# Timeshare smoking rules



## KCI (Aug 18, 2013)

We own at the Surf Club at Marco Island, Florida and the board voted to ban smoking on outside balconies about 8 months ago. They just sent out their annual email news letter and the smoking ban was one of the subjects discussed. Previously they had banned smoking inside the building, but this change has caught many of the owners off guard and there is an uproar on the owner's website. Smokers are of course against it and non smokers (the vocal majority) are really happy it has happened. It seems to me this is happening at other timeshares, But I really can't say for sure. I'm not looking for pros and cons of this, but just info on other timeshares that have gone the path of not allowing smoking on balconies.  
KCI's Wingman


----------



## DeniseM (Aug 18, 2013)

The Westin Ka'anapali on Maui, just banned smoking on lanais.  

I think smokers should expect more and more limits at time goes on, because the laws are becoming progressively stricter in most US locations.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 18, 2013)

It could well be a legality issue- say no smoking within 25' of any entrance. That would also include patios and lanai's. Or it could just be majority rule. Democracy works that way. As long as smoking areas are provided where the addicted can go to get their fix and those who choose not to smell the stink don't have to, what's the harm?

Has Florida recently changed it's 'clean air' ordinances? Other places are making them more strict. 

Jim


----------



## Sea Six (Aug 18, 2013)

on another board...
http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196920


----------



## Bucky (Aug 19, 2013)

Marriott OceanWatch has banned it finally.


----------



## theo (Aug 19, 2013)

*Good riddance!*



KCI said:


> We own at the Surf Club at Marco Island, Florida and the board voted to ban smoking on outside balconies about 8 months ago. They just sent out their annual email news letter and the smoking ban was one of the subjects discussed. Previously they had banned smoking inside the building, but this change has caught many of the owners off guard and there is an uproar on the owner's website. Smokers are of course against it and non smokers (the vocal majority) are really happy it has happened. It seems to me this is happening at other timeshares, But I really can't say for sure. I'm not looking for pros and cons of this, but just info on other timeshares that have gone the path of not allowing smoking on balconies.
> KCI's Wingman



One resort in coastal SW FL where I own a few weeks, in Lee County and not all that far from Marco Island, went even one step further about a year ago, banning smoking *anywhere on the entire resort property*. 
That includes balconies, parking lot, entire pool area, etc. I was entirely unaware of the discussion or the HOA decision until it was announced in a owner newsletter, but I am all for it --- 100%.  
The overwhelming majority of other owners clearly feel exactly the same way.

Generally speaking, I don't think that many smokers actually even realize that the residual stench of their habit both travels *and* lingers on. Smoking out on a lanai or balcony can (and very often does) still travel and leave that nasty stench behind (including inside adjoining or nearby unit(s), for *other* occupant(s) to *have to* involuntarily share and "enjoy". Personally, I don't own any of my numerous intervals or pay my considerable maintenance fees to arrive to occupy my unit, only to find it smelling like a half-full ash tray! 

P.S. I admit that I somehow find it oddly amusing to occasionally see the new resort manager (...a smoker) standing around beside the aromatic dumpster located just outside the property fence, smoking a butt.


----------



## kwindham (Aug 19, 2013)

Wyndham's Ka eo Kai in Princeville HI is totally non smoking.  You have to cross the street to be off the grounds of the resort to smoke.  Trust me, I know, I am a smoker and that was not fun for my may 2 week stay.  I have always tried to be considerate of my surroundings and not smoke where it would bother anyone.  I don't generally smoke in public at all, usually just outside on my patio at home.  My parents have always hated the smell, so I just got used to not smoking around people.  And yes I realize it is a *nasty* habit, but its my habit and I do try to be considerate of others, most smokers don't.  I usually sit outside and drink my morning coffee and have a smoke at home.  I really missed that at Ka.

I think how the units are layed out plays a huge part in how the smell will carry.  If they are close together or congested then it def will carry over to your neighbor.  At ka, I really don't think it would have very much if at all.


----------



## Twinkstarr (Aug 19, 2013)

It's been a few years but Disney stopped smoking on the balconies. But they do offer smoking areas. 

We were just up at Bluegreen Mountain Run(we own a different section than the main resort, but do trade into Mtn. Run) and someone was complaining about an ashtray on the balcony. Well they still allow smoking on the balconies since the resort provides an ashtray, according to the front desk.  Guess I never noticed them before because I stay in the main section in winter and never gone out on the balcony.


----------



## Patri (Aug 19, 2013)

theo said:


> P.S. I somehow find it oddly amusing to occasionally see the new resort manager (...a smoker) standing around beside the dumpster located just outside the property fence, having a butt.



I hate to see this at medical facilities too!
Although I am a non-smoker, I don't like to see this much animosity toward smokers if there would be a place for them to go that is out of the way. After all, it is legal.
If a property was huge and had a total ban, smokers might drive to the highway and pull off to the side just to get a puff. That is not safe at all. We can judge them for their habit, but that is not useful. There can be a solution if the non-smoking majority would really look.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 19, 2013)

Patri said:


> I hate to see this at medical facilities too!
> Although I am a non-smoker,* I don't like to see this much animosity toward smokers* if there would be a place for them to go that is out of the way. After all, it is legal.
> If a property was huge and had a total ban, smokers might drive to the highway and pull off to the side just to get a puff. That is not safe at all. We can judge them for their habit, but that is not useful. *There can be a solution if the non-smoking majority would really look.*



It is only smokers who feel that there is animosity towards smokers. Not true at all. The animosity is towards smok*ing*. Smokers and their families are welcome to stay in smoke-free facilities, smokers sit at smoke free tables at restaurants, care for non smoking infants. They just are restricted from doing it *while smoking*.

I think the correct way- in light of existing laws- is to ban the inhaling of burning material on the entire premises. Any business or public facility has the right to do this. As has been correctly said in this very thread, the stench of smoking lasts far longer than the smoke itself. It's easy to find a smoking area. Even if it's unoccupied, all one needs do is follow your nose.

The solution alluded to above would (and someday likely will) be to recognize than it is just dumb to keep the use of a product that if used as it is designed to be used, sickens 100% of it's users and shortens the lives of 1/3 of them, legal. It would take more political cojones than exist today to *illegalize* the growing and processing and sales of a crop that arguably brought about the founding (strike that- it wasn't lost, so how could it be found?) and Europeanization of our country starting some 400 years ago. I predict that someday, after I'm pushing up daises , it will happen.

The smoke free majority will take whatever small victories they can get toward elimination of this scourge. We'll all breathe easier when it's done.

Jim


----------



## theo (Aug 19, 2013)

*Clarification of a point...*



Patri said:


> <snip> We can judge them for their habit, but that is not useful. <snip>



To be very clear on this particular point, I am a big fan of free will and I pass no judgement on smokers. 
I simply do not choose or want to involuntarily "share" the smelly, unpleasant, long-lasting (...and medically unhealthy to involuntary, innocent *others*) by-products of anyone's personal choice to smoke. That's all.


