thank god ohio is so close because they aren;t as big of a**holes as Michigan

I think you should be charged $75 a pack to cover the cost of cleaning all your nasty cigarette butts off of the side of the road after you flick them out of your car window. And incase you never thought of it, you'd not be 'raped' for single penny if you didn't smoke. Paying to kill yourself, and then complaining about it, gotta love it.

crazy horse said:
But I dont.

Even if I had to, I would only be subject to the fumes(if any) for a few seconds. I am subject to smoking fumes all the time. I would have a choice to take a differant route......I cannot take a differant route when it comes to smokers.

Your reaching.

If you're subject to smoking fumes all the time you must be a half a set of siamese twins with a smoker for your partner.

No, I am constantly walking/working next to smokers.

cptroublemaker...........

You have the choice/right to go outside or in your car to smoke at a restaurant. I have no choices, I have to sit thrue it and accept it.

How would having designated smoking areas violate your rights? Youre still able to light your death sticks, and I can enjoy fresh air.

I have yet to see where anyones rights are being violated in that.

I'm a non-smoker, but I really don't think it is necessary to make the entire park smoke free, let the smokers smoke when they are walking around.

I agree with that. I am an AVID anti-smoker, I freakin' hate the habit and don't understand why anyone would do such a stupid ass thing. But preventing people from smoking in massive open spaces like some of the midways would be pretty stupid, I think. It would be VERY hard to enforce, as well.

Smoking in lines sucks, big time, though. They really need to improve on that.

I did notice, however, that in comparison to Paramount Canada's Wonderland [my home park], there was virtually no smoking at all at Cedar Point. Don't know what that's a reflection of, just an observation I made.

What I think is funny is this "it would be VERY hard to enforce" attitude.

If the rules are clearly posted, and its included in the Park Guide, then if there is STILL a problem enforcing the rule, well. . .

. . .it says something about the person smoking.

I think the "hard to enfore" attitude is stemming from a common attitude that smokers will smoke when and where they want.

I'm not questioning the validity of that attitude, just pointing it out.

Why should this rule be any different from any other rule?

:)

If there's no one around to enforce a rule, people will break it. Not everyone, of course, but quite a few people. It doesn't matter what the rule is.

Jaywalking, for example ;) Coming to a full stop at a stop sign, as well. Smoking is just the one on trial in this topic.

I am a non-smoker and am strongly against the habit. However, I don't really think this idea will work out and be able to be enforced enough to make it worth it. Let's face it, people don't follow posted rules, and it would be very hard to single out a smoker on a jam-packed midway in the height of summer.

I would much rather have security patrolling the waiting lines. If i walk past a smoker on the midway, I will not be around them long enough to even get a good whif of the smoke. But when im standing right next to them for an hour in line, I will. Basically, hardly anyone would actually follow the policy, and i'd much rather put the guards in the lines looking for smokers and line jumpers, instead of patrolling the midways for a smoker that nobody will be around for more than 3 seconds.