Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Smoking at the Disneyland Resort starting May 1st.

Collapse

Get Away Today

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • They’re still gonna have smoking areas outside of the parks. Where exactly I’m not sure. I’m a smoker and I knew this day was coming. Majority rules. I always try to be as respectful as I can to non smokers. When I’m in between parks and have a cigarette I always smoke next to the trash cans that have the ashtrays on top of them.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by HeavyAaron View Post


      Fantastic.

      You have qualified your statement in two ways (outdoors and segregated) in such a way that I have intentionally chosen to not previously comment. However, since you asked I will answer, as best I can from my own personal ideology and vantagepoint as an economist, but understand that I try to live more in an academic bubble than the exact scenario you prescribe here.

      With regards to "harm" I must firstly point out that you have tended to use the term in a more strict medical sense. I am not a medical doctor nor medical researcher, nor do I claim to be, and I will not answer it from that perspective. I am an economist. So for me harm is much broader. A person is harmed literally when they behave as though they are (i.e. when they would voluntarily incur costs to avoid the harm).

      Interestingly to your question then, it would interest you to know that I have never been to Egypt, and I have no plans on ever going to Egypt, yet I would be harmed if the Pyramids at Giza were destroyed (say with a bomb). I.e. I would be willing to pay some amount of money to prevent that from occurring, even though I will never experience the Pyramids myself. I value their mere existence, and I would be harmed if they ceased to exist. Similarly, I suspect the mere existence of smokers in Disneyland bothers some people even if it does not personally impact them in the slightest whatsoever. I am not one of those people. To me, that's crazy. I would much rather the smokers be smoking all they like if I were not personally impacted (I celebrated the advent of vaping with the hopes that it would achieve that end, actually). I merely raise this point, to bring up this reality - that harm can exist from simply an idea or concept.

      Another thing that follows from that, is that harm is individual. What harms one person does not harm another. And the magnitudes differ as well. Disneyland is an interesting example. Some people enjoy It's a Small World (I among them.) For others experiencing that attraction would constitute immense harm on the scale of mental torcher.

      How, then, shall I answer your question? "is outdoor smoking in segregated areas harmful to other people?"

      Fortunately, you asked it as a binary (yes/no) question. And that is easy. That answer is "Yes, absolutely, some people would be harmed." But that is not the interesting question. The interesting question is how many people and to what magnitude would people be harmed. And that depends on the degree of separation, the number of smokers, the weather, people's individual preferences, personalities, culture, and a zillion other variables that your question abstracts over.

      So, if you really wanted the answer because you were proposing a solution, you would need to be far more precise in the proposal (I propose a smoking area located at xxx operating between the hours of x and y designed to accommodate z smokers). And then you would need to A/B test that against a control (presumably a complete smoking ban) with all other variables controlled for, compare park demand, etc., to measure perceived harm. There are practical considerations limiting the idealized experimental form. But I presume Disney has done some modelling of this sort before making decisions, probably involving hiring econometrists as consultants to do this analysis with much better data than either of us have access to and with far more time than either of us are going to devote to the problem. They reached the complete ban answer.
      I suggest they move the smoking areas backstage, in an area that is at least 50 feet from either cast members backstage, or guests in the park. If all smoking is done at least 50 feet away from everyone else, there should be no issues.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Barnabus Collins View Post

        I suggest they move the smoking areas backstage, in an area that is at least 50 feet from either cast members backstage, or guests in the park. If all smoking is done at least 50 feet away from everyone else, there should be no issues.
        If you say so.

        I cannot analyze such a proposal for you. As I stated, neither you or I have the data to do so.

        Disney, however, does.

        So, either:

        1) They considered this option and rejected it. In which case, even though you might find it brilliant, it actually isn't if you knew all of the relevant facts.

        or

        2) With the best imagineers on the planet, you beat them to the idea of having a smoking area backstage.

        I'll leave the application of Occam's Razor as an exercise to the reader to decide which of these is the more likely possibility.

        Aaron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by HeavyAaron View Post

          If you say so.

          I cannot analyze such a proposal for you. As I stated, neither you or I have the data to do so.