----------



## Blues (Aug 19, 2013)

Patri said:


> I hate to see this at medical facilities too!



My oldest sister died of lung cancer after a lifetime 3 pack-a-day habit.   Of course, smoking affected not only her lungs, but her heart and other bodily functions as well.  Funniest story was reported by mother, who is 91 now and was probably 83 at the time.  After getting a phone call that her eldest daughter was in the ER for heart problems, she drove up to find said daughter in the parking lot, hospital gown flapping in the breeze, one hand on her IV pole and the other holding a cigarette.

The lengths that an addicted smoker will go to...

-Bob


----------



## LUVourMarriotts (Aug 19, 2013)

Marriott banned smoking worldwide (or pretty close) for all properties, including the Vacation Club locations a few years ago.  As for the balcony, that was somewhat of a question mark for a little while.  But, Marriott's rule (whether they enforce it or not) is that if there is any smoke smell in the room after you leave, you pay the $250 cleaning fee.  Smoking on the balcony with the SGD's open will easily allow that smell to come in and "stick" to the whole villa.

I can't find it in the forums, but I am pretty sure that at least at Aruba Surf Club, they put in a rule that you cannot smoke on balconies either.  There is a limited smoking zone, off to the side of the property.  At least there was last I was there.  I would be fine if they removed that as well.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 19, 2013)

Blues said:


> My oldest sister died of lung cancer after a lifetime 3 pack-a-day habit.
> 
> The lengths that an addicted smoker will go to...



I think all of us have anecdotal stories of loved ones suffering the effects of ingesting tobacco as the makers intended. If only it weren't true....


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 19, 2013)

LUVourMarriotts said:


> Marriott banned smoking worldwide (or pretty close) for all properties, including the Vacation Club locations a few years ago.  As for the balcony, that was somewhat of a question mark for a little while.  But, Marriott's rule (whether they enforce it or not) is that if there is any smoke smell in the room after you leave, you pay the $250 cleaning fee.  Smoking on the balcony with the SGD's open will easily allow that smell to come in and "stick" to the whole villa.
> 
> I can't find it in the forums, but I am pretty sure that at least at Aruba Surf Club, they put in a rule that you cannot smoke on balconies either.  There is a limited smoking zone, off to the side of the property.  At least there was last I was there.  I would be fine if they removed that as well.



I'm not a smoker anymore but I have a lot of sympathy for owners who purchased their timeshares back when smoking was allowed all over the resorts, inside and out.  Their stays are much less enjoyable now, no doubt.

I'm not advocating that smoking should be allowed in units or on balconies or poolside with other guests around or in the gas grill areas where guests are cooking their meals ... BUT ... I completely disagree with any policy that forces an owner/guest to completely leave the property in order to light up.  Most resorts have plenty of outdoor space which can be designated as smoking areas.

IMO the anti-smoking campaign is taken to a ridiculous level of entitlement on the part of non-smokers.  Smoking areas should be designated onsite, smokers should have to pay fines if they choose to smoke elsewhere, and there's no reason why non-smokers can't compromise and be slightly inconvenienced by their choice to avoid a few smoking areas.

Quite honestly, during any of our trips I've been much more negatively affected by the folks who overdo their alcohol consumption.  I wish the resorts would do something about that.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 19, 2013)

I applaud all the resorts that are banning smoking altogether. If you are a smoker, and a timeshare visitor, perhaps it's a good sign telling you it's time to quit. You'll feel better, and live longer, too.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## sjsharkie (Aug 19, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> IMO the anti-smoking campaign is taken to a ridiculous level of entitlement on the part of non-smokers.  Smoking areas should be designated onsite, smokers should have to pay fines if they choose to smoke elsewhere, and there's no reason why non-smokers can't compromise and be slightly inconvenienced by their choice to avoid a few smoking areas.
> 
> Quite honestly, during any of our trips I've been much more negatively affected by the folks who overdo their alcohol consumption.  I wish the resorts would do something about that.



I understand your point, but my daughter is 2 1/2 -- she doesn't have the capacity right now to understand the dangers of smoking.  While I don't let her run around unsupervised at this age and I will counsel her on the dangers of smoking when she gets older, kids don't always make the right choices.  I don't think the anti-smoking campaign is taken to a ridiculous level of entitlement.

I also wonder how we will feel if marijuana is included in the mix.  In Washington and Colorado, they are still sorting out exactly how to implement the will of the people, but make no mistake, it may be commonplace 10 years from now to see people smoking weed out in public.  (On a side note, since small quantities are now an infraction -- basically similar to a traffic violation -- in CA, I smell it when I pass by the Union Square BART station almost every time I'm down there.)  Since it is not something I would want my kids exposed to, I would support banning smoking on resort property since they will not likely be able to restrict what type of smoking is done if marijuana is legalized in every state.  I wonder how WA and CO timeshares will handle it once the laws are fully implemented?

Just my opinion.  Smokers have the option of staying elsewhere if they feel the timeshare rules are too draconian.  Timeshare rules as a whole are supposed to benefit the majority of guests -- I think ones that ban smoking completely do benefit the majority and I personally am in favor of it.

-ryan


----------



## Sandi Bo (Aug 19, 2013)

I want to second what SueDonJ stated.  All things within reason.  Well said.


----------



## Paumavista (Aug 19, 2013)

*As a parent..........*



SueDonJ said:


> Quite honestly, during any of our trips I've been much more negatively affected by the folks who overdo their alcohol consumption.  I wish the resorts would do something about that.



Agree.  (with your entire post)


Now can't we all share and play nice...........


----------



## ScoopKona (Aug 19, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> I don't think the anti-smoking campaign is taken to a ridiculous level of entitlement.



I think if there is any sense of entitlement, it is on the part of the smokers. And, yes, clearing the air from stale tobacco smoke will pay dividends down the line when we also want to clear the air of stale marijuana smoke. (It's a toss-up as to which smells worse. I vote for tobacco. But they're both nasty.)

Of course, the "medical entitlement" crowd will fight tooth and nail for their "right" to smoke weed in their rooms, on their balcony, in their car, in the airplane and every other place they can.

The big problem is the glut of inconsiderate, self-important nitwits in this country.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 19, 2013)

sjsharkie said:


> ... Timeshare rules as a whole are supposed to benefit the majority of guests ...



Obviously we all have different opinions and nobody's mind is going to be changed.  The only reason I posted was to throw my opinion into the mix, not to engage in a futile argument.  Anybody can take it or leave it.  

But about this one thing that I pulled out of your post ... it's not true that all timeshare rules are made for the benefit of the majority.  If the majority had their say, everybody would be able to stay wherever they wanted whenever they wanted in the best units on property.  It can't happen.  If the majority had their say, all timeshare companies would take back every timeshare when the Owners tire of them.  I suppose that could happen, but it would mean the demise of the timeshare companies.  Etc etc etc

And as with a whole lot of other things in life, sometimes the Majority Rule translates simply to the Mob Rule.  When implemented, all the Mob Rule does is result in the minority's rights and privileges being stripped away unfairly.


