PDA

View Full Version : Disneyland Hotel and Paradise Pier Hotel going non-smoking?



Burnt Toast
02-02-2006, 11:19 AM
FYI, from what I heard... this upcoming March both the Paradise Pier Hotel and the Disneyland Hotel will be joining the Grand Californian Hotel in going strictly non-smoking only. No more smoking rooms at all at either property.

... and no, smoking outside on the mini-ledges and full balconies with the sliding glass door closed behind you at the Disneyland Hotel was not allowed before or nor will be after this new change. 8:)

infinite
02-02-2006, 11:26 AM
Woohoo…I am happy about that!

1shellybell
02-02-2006, 11:37 AM
Yep! I was told that when I called to book the DLH. I wanted to make sure to request non smoking and the reservation gal said that as of Mar 1 its all non smoking

Andrew
02-02-2006, 11:57 AM
Wonderful news! The Grand Californian is already all non-smoking, isn't it?

JookyG
02-02-2006, 12:02 PM
It's a shame there isn't room to accomodate everyone in the DLR hotels. I don't smoke anymore, but I do occasionally enjoy a puff while I'm on vacation. I guess it'll just have to be out on the grounds somewhere. I suppose that will offend someone too.


On a related note, I think all the no-smoking nanny laws popping up all over the country are hypocritical. People don't want it around, yet they'll gladly take the tax money from it. You don't get cancer from a whiff or two of cigarette smoke. I have to smell people's smelly cars, too much stinky cologne/perfume (gag), and poopy kids, and that's not any more pleasant that cigarettes, but I put up with it because it doesn't hurt me. I think people should have a right to do things that don't hurt others.

But what's next? Laws that prevent people from seeing smokers? "Seeing people smoke offends me, wah! There should be a law." Just make it illegal already! Oh, right, we can't...where would all that tax money come from if not from addicts?

scaeagles
02-02-2006, 12:13 PM
(As a non-smoker, I'll chime in on and agree with the rant)

What's going to be funny is when there are enough restrictions on smoking and taxes on cigarettes are so high that a majority of smokers actually stop, and the government will start to pass laws forcing hotels and private property to again permit smoking so that they can get their lost tax revenue back.

(back to the subject at hand)

As a nonsmoker, I don't see why the Disney property can't have smoking rooms. However, they must feel that it either does not affect their bottom line or improves their bottom line. Or, perhaps, a union or OSHA was complaining that maids had to clean smoking rooms. But it most likely comes down to a business decision, and if they thought they would lose money becuase of it, they'd never do it.

I thought the lobby of the Grand Californian allowed smoking - particularly during Christmas (ba-dum bum).

KDR
02-02-2006, 12:21 PM
On a related note, I think all the no-smoking nanny laws popping up all over the country are hypocritical. People don't want it around, yet they'll gladly take the tax money from it. You don't get cancer from a whiff or two of cigarette smoke. I have to smell people's smelly cars, too much stinky cologne/perfume (gag), and poopy kids, and that's not any more pleasant that cigarettes, but I put up with it because it doesn't hurt me. I think people should have a right to do things that don't hurt others.

Without arguing the second hand smoke thing, I always took the high cigarette taxes to be something that was meant to push people away from smoking rather than simply getting a tax out of someone. Smoking makes a lot of people very sick, and states often have to pick up the tab via MediCare/Aid/whatever.

prncsmsj
02-02-2006, 12:48 PM
I think all the no-smoking nanny laws popping up all over the country are hypocritical. People don't want it around, yet they'll gladly take the tax money from it.
Actually, the cost to the state for health costs from smoking far outweighs the money received from taxes. Let's use California as the example. The estimated revenue for 2006 is a little over $1 billion, while the smoking caused health cost is $8.4 billion for the state. If you look at it on a per pack rate, tax is 87 cents in CA, but the cost to the state is $14.14 per pack. The tax in no way covers what smoking costs the state. So, actually, the other taxpayers are subsidizing the smokers, not the other way around.

Back to the OP topic, I think it is a great idea for the hotels. Good for Disney!

samkj
02-02-2006, 04:32 PM
It's a shame there isn't room to accomodate everyone in the DLR hotels. I don't smoke anymore, but I do occasionally enjoy a puff while I'm on vacation. I guess it'll just have to be out on the grounds somewhere. I suppose that will offend someone too.


On a related note, I think all the no-smoking nanny laws popping up all over the country are hypocritical. People don't want it around, yet they'll gladly take the tax money from it. You don't get cancer from a whiff or two of cigarette smoke. I have to smell people's smelly cars, too much stinky cologne/perfume (gag), and poopy kids, and that's not any more pleasant that cigarettes, but I put up with it because it doesn't hurt me. I think people should have a right to do things that don't hurt others.

But what's next? Laws that prevent people from seeing smokers? "Seeing people smoke offends me, wah! There should be a law." Just make it illegal already! Oh, right, we can't...where would all that tax money come from if not from addicts?

If you don't like thst one, you'll hate this. (Personally I think its great!)

Printed in the Sacramento Bee 1/27/06

California became the first state in the country Thursday to place secondhand tobacco smoke alongside tailpipe and smokestack exhausts as a toxic air pollutant and candidate for regulation.
The designation, approved 6-0 by the California Air Resources Board, lends heavy ammunition to public health advocates seeking greater protection, especially for children. It is expected to revive legislative efforts to ban drivers from smoking when children are in their vehicles and bolster efforts to curb smoking in multifamily dwellings.