          Disney, however, does.

          So, either:

          1) They considered this option and rejected it. In which case, even though you might find it brilliant, it actually isn't if you knew all of the relevant facts.

          or

          2) With the best imagineers on the planet, you beat them to the idea of having a smoking area backstage.

          I'll leave the application of Occam's Razor as an exercise to the reader to decide which of these is the more likely possibility.

          Aaron
          And because you said it, those can be the only possibilities. There can be no other options as you have not thought of them.

          Comment


          • Smoking areas backstage lol...
            So, who'd like to go on Superstar Limo some more?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by HiddenMickey87 View Post
              Smoking areas backstage lol...
              So, who'd like to go on Superstar Limo some more?
              I actually enjoyed superstar limo, it was not that bad a ride.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Barnabus Collins View Post

                I suggest they move the smoking areas backstage, in an area that is at least 50 feet from either cast members backstage, or guests in the park. If all smoking is done at least 50 feet away from everyone else, there should be no issues.
                Just going to point out that backstage areas are not likely to be 50 feet from any person either, backstage areas are busy and full of traffic moving things around the park and getting cast members to and from areas in the park, I think your vision of a open space backstage is not reality. I still say the best solution is an enclosed vented and filtered smoking room.
                BGood! It's not just my motto its my name!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mickdaddy View Post

                  Just going to point out that backstage areas are not likely to be 50 feet from any person either, backstage areas are busy and full of traffic moving things around the park and getting cast members to and from areas in the park, I think your vision of a open space backstage is not reality. I still say the best solution is an enclosed vented and filtered smoking room.
                  I just mentioned backstage, as when they need space, that is usually were they find it. I do like the airport enclosed room idea.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Barnabus Collins View Post

                    I just mentioned backstage, as when they need space, that is usually were they find it. I do like the airport enclosed room idea.
                    I think its a win win solution myself. As a non-smoker I was trying to think of a best solution for all just like many of the smokers have commented that they try to be as respectful as possible when they are smoking I think as a non-smoker offering up logical solutions is also a good way to go about it rather than just say yay because it is going away (which I am happy about for myself)
                    BGood! It's not just my motto its my name!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Barnabus Collins View Post

                      And because you said it, those can be the only possibilities. There can be no other options as you have not thought of them.
                      No. It's the only set of possibilities because it's a logically exhaustive set. It is not the only set of possibilities because I said so.

                      I'll formally prove the exhaustivity, if you like, but I thought it was fairly apparent.

                      1) Disney is not building a backstage smoking area <- by assertion
                      2) Disney either considered building a backstage smoking area (2a) or Disney did not consider building a backstage smoking area (2b). ([P or not P] is always true)
                      3) If Disney considered building a smoking area (2a), they rejected doing so because 1).
                      4) Therefore either 3 or (2b)

                      QED.
                      Last edited by HeavyAaron; 04-10-2019, 01:32 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by HeavyAaron View Post

                        No. It's the only set of possibilities because it's a logically exhaustive set. It is not the only set of possibilities because I said so.

                        I'll formally prove the exhaustivity, if you like, but I thought it was fairly apparent.

                        1) Disney is not building a backstage smoking area <- by assertion
                        2) Disney either considered building a backstage smoking area (2a) or Disney did not consider building a backstage smoking area (2b). ([P or not P] is always true)
                        3) If Disney considered building a smoking area (2a), they rejected doing so because 1).
                        4) Therefore either 3 or (2b)

                        QED.
                        I am going to say I disagree, but that is ok, we all get to have our own opinions. Also, writing a choose your own adventure reply was kinda fun.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by HeavyAaron View Post

                          No. It's the only set of possibilities because it's a logically exhaustive set. It is not the only set of possibilities because I said so.

                          I'll formally prove the exhaustivity, if you like, but I thought it was fairly apparent.