----------



## sjsharkie (Aug 19, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> Obviously we all have different opinions and nobody's mind is going to be changed.  The only reason I posted was to throw my opinion into the mix, not to engage in a futile argument.  Anybody can take it or leave it.



Agree with this point.  Same reason why I posted -- to throw my opinion in to the mix.



SueDonJ said:


> But about this one thing that I pulled out of your post ... it's not true that all timeshare rules are made for the benefit of the majority.  If the majority had their say, everybody would be able to stay wherever they wanted whenever they wanted in the best units on property.  It can't happen.  If the majority had their say, all timeshare companies would take back every timeshare when the Owners tire of them.  I suppose that could happen, but it would mean the demise of the timeshare companies.  Etc etc etc



We'll agree to disagree here.  The HOA Board makes decisions on what major rules are implemented for the most part -- that generally reflects the majority of voting ownership since they elect board members.  In your example, my feeling is that the majority of owners are in favor of a fair way to distribute views/wishes and are also not in favor of taking back every timeshare when owners tire of them.

Again, this is just my opinion and not intended to be an attack on anyone's personal views.  I think with marijuana legalization (or reduction of enforcement in places like CA), it is something that the resorts need to think about as they consider revising their timeshare rules and policies regarding smoking.

-ryan


----------



## hypnotiq (Aug 19, 2013)

Speaking on the topic of marijuana legalization and WA state (since I live in WA).

I attended an outdoor concert last week, fairly small venue. 
Before hand, when I read the FAQ for the venue, it was noted in several areas that it was a *non-smoking* venue and there was a designated area in back for people to smoke.

I thought great, since its a reggae/hip-hop concert, I wont have to deal with the smoke (both kinds). Especially marijuana, as I have little interest in having a contact high.

However, the venue did zero enforcement of any smoking whatsoever, and it wasn't hard to find those that were smoking marijuana (it was at least 50% of the crowd).

I sent feedback to the venue management after the concert which pretty much said, "Hey, don't advertise that you're a non-smoking venue if you're not going to enforce it."

The response I got back, verbatim: "Thanks for your feedback. Enforcing smoking policy at a reggae festival can be challenging as there is heavy use among the patrons. Perhaps you should consider this when attending future events."

I was floored.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Aug 19, 2013)

I don't know that int'l Marriott TSs prohibit smoking on balconies. When at the Aruba Surf Club in 2009 I was appalled to be informed that smoking on the balcony was allowed and it really effected our stay because someone insisted on smoking a cigar somewhere near us.

Has that rule changed at Marriott Aruba Surf Club? 

And just this past July we spent a week at the Marriott Newport Coast Villas in CA and had a smoker next door. We received this great OF view unit and on the first time on the balcony I glanced over and saw a full bowl of cigarette butts. It was disgusting. Sure enough with a half hour the person was smoking. I complained immediately because it really does not only just effect the balcony but you can't leave your doors open or it will come all the way in the unit. 

It stopped for a day and then happened again. This time I complained very loudly and I told them not only to stop them from smoking but to also throw out the bowl of cigarette butts that stunk up the place without even smoking them. Finally after the 2 complaint it stopped for the rest of the week.

I'm all about personal liberties to but not when they infringes on others.

 If I were a smoker I'd sit in the bathroom with the fan and shower on and door closed. It won't get on the furniture to stink up the room for future guests and the smoker can inhale his own 2nd hand smoke.


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 19, 2013)

hypnotiq said:


> The response I got back, verbatim: "Thanks for your feedback. Enforcing smoking policy at a reggae festival can be challenging as there is heavy use among the patrons. Perhaps you should consider this when attending future events."
> 
> I was floored.



Maybe the local Health Department enforcement group would be more interested and possibly be able to issue tickets and/or fines?


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 19, 2013)

MOXJO7282 said:


> If I were a smoker I'd sit in the bathroom with the fan and shower on and door closed. It won't get on the furniture to stink up the room for future guests and the smoker can inhale his own 2nd hand smoke.



This doesn't help. The smoke still adheres to every surface. We were assigned a room at a Radisson hotel where a previous guest in the room had done just this, and it was about all I could do to not have them charge ME $250 cleaning fee when I complained at the desk.

Nothing short of having an outdoor smoking area AWAY from all structures will keep the vile stench and unhealthy accumulation off surfaces and people where it doesn't belong.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 19, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> [...]it's not true that all timeshare rules are made for the benefit of the majority.  If the majority had their say, everybody would be able to stay wherever they wanted whenever they wanted in the best units on property.  It can't happen.  If the majority had their say, all timeshare companies would take back every timeshare when the Owners tire of them.  I suppose that could happen, but it would mean the demise of the timeshare companies.  Etc etc etc



Absurd. There are practical issues involved with smoking, along with every other decision which impacts all timeshare guests. It is impractical to allow everybody to "stay wherever they wanted whenever they wanted in the best units on property." It is practical, on the other hand, to eliminate all smoking on a property.

Analogies only work to your advantage when you offer a similar realistic situation as a comparison.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## klpca (Aug 19, 2013)

hypnotiq said:


> Speaking on the topic of marijuana legalization and WA state (since I live in WA).
> 
> I attended an outdoor concert last week, fairly small venue.
> Before hand, when I read the FAQ for the venue, it was noted in several areas that it was a *non-smoking* venue and there was a designated area in back for people to smoke.
> ...



I've been on the fence about going to a Ziggy Marley concert in a couple of weeks as my husband gets asthma attacks from ambient smoke. I think we may have to pass. (And this is the issue that I have with smokers thinking that their smoke doesn't impact anyone. It does. We will pass on the concert in order to skip the trip to the ER). 

As ridiculous as their response to you was, I can see enforcement being impossible without disrupting the entire concert.


----------



## slip (Aug 19, 2013)

I guess I'll add my two Cents. First I don't smoke but I don't agree with all
These laws about telling business owners they have to be nonsmoking. If there
Is a smoking restaurant and you don't like the smoke don't go there. I think
It should be the same with timeshares. I would be angry if I was a smoking 
Owner and this changed. The non smokers knew there was smoking on the
Lanais when they bought too. Like we always say, do your due diligence. 

The separate non smoking rooms in restaurants were silly for non smokers, they
Didn't work but if I had a problem with it, I didn't go back.


----------



## hypnotiq (Aug 19, 2013)

klpca said:


> As ridiculous as their response to you was, I can see enforcement being impossible without disrupting the entire concert.



Without getting into the debate about enforcement, I will say, at the very least, if you aren't going to enforce it, don't advertise the fact you are a non-smoking venue. :ignore:


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 19, 2013)

Ken555 said:


> Absurd. There are practical issues involved with smoking, along with every other decision which impacts all timeshare guests. It is impractical to allow everybody to "stay wherever they wanted whenever they wanted in the best units on property." It is practical, on the other hand, to eliminate all smoking on a property.
> 
> Analogies only work to your advantage when you offer a similar realistic situation as a comparison.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



While I agree with you that practicality can play a part in why some things simply don't work, I don't share your opinion that it's practical to ban smoking everywhere on property.  The fact is, smokers exist.  Contrary to popular belief held by an increasing number of anti-smoking zealots, though, they don't all want to make life a living nightmare for anyone who doesn't.  Most are well aware, at least in the US, that their habit is not welcome or legal wherever they please.  IMO it's not impractical for everybody to compromise such that smokers and their habits are allowed in out-of-the-way designated spaces at timeshare resorts, which non-smokers can choose to avoid.