"We're already pushing cities and counties to set aside some apartment complexes for smoke-free housing," said Paul Knepprath, spokesman for the American Lung Association of California. "This is going to help."
California has pioneered some of the world's toughest anti-cigarette laws that ban smoking in nearly all enclosed workplaces, restaurants, bars and public buildings.

Thursday's action alone does not expand smoking restrictions. It merely identifies secondhand smoke a "toxic air contaminant," on a par with cancer-causing diesel soot, asbestos and lead.

But the listing requires the air board to evaluate whether any measures are needed to reduce exposures. Air board officials, who are more accustomed to setting clean-fuel and engine standards, said they didn't expect to impose any mandates.

"Our greatest role will be education about smoking in cars ... because that is a staggering exposure," said Catherine Witherspoon, the air board's executive officer.

Breathable smoke particles in vehicles ranged up to 10 times higher than those found in some smokers' homes, according to the air board's review of studies.

Putting secondhand smoke in the same category as the most-toxic automotive and industrial pollutants should spur more cities, employers and smoking parents to reduce exposure on their own initiative, said Joan Denton, director of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which conducted the health-effects analyses supporting the new hazard designation.

"Californians, especially parents, would not willingly fill their homes with motor vehicle exhaust, and they should feel the same way about tobacco smoke," Denton said.

In listing secondhand smoke Thursday, the air board accepted findings by the state health hazard group and university scientists that go further than any before in establishing a link between breast cancer and breathing of secondhand smoke.

The scientists made international news last spring in concluding that exposure to tobacco smoke is not merely associated with breast cancer but clearly can cause the disease in young women who never smoked.

They found, from close review of several recent studies, that exposure to tobacco smoke elevates the risk of breast cancer 70 to 120 percent in young women, primarily those who have not reached menopause. The research on postmenopausal women is inconclusive.

The highest risk group would include women working in bars and restaurants in states where smoking is permitted, said Dr. Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Glantz was one of nine university-based California scientists who reviewed the state's smoking studies.

Not all health experts, including those with the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Surgeon General's Office, are as sure about the connection to breast cancer, saying more evidence is needed.

After analyzing thousands of studies from around world, the California scientists added premature birth and the induction and exacerbation of asthma in adults to the list of ills that had already been linked to secondhand or "environmental" smoke, including heart disease and lung and nasal sinus cancer in adults.

The research also found stronger links between secondhand smoke and sudden infant death syndrome and respiratory and heart diseases.

Notably absent from the Sacramento meeting were representatives of the tobacco industry.

"We decline to comment," Mike Neese, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA, told The Bee.

Cynthia Hallett, executive director of the nonprofit Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights in Berkeley, predicted that the California smoking studies, the product of more than a decade of research and peer review, will have far-reaching influence across the United States and abroad.

The report probably will come into play in the current debate over smoking restrictions in Utah and in many towns across the Midwest, Hallett said.

Sawyer, who made his debut Thursday as Gov. Schwarzenegger's newly appointed air board chairman, said he just returned from Ireland, where he learned that the California agencies' tobacco research served as the scientific justification for that country's recent smoking ban in pubs and restaurants.

cfrith
02-02-2006, 05:08 PM
From someone who had to live with a parent that smoked in the house and in the car all the time I was growing up... smoking really bothers me. It makes me so mad when parents smoke around their kids. I live in Michigan and hate going to most restuarants because most still allow smoking. I feel that if you're going to do that to your body, do it outside away from others. It completely grosses me out that anyone would want to light up indoors and inhale all that nasty stuff. I have asthma and constantly get upper respiratory infections and I'm sure it has something to do with alllllll those years around second hand smoke. I think it's wonderful Disney is going non-smoking!!!

SpacedOutCM
02-02-2006, 05:17 PM
If anyone is curious, Mintcrocodile at MI gives some reasons why they are changing all the rooms to non-smoking

http://www.mouseinfo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30473

Minnie66
02-02-2006, 06:21 PM
Luckily because of the new laws most people will be spared from learning what trying to breath through a drinking straw feels like. You are fortunate if you have never had to watch someone hooked up to IV's in both hands and feet, with oxygen turned up full, struggle just to get a small amount of oxygen into their lungs. Smoking does hurt you and it does hurt others. Although the comment about what happens when they aren't collecting tax money anymore was pretty good. On a serious note however, if you have never struggled with breathing difficulties you can't understand how important this is. Long after the cig. is put out and you have left the hotel, the toxins remain in the rooms and those sensitive to it and can suffer extreme problems. The smoke from one room also travels through the ventalation and everyone breathes it. I'm not saying there should be a total ban or that choosing to smoke is bad, just that I support the need for the hotels to go smoke free.

kimbopotamus
02-02-2006, 07:39 PM
Yay for Disney Hotels!

I was just thinking about smoking issues while planning my trip this month. My Mom has smoked all her life and I personally think it's one of the most disgusting things there is. Now an adult, I do not allow smoking anywhere near my home, in my car, or elsewhere around me. While making my DL daily itinerary (I plan everything down to the potty breaks!), my Mom told me to make sure I schedule in her 'smoke breaks' every 1/2 hour. I told her, "You can take a map and find your own smoking area, I'll go the opposite direction, thank you!"