                          1) Disney is not building a backstage smoking area <- by assertion
                          2) Disney either considered building a backstage smoking area (2a) or Disney did not consider building a backstage smoking area (2b). ([P or not P] is always true)
                          3) If Disney considered building a smoking area (2a), they rejected doing so because 1).
                          4) Therefore either 3 or (2b)

                          QED.
                          And ending your reply with QED, that just seems, as they used to say, puttin on airs.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Barnabus Collins View Post

                            I am going to say I disagree, but that is ok, we all get to have our own opinions.
                            It's not an opinion. It's a fact. You don't get more factual than a formal, logical proof.

                            And ending your reply with QED, that just seems, as they used to say, puttin on airs.


                            I believe it is also said, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts." This is in the latter category. If you believe the proof in error, then you can show the fault in the reasoning. But so long as the proof is sound, it is factual, and not subject to opinion.

                            By the way, disproof here is easy. You can disprove that a set is exhaustive by counter example. So, simply provide any hypothetical scenario that is not covered by the possibilities:

                            1) Disney considered, and rejected a backstage smoking area.
                            2) Disney did not consider a backstage smoking area.

                            That still results in Disney not creating a backstage smoking area.

                            Seriously, this is so straightforward, it borders on
                            tautological, yet you still hold that it isn't true. That's amazing.

                            Last edited by HeavyAaron; 04-10-2019, 02:14 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by HeavyAaron View Post

                              It's not an opinion. It's a fact. You don't get more factual than a formal, logical proof.



                              I believe it is also said, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts." This is in the latter category. If you believe the proof in error, then you can show the fault in the reasoning. But so long as the proof is sound, it is factual, and not subject to opinion.

                              By the way, disproof here is easy. You can disprove that a set is exhaustive by counter example. So, simply provide any hypothetical scenario that is not covered by the possibilities:

                              1) Disney considered, and rejected a backstage smoking area.
                              2) Disney did not consider a backstage smoking area.

                              That still results in Disney not creating a backstage smoking area.

                              Seriously, this is so straightforward, it borders on
                              tautological, yet you still hold that it isn't true. That's amazing.
                              I am amazing, thank you so much!

                              Comment


                              • I had a professor in college that started his class by asking how many people believe 1 + 1 = 2. When the entire class raised their hands, he said you are all wrong, and if you refuse to let go of the "fact" that 1 + 1 = 2, you do not belong in his class.

                                Kinda off topic, but I was thinking about that and it gave me a chuckle.

                                Comment


                                • Will Disney be installing air purifiers in the bathrooms so us non smokers can breathe?

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by brian11811 View Post
                                    Will Disney be installing air purifiers in the bathrooms so us non smokers can breathe?
                                    I really hope people don't smoke in the bathrooms. That bugs me to no end. They should treat it like an airplane bathroom, you smoke, you get banned.

                                    Comment


                                    • Honestly, I’d rather smell cigarette smoke as much as I hate it, than smell clogged toilets. I think it’s the only thing that can mask it. I’m looking at you bathroom by the fire station.

                                      Comment


                                      • I will continue to smoke anyway in protest despite the ban. Banning smoking from all areas is un American and it is stupid because now people will just go smoke inside the restroom stalls and create even more problems. Telling us there is NO place inside the park to allow smoking is ridiculous. Walt Disney smoked everywhere it the park.

                                        I am glad they are clamping down on strollers but they aren't going far enough. Strollers should be banned for any children older than age 3. If Disney is trying to be health conscious about smoking, maybe a good idea would be to encourage kids to start walking for themselves earlier instead of riding in strollers until age 10. Seems to me the exercise wouldn't hurt some of these soft kids.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Whipland View Post
                                          I will continue to smoke anyway in protest despite the ban. Banning smoking from all areas is un American and it is stupid because now people will just go smoke inside the restroom stalls and create even more problems. Telling us there is NO place inside the park to allow smoking is ridiculous. Walt Disney smoked everywhere it the park.

                                          I am glad they are clamping down on strollers but they aren't going far enough. Strollers should be banned for any children older than age 3. If Disney is trying to be health conscious about smoking, maybe a good idea would be to encourage kids to start walking for themselves earlier instead of riding in strollers until age 10. Seems to me the exercise wouldn't hurt some of these soft kids.
                                          curious, do you continue to smoke on airplanes too? if not, you really should do it. stand up for your rights!
                                          L + L = R

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X