I would never advocate that smokers should sit in the bathrooms with the fans on!  But addiction is a powerful thing and if you go down the path of owners/guests having no other reasonable option, that's what they're being driven to.  It's reasonable, for example, at the resorts which do have the outdoor space to place an 8x10 covered pavilion in an out-of-the-way place to accommodate smokers without them being made to feel that they're the dregs of society.  Judge not ... and all that happy-crappy.


----------



## klpca (Aug 19, 2013)

hypnotiq said:


> Without getting into the debate about enforcement, I will say, at the very least, if you aren't going to enforce it, don't advertise the fact you are a non-smoking venue. :ignore:



Agreed. And I have to say, the last part of their response was pretty snarky.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 19, 2013)

hypnotiq said:


> Without getting into the debate about enforcement, I will say, at the very least, if you aren't going to enforce it, don't advertise the fact you are a non-smoking venue. :ignore:



I'd also add, if you're not going to enforce it, don't put it in writing that as venue management you're blatantly disregarding the laws!  The onus isn't just on smokers to follow the laws or face the consequences.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 19, 2013)

Susan, you and others seem hung up on 'smokers have rights that cannot be infringed upon'. No one EVER has said that smokers cannot enjoy any resort to which they can buy or exchange or rent into.  It is the SMOKE that isn't welcome! It's the SMOKE that has no rights. Let the addicted either smoke elsewhere, quit, or use electronic cigarettes.

As to folks doing their due diligence before buying, fine. Is anyone here so naive as to think that nothing in our timeshare ownership changes? MF changes annually. different toiletries are used. They change the wallpaper and paint color. I suppose there are people who like the CRT televisions better than flat screens- especially at higher cost. Here in TUG, we've read reports of owners who say they don't want Wi-Fi or to pay for it because "By Golly, They're On VACATION And Don't Want To put Up With That Darn Internet!" I suppose most contracts, like mine, have wording that rules changes can be made by the HOA- or management- that will affect all owners. Nothing remains the same for long.

To drag this conversation kicking and screaming back to the original question, It appears that KCI's HOA made the decision to ban smoking. So be it. The place will be more attractive to all. Including the smokers. The values will increase, and the whole place will be more pleasant, and healthier for every guest.


----------



## mspeggysue911 (Aug 19, 2013)

I was a smoker for 25 years. I quit about 4 years ago. Hardest thing I have ever done. But I wish I had done it years ago.

I didn't turn into a big anti-smoking advocate like some ex-smokers do.

I am glad the rooms are all non-smoking. Once you quit smoking, the smell of smoke and ashtrays seems almost intolerable. I hate walking through a smoking area and having to get that nasty smell on my clothes and hair. (At Disney resorts the smoking areas are right where everybody has to walk through to get some place else)

I don't usually use a balcony when we are on vacation but for someone who does, I can see not wanting smoke wafting around on your neighbor's patios and balconies because it is a strong smell. Smokers can't smell it. I KNOW.

But I do think they should have some location, at least one, some place on property where smokers can go to smoke without having to completely leave the property.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 19, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> While I agree with you that practicality can play a part in why some things simply don't work, I don't share your opinion that it's practical to ban smoking everywhere on property.



Sure it is. Isn't that what started this thread? 



> The fact is, smokers exist.  Contrary to popular belief held by an increasing number of anti-smoking zealots, though, they don't all want to make life a living nightmare for anyone who doesn't.  Most are well aware, at least in the US, that their habit is not welcome or legal wherever they please.  It's not impractical for everybody to compromise such that smokers and their habits are allowed in out-of-the-way designated spaces at timeshare resorts, which non-smokers can choose to avoid.



This is a nice thought, but I've known smokers and non-smokers who fit the zealot definition which I suspect you mean. But, I've met many more smokers who are uncompromising, unwilling to discuss alternatives, reactive to defend their "rights" upon the slightest impact on their habit, etc. Though they may be aware that their smoking is not welcome, they don't go out of their way to make it easier for those of us who don't want to smell it at all, be it on clothing or direct second hand smoke. 

I used to be somewhat more amenable to smokers needs and agreed with their need for a safe space to smoke. Not any more. On private property, such as timeshares, I will consistently advocate the position that smoking should not be allowed. Smokers may go off property, on public land, where it is legal. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but smokers have had DECADES to quit after scientific evidence proves smoking is bad for our health. I see no reason to encourage it at all, and it should require effort to continue smoking. 



> I would never advocate that smokers should sit in the bathrooms with the fans on!  But addiction is a powerful thing and if you go down the path of owners/guests having no other reasonable option, that's what they're being driven to.  It's reasonable at the resorts which do have the outdoor space to place an 8x10 covered pavilion in an out-of-the-way place for smokers to not be made to feel like the dregs of society.  Judge not ... and all that happy-crappy.



Nice ideals. But, I don't agree. You may think its reasonable to have a place for smokers to smoke on property. I don't. I'd rather not judge smokers, but given their actions I feel as though I have no choice. Of course there are some considerate smokers, but any negative impact by smoking, regardless of how nice the person is or the extent they go to mitigate it, is too much. 

It's time for smokers to realize that they aren't welcome at every establishment. They know they can't smoke on airplanes, in office buildings, at restaurants. It's not that far a stretch to include timeshares. After all, most hotels prohibit it already, and for years now. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 19, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> ..., and there's no reason why non-smokers can't compromise and be slightly inconvenienced by their choice to avoid a few smoking areas.
> 
> ....



If it were truly just being inconvenienced I would agree with your arguments even as a non smoker.

It is not just an inconvenience, it is truly a health hazard..  We are talking about real health issues with smoking and second hand smoke.

No matter where you would try to set up a smoking area, the smell and carcinogens will travel outside that area affecting anyone down wind.

Then factor in the children that have to endure this health hazard we should all realize that allowing smoking in resorts is what is really ridiculous.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 19, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> Susan, you and others seem hung up on 'smokers have rights that cannot be infringed upon'. No one EVER has said that smokers cannot enjoy any resort to which they can buy or exchange or rent into.  It is the SMOKE that isn't welcome! It's the SMOKE that has no rights. Let the addicted either smoke elsewhere, quit, or use electronic cigarettes.
> 
> As to folks doing their due diligence before buying, fine. Is anyone here so naive as to think that nothing in our timeshare ownership changes? MF changes annually. different toiletries are used. They change the wallpaper and paint color. I suppose there are people who like the CRT televisions better than flat screens- especially at higher cost. Here in TUG, we've read reports of owners who say they don't want Wi-Fi or to pay for it because "By Golly, They're On VACATION And Don't Want To put Up With That Darn Internet!" I suppose most contracts, like mine, have wording that rules changes can be made by the HOA- or management- that will affect all owners. Nothing remains the same for long.
> 
> To drag this conversation kicking and screaming back to the original question, It appears that KCI's HOA made the decision to ban smoking. So be it. The place will be more attractive to all. Including the smokers. The values will increase, and the whole place will be more pleasant, and healthier for every guest.



"Hate the smoke, not the smokers."  Like other similar banalities, these kinds of attitudes don't allow for reasonable compromise.  

I don't think anybody expects that timeshare rules will always be exactly the same as the day on which they are purchased.  (The few who do find out very quickly that's not the case.)  But I think that all owners hope that if the rules have to change, those who set the rules will take into consideration ALL of the owners' concerns as much as is reasonably possible.

In this case, with smoking, the impetus for restricting it has nothing to do with what the majority of owners want and everything to do with how the laws are evolving in various municipalities.  It's fine, all the smokers I know understand - even if they don't like the fact - that their habit has fast become Public Enemy Number One.  But I just don't understand why things have gone so far to the extreme, don't understand it at all.  My town made ALL outdoor smoking illegal several years ago.  This is a pretty progressive town - the overwhelming majority of smokers were already considerate enough to not smoke whenever/wherever non-smokers were nearby, and they used the receptacles that were in place to collect the butts.  On the golf course out back, one of the neighbors on my street even walked the course every morning to clear out the receptacles.  You know what the ban accomplished that wasn't already being implemented by the smokers themselves?  Nothing, except when the ashtray structures were removed, folks all over town stopped using the trash structures that weren't removed.  Effectively all the non-smoking ban accomplished was that trash was everywhere.  Not cigarette butts, mind you, but trash.  Two years later the rule was overturned, the ashtrays were replaced, and we're clean again.  It makes no sense but that's how it happened.  

And now we timeshare owners are at the point where we can't begrudge smokers one iota of space in all the miles and miles within resort footprints.  It's beyond me how an outdoor smokers' area a football field's distance from your balcony lessens your resort experience, nevermind causes you physical harm.  Plus, saying that smokers "can enjoy" their timeshares despite not being able to smoke anywhere near them, reflects a total non-understanding of how addiction can affect every aspect of life.

Geeeeze.  The only reason this bothers me as much as it does is because I hate, HATE-HATE-HATE!!, having to send my family and guests who smoke to the ugliest corners of the parking structures at my otherwise-beautiful resorts.  It's ridiculous to me that owners can't see past their moral judgments of smokers to the fact that most resorts have miles of attractive open spaces that can be used such that every guest on property is made to feel welcome, even when constrained by reasonable restrictions.


----------



## theo (Aug 19, 2013)

*Not a very good analogy...*



slip said:


> I guess I'll add my two Cents. First I don't smoke but I don't agree with all
> These laws about telling business owners they have to be nonsmoking. If there
> Is a smoking restaurant and you don't like the smoke don't go there. I think
> It should be the same with timeshares. <snip>



With all due respect, business and restaurant patrons don't actually *own* a piece of that particular place at issue, whatever / wherever it may be...

Non-smoking timeshare owners on the other hand *do* actually *own* their little piece of the timeshare facility. Accordingly, (IMnsHO), those non-smoking owners have the unquestionable right (with or without laws) to *not* have to be involuntarily exposed to vile smelling and potentially poisonous fumes --- at least inside of (or anywhere even remotely near) the unit / space which they *own*, during the period of their occupancy.

It's a touchy topic and we all have and are entitled to our own personal opinions --- that's mine.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 19, 2013)

theo said:


> With all due respect, business and restaurant patrons don't *own* a piece of that place. Non-smoking timeshare owners on the other hand *do* actually own their little piece of the place. Accordingly, (IMnsHO), those non-smoking owners have the unquestionable right not to be involuntarily exposed to vile smelling and potentially poisonous fumes inside of the unit / space which they *own*...
> 
> I know it's a touchy topic and we all have our own opinions --- and that's mine.



But how is it any different than saying smokers who don't like a non-smoking policy at their owned resorts, can choose to go somewhere else?

I don't actually think that smoking OR non-smoking owners should have to choose to go someplace else or suffer for their needs.  I think it should be possible to reach a reasonable compromise.  Or I used to think that, anyway.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 19, 2013)

Smoking truisms:

1. No one was born a smoker.
2. No one wants to be a smoker.
3. Inside every person who smokes is a nice smelling non-smoker.
4. Everyone hates the smell of smoke- tobacco or otherwise, and doesn't want it on their person.
5. Every smoker WILL quit. It may be when they no longer breathe, but they WILL quit.
6. A smoker's right to smoke ends at my nose. I don't care how far away they have to go so I don't smell it, but if I smell it, that's too close.
7. Smoking areas indoors in public areas make as much sense as peeing areas in public pools.

If we make smoking inconvenient enough, or expensive enough, more people will quit sooner. They will have more money, live longer, spend less on clothes, furnishings, health care for themselves and their families that they inconsiderately inflict their awful habit on.

Jim


----------



## theo (Aug 19, 2013)

*Going around in (smoke) circles...*



SueDonJ said:


> But how is it any different than saying smokers who don't like a non-smoking policy at their owned resorts, can choose to go somewhere else?



Since those weren't *my* words *or* thoughts, I won't presume to speak for their actual author...



> I don't actually think that smoking OR non-smoking owners should have to choose to go someplace else or suffer for their needs.  I think it should be possible to reach a reasonable compromise.  Or I used to think that, anyway.



I don't necessarily disagree, at least in concept, although I maintain a firm belief that unit interiors should be sacrosanct and *completely* free of *any* smoke stench at *all* times, under any and all circumstances. 
No "compromises", no exceptions, no violations to *ever* be tolerated and no prisoners to ever be taken. 

That being said, when I think about the specific facilities at which I own weeks, the grounds and "other" available space at 3 out of the 4 are just plain too small to reasonably accomodate smoking anywhere except somewhere out (...hopefully somewhere *far* out) in their respective parking lots. One coastal Maine facility has expansive grounds, where (outdoor) "accomodation" could perhaps be more easily achieved.

As stated previously, this is a touchy topic with lots of opinions and firm personal beliefs and convictions. 
Neither you nor anyone else will ever change my viewpoint. You are certainly entitled to yours.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 19, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> Smoking truisms:



Here's mine:

I loved smoking.  Loved everything about it.  Hated to give it up, but knew after losing both my parents in their early 50's that it was completely stupid for me to continue doing it.  Other smokers may not have had that truth proven to them the way it was hammered home to me; nothing requires them to acknowledge my truth as their own.  I'm not any smarter than smokers who have not yet summoned the strength to beat the addiction.

It's been 16 years.  When I decided to try to quit I told myself that on my 65th birthday I could buy a pack of Virginia Slims Menthol and begin smoking again.  Now that 65 is within 12 years, I'm pushing The Day back to my 75th birthday.  But I'm still looking forward to someday being able to smoke again.


----------



## theo (Aug 19, 2013)

*Yessa!*



Passepartout said:


> <snip>  A smoker's right to smoke ends at my nose. I don't care how far away they have to go so I don't smell it, but if I smell it, that's too close.
> 
> Smoking areas indoors in public areas make as much sense as peeing areas in public pools.



Eloquently and perfectly stated.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Aug 19, 2013)

smoking (lung cancer) facts...

Mortality
Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in both men and women in the United States. In 1987, it surpassed breast cancer to become the leading cause of cancer deaths in women.

Lung cancer causes more deaths than the next three most common cancers combined (colon, breast and prostate). An estimated 160,340 Americans were expected to die from lung cancer in 2012, accounting for approximately 28 percent of all cancer deaths.

The number of deaths due to lung cancer has increased approximately 4.3 percent between 1999 and 2008 from 152,156 to 158,656. The number of deaths among men has reached a plateau but the number is still rising among women. In 2006, there were 88,586 deaths due to lung cancer in men and 70,070 in women.

The age-adjusted death rate for lung cancer is higher for men (63.6 per 100,000 persons) than for women (39.0 per 100,000 persons). It also is higher for Blacks (53.4 per 100,000 persons) compared to Whites (50.2 per 100,000 persons). Black men have a far higher age-adjusted lung cancer death rate than White men, while Black and White women have similar rates.

Prevalence and Incidence
Approximately 373,489 Americans are living with lung cancer. During 2012, an estimated 226,160 new cases of lung cancer were expected to be diagnosed, representing almost 14 percent of all cancer diagnoses.

The majority of living lung cancer patients have been diagnosed within the last five years. Lung cancer is mostly a disease of the elderly. In 2006, 81 percent of those living with lung cancer were 60 years of age or older.

In 2006, Kentucky had the highest age-adjusted lung cancer incidence rates in both men (124.8 per 100,000) and women (76.6 per 100,000). Utah had the lowest age-adjusted cancer incidence rates in both men and women (32.0 per 100,000 and 24.7 per 100,000, respectively). These state-specific rates were parallel to smoking prevalence rates.

Lung cancer is the most common cancer worldwide, accounting for 1.3 million deaths annually. Cancer accounted for 13 percent of the 58 million total worldwide deaths in 2004.

*The National Institutes of Health estimate that cancers cost the United States an overall $264 billion in 2010.* It is estimated that approximately $10.3 billion per year is spent in the United States on lung cancer treatment alone.

Survival Rates
The lung cancer five-year survival rate (16.3%) is lower than many other leading cancer sites, such as the colon (65.2%), breast (90.0%) and prostate (99.9%).

The five-year survival rate for lung cancer is 52.6 percent for cases detected when the disease is still localized (within the lungs). However, only 15 percent of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at an early stage. For distant tumors (spread to other organs) the five-year survival rate is only 3.5 percent.

*Over half of people with lung cancer die within one year of being diagnosed.*

Smoking-Attributable Lung Cancer
Smoking, a main cause of small cell and non-small cell lung cancer, contributes to 80 percent and 90 percent of lung cancer deaths in women and men, respectively. Men who smoke are 23 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Women are 13 times more likely, compared to never smokers.

*Between 2000 and 2004, an average of 125,522 Americans (78,680 men and 46,842 women) died of smoking-attributable lung cancer each year.* Exposure to secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers every year.
*Nonsmokers have a 20-30 percent greater chance of developing lung cancer if they are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work.*


----------



## slip (Aug 19, 2013)

theo said:


> With all due respect, business and restaurant patrons don't actually *own* a piece of that particular place at issue, whatever / wherever it may be...
> 
> Non-smoking timeshare owners on the other hand *do* actually *own* their little piece of the timeshare facility. Accordingly, (IMnsHO), those non-smoking owners have the unquestionable right (with or without laws) to *not* have to be involuntarily exposed to vile smelling and potentially poisonous fumes --- at least inside of (or anywhere even remotely near) the unit / space which they *own*, during the period of their occupancy.
> 
> It's a touchy topic and we all have and are entitled to our own personal opinions --- that's mine.



I was referring to the business owner, restaurant or timeshare. They should be 
Able to decide if it's a smoking or nonsmoking establishment. The patrons
Certainly don't have to go there. I know the patrons don't own and they get to
Speak with their dollars. 

It is a touchy subject and everybody obviously is entitled to their opinion.


----------



## heathpack (Aug 19, 2013)

I don't smoke and never have.  I don't really understand why someone would want to smoke.  That said, I understand that people are physically addicted to smoking and its just not a realistic option for people to stop cold turkey for a 1 or 2 week vacation.  Ergo, if it does not affect me, I don't care what the smokers do.  I hardly think 1 or 2 stray molecules of second hand smoke wafting across 300 feet of open air is worse for me than the exhaust coming out of the tailpipe of the minivan parked outside my unit.  If the resort can set things up such that I don't smell, see or inhale any secondhand smoke then a smoking ban is unnecessary.  Set up a smoking area outdoors in an area that's easily avoided by non-smokers and I'm fine with it.

I'd be pretty peeved if I were a smoking timeshare owner was being hassled in a way that made it difficult to fully relax and enjoy my resort.  Driving or walking off property to smoke a cigarette is too much IMO- mostly because my rights as a non-smoker can reasonably be accomodated without an outright smoking ban.

Most of the reasons people state in support of the smoking ban are a bit over the top.  Yes, it would be healthier for smokers if they didn't smoke and better for society in regards to healthcare costs.  But it would also be better if we all lived a healthier lifesyle and cheaper for society to boot.  Hmm, how would we feel if timeshare management found a way to hassle those of us who failed to live a perfectly healthy lifestyle while on vacation?  If you don't get 8 hours of sleep, exercise 1 hour per day, eat 5 servings of vegetables AND limit yourself to 1 serving of alcohol per day, the resort manager will be making things very uncomfortable for you?!

I'm ok with people being imperfect-- smokers who keep their smoke away from me are none of my business.  Tolerance, my TUG friends.

H


----------



## ScoopKona (Aug 19, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> "Hate the smoke, not the smokers."  Like other similar banalities, these kinds of attitudes don't allow for reasonable compromise.



Compromise is completely unnecessary. Smokers may indulge their habit in such places where it does not infringe on the health and comfort of others. Cry me a river if that is contrary to their goal to slowly kill themselves with their morning coffee.

We don't need compromise. We need smokers relegated to places where they only injure themselves.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 19, 2013)

slip said:


> I was referring to the business owner, restaurant or timeshare. They should be
> Able to decide if it's a smoking or nonsmoking establishment. The patrons
> Certainly don't have to go there. I know the patrons don't own and they get to
> Speak with their dollars.
> ...



The reason laws have been implemented regarding smoking is not to infringe on the rights of business owners, but the health of the workers who presumably have the right to work not to work in a hazardous environment.

Smoking was banned on commercial aircraft to protect flight attendants. And prohibited in restaurants because waitstaff couldn't just stay in non-smoking sections. 

True. Patrons don't have to enter establishments with blue air, but employees do.


----------



## cindi (Aug 19, 2013)

Cypress Harbour doesn't allow smoking in the unit nor the balcony. 

I am one who loves to sit outside in the morning on my balcony with a cup of coffee, just relaxing and enjoying the weather.

Someone smoking on the balcony next to me really ruins it for me. And yes, the smoke does travel over to me. I have hyperactive airways and second hand smoke actually gives me chest pain. 

I am very thankful that Cypress Harbour not only has those rules but actually enforces them.  

I am also very thankful I never smoked because I am sure quitting would seem to be extremely difficult.


----------



## slip (Aug 19, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> The reason laws have been implemented regarding smoking is not to infringe on the rights of business owners, but the health of the workers who presumably have the right to work not to work in a hazardous environment.
> 
> Smoking was banned on commercial aircraft to protect flight attendants. And prohibited in restaurants because waitstaff couldn't just stay in non-smoking sections.
> 
> True. Patrons don't have to enter establishments with blue air, but employees do.



I've heard that also but I also feel the employees don't have to work there.
I can do plenty of different jobs that pay more because they are dangerous. I
Choose not go do those jobs just like the employees at these establishments.
Again, everybody has their own opinions.


----------



## slip (Aug 19, 2013)

heathpack said:


> I don't smoke and never have.  I don't really understand why someone would want to smoke.  That said, I understand that people are physically addicted to smoking and its just not a realistic option for people to stop cold turkey for a 1 or 2 week vacation.  Ergo, if it does not affect me, I don't care what the smokers do.  I hardly think 1 or 2 stray molecules of second hand smoke wafting across 300 feet of open air is worse for me than the exhaust coming out of the tailpipe of the minivan parked outside my unit.  If the resort can set things up such that I don't smell, see or inhale any secondhand smoke then a smoking ban is unnecessary.  Set up a smoking area outdoors in an area that's easily avoided by non-smokers and I'm fine with it.
> 
> I'd be pretty peeved if I were a smoking timeshare owner was being hassled in a way that made it difficult to fully relax and enjoy my resort.  Driving or walking off property to smoke a cigarette is too much IMO- mostly because my rights as a non-smoker can reasonably be accomodated without an outright smoking ban.
> 
> ...




Well said. Where's that "like" button.


----------



## Sea Six (Aug 19, 2013)

I agree with this as well.  If the smokers aren't offered a reasonable place to do their thing, they will do it wherever they think they can get away with it.  I don't want that, either.

As I said on another thread about this - I really hate to see people smoking where they are not allowed, especially in places like Disney World. We see it, and don't like it, but don't do anything about it, so people feel like they can do what they want.  If you want to enforce these rules, be prepared to speak up, because the smokers will not stop smoking just because there are RULES.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 19, 2013)

slip said:


> I've heard that also but I also feel the employees don't have to work there.
> I can do plenty of different jobs that pay more because they are dangerous. I
> Choose not go do those jobs just like the employees at these establishments.
> Again, everybody has their own opinions.



People DO have their own opinions, and yours are dead wrong! People have a right to work in a safe environment. Waitstaff jobs are not high wage jobs- many not even for minimum wage. Any you seem to feel that they should be unsafe as well. 

I'm glad you are not my employer.

And THAT's my opinion.


----------



## ScoopKona (Aug 19, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> People DO have their own opinions, and yours are dead wrong! People have a right to work in a safe environment. Waitstaff jobs are not high wage jobs- many not even for minimum wage. Any you seem to feel that they should be unsafe as well.



This will eventually bring Las Vegas down. Casino workers don't want to work in smoky casinos (even the smokers don't like it). Eventually, medical reality will win and smokers will have to go to either special enclosed ventilated areas (as some airports do), or outside in 110f heat.

That'll probably be the end of Las Vegas as we know it.


----------



## slip (Aug 19, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> People DO have their own opinions, and yours are dead wrong! People have a right to work in a safe environment. Waitstaff jobs are not high wage jobs- many not even for minimum wage. Any you seem to feel that they should be unsafe as well.
> 
> I'm glad you are not my employer.
> 
> And THAT's my opinion.



That's fine but I don't feel my opinion is wrong. They could get another waitstaff
Job in a nonsmoking establishment if they wanted. If I had a restaurant it would
Be nonsmoking so I don't see why you wouldn't work in my restaurant.

Don't confuse me with trying to convince you to change your opinion. I'm not
And I respect your opinion. I'm just giving mine like others in this thread.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 19, 2013)

Sea Six said:


> I agree with this as well.  If the smokers aren't offered a reasonable place to do their thing, they will do it wherever they think they can get away with it.  I don't want that, either.
> 
> As I said on another thread about this - I really hate to see people smoking where they are not allowed, especially in places like Disney World. We see it, and don't like it, but don't do anything about it, so people feel like they can do what they want.  If you want to enforce these rules, be prepared to speak up, because the smokers will not stop smoking just because there are RULES.



The smokers I bring with me to the resorts are willing to follow the rules and indulge their habits in only the designated areas.  If their habit was banned completely everywhere on property they'd probably choose to not join us, rather than obstinately come along with full intentions of breaking the rules. 

Is anyone aware of a resort where smokers were actually prevented from entering their unit after being caught breaking the rules?  All I've ever heard is that the resort would impose a $250 cleaning fee.  What's to prevent smokers from thinking about that as just another fee, like a wifi fee?

"No smoking or else!"
"Or else what?" 
"It'll cost you $250 to clean the unit."
"Excellent, charge it to my card now and get Housekeeping to bring up an ashtray, wouldja?  Thanks!"

I'm all for reasonable rules that designate smoking areas and consequences for breaking those rules.  Give smokers a place to smoke which will inconvenience other guests as little as possible, then kick out the folks who break the rules.  That's a lot easier to impose than a total smoking ban with ineffectual consequences.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Aug 19, 2013)

It now gives me the right to speak-up and do something about it - whereas before, I had to be punished for someones else's nasty and harmful addiction - with no recourse other than put-up with it, or move.

Funny - I've never met a smoker who didn't claim to be considerate of others - and this goes for others who do not seem to know these inconsiderate smokers either - but strangely we have to continue to breath it and see the butts all over the ground.

Addiction does that to people (denial, etc) - and it turns out that even after stopping the addiction continues for a very long-time (sometimes years).  Like all addictions - when the plasma levels drop - the hands start shaking, mood alters, the craving begins, the desire increases to the point that a smoke must be had at almost any consequence because they are overcome by their addiction (even though they know it is harmful, costly, and really want to stop...) but will do almost anything to get their fix - even pay a fine if need be.  How very sad...


----------



## ScoopKona (Aug 19, 2013)

DavidnRobin said:


> Funny - I've never met a smoker who didn't claim to be considerate of others - and this goes for others who do not seem to know these inconsiderate smokers either - but strangely we have to continue to breath it and see the butts all over the ground.



The crux of the matter, right here. If smokers were as considerate as they all claim to be, we wouldn't be living in a giant ashtray. I guarantee you, I can walk out to the foot of my driveway and find at least one cigarette butt tossed onto my yard from a moving car.

I clean up after these nasty [censored] every day. They don't want their butt stinking up their car. So they throw it in my yard instead. 

At the end of the day, it comes down to inconsiderate, self-important nitwits invading our culture. This is just one symptom of the "ISIN" problem. We have discussed other symptoms -- the morbidly obese on airplanes, the handicapped "fakers" and service dog "fakers," red light runners and similar. Somehow their convenience trumps the health and welfare of those around them.

And I say we mollycoddle these people to our great detriment. Our society is becoming dumber, ruder, sicker and lazier.


----------



## Bucky (Aug 20, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm not a smoker anymore but I have a lot of sympathy for owners who purchased their timeshares back when smoking was allowed all over the resorts, inside and out.  Their stays are much less enjoyable now, no doubt.
> 
> I'm not advocating that smoking should be allowed in units or on balconies or poolside with other guests around or in the gas grill areas where guests are cooking their meals ... BUT ... I completely disagree with any policy that forces an owner/guest to completely leave the property in order to light up.  Most resorts have plenty of outdoor space which can be designated as smoking areas.
> 
> ...



I was on the beach in front of OceanWatch yesterday and some guy probably 50 yards away lit up a cigar. Since I was downwind I could smell it just as if he was right next to me! Don't know how the poor people right around him felt but my GS and I had to move to get away from it. If people want to kill themselves fine, but at least do it away from others so we don't have to witness their gradual suicides. By smelling it at all its affecting my body in a way that almost all know is unhealthy. No person should have to be affected by another persons desire to kill themselves!

By the way, I've had quintuple bypass surgery, five MI's and am currently on the UNOS heart transplant list all because of a two pack a day habit I had for many years! The habit was so bad that the day i checked in for my bypass surgery i sat in the parking lot with my wife and had a cigarette in each hand puffing away! i knew i would never have another one so i figured id get it while i could.

Last but certainly not least is that I resent even one penny of my maintenance fees being spent to support this habit.


----------



## kwindham (Aug 20, 2013)

Wow, I was afraid this thread would turn into a lets hate smokers type thing.  Or as someone previously posted, not the smoker, the smoke.  Smoking is a touchy touchy subject on *both* sides of the fence, both the non smoker and the smoker.  Both sides (as a rule) feel their rights are being violated.  As a smoker, I don't have a problem  either going to a designated area to smoke, or waiting until I get in MY vehicle to leave to smoke.  I don't have a problem being considerate that others do not care to share my nasty unhealthy habit.

With that being said, the people who are _judging_ the smokers in general, and I don't mean the ones on the balcony next door that infringe on your enjoyment of your balcony because it is an unhealthy or nasty habit, I wonder what you do that is unhealthy?  Do you ever overeat because it is soooo good?  Are you overweight?  Do you routinely drink alcohol or sugared beverages?  Do you go out in the sun without 100spf sunscreen?  I could go on and on but you get my point.  And those that think raising prices and shunning smokers and declaring them the scum of the earth will _*force*_ them to quit?  That is truly laughable.  It is an ADDICTION, and you cant force an addict to do anything.  When I decide to quit, it will be because *I* want to, not because someone forced me.

I have no desire to start an argument.  As I stated previously, I have family that hates the smell, so I am accustomed to not smoking in public or in certain areas.  However, I live on 10 acres in the country with no neighbors close by.  I hardly think I am "a sorry, scummy, stinky piece of trash" if I choose to sit by my pool and smoke, or if I smoke in MY vehicle.  And no, I don't throw butts out the window, or on the ground.  I have an ashtray.

BTW, lumping all smokers into the inconsiderate category is pretty extreme.  That would be like saying all nonsmokers are wonderful people.  It just don't work.


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 20, 2013)

kwindham said:


> ... I wonder what you do that is unhealthy?  Do you ever overeat because it is soooo good?  Are you overweight?  Do you routinely drink alcohol or sugared beverages?  Do you go out in the sun without 100spf sunscreen?  I could go on and on but you get my point. ....



I don't get your point.

How in the world does someone over eating, being overweight, drink alcohol or sugared beverages, or go out without sunscreen affect my health?  You can do all those things sitting right next to someone without doing them any harm.

It's not the same with smoke.


----------



## kwindham (Aug 20, 2013)

csxjohn said:


> I don't get your point.
> 
> How in the world does someone over eating, being overweight, drink alcohol or sugared beverages, or go out without sunscreen affect my health?  You can do all those things sitting right next to someone without doing them any harm.
> 
> It's not the same with smoke.



I was referring to the smoking being unhealthy for the _smoker_, just as the mentioned things are unhealthy for the person doing them.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Aug 20, 2013)

I don't care what one does to themself as long as it doesn't affect me or the unit (hotel, personal breathing space, timeshare unit, rental car, etc.)  adversely.

Nothing like a stinking room or rental car made this way by someone who just ignored the rules and contractual agreement for their own selfish wants. Smoke invades and permeates everything.

Cannot understand the_ point_ trying to be made. I've gone out without my sunscreen, overeaten and had too much to drink, however, it only affected me (and only me) and did not spill over to anyone else.

Late edit: All non smokers are not wonderful people, they just don't stink up rooms by not smoking. Keeping the analogies in line will help move the discussion along.


----------



## dougp26364 (Aug 20, 2013)

Most of the resorts we own or have exchanged into have had some restrictions on smoking. It seems to me it's about 50/50 for smoking on patios/balconies. More resorts seem to be leaning toward smoking areas with smoking banned anywhere around the units, including patios/balconies.


----------



## bjones9942 (Aug 20, 2013)

My asthma doesn't differentiate between getting lungs full of smoke from a neighboring balcony or from someone sitting next to me in a bar.  If there's a marked outdoor spot where smoking is allowed, then I can avoid it.  I can't avoid the whim of the breeze that blows said neighbors smoke filled balcony my way.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 20, 2013)

kwindham said:


> I wonder what you do that is unhealthy?  Do you ever overeat because it is soooo good?  Are you overweight?  Do you routinely drink alcohol or sugared beverages?  Do you go out in the sun wihout 100spf sunscreen?  I could go on and on but you get my point.  And those that think raising prices and shunning smokers and declaring them the scum of the earth will _*force*_ them to quit?  That is truly laughable.  It is an ADDICTION, and you cant force an addict to do anything.  When I decide to quit, it will be because *I* want to, not because someone forced me.



This is not a 'pile on kwindham' thing. I don't find you or other people who choose to smoke to be 'scum of the earth'. It is possible that you are the most considerate smoker on earth. I wish you well, and hope you do choose to quit- there is lots of help available.

Actually, I DO get the point. Whether I am overweight, wear sunscreen, over-imbibe alcohol or big-gulps while sitting beside you has no effect on your enjoyment of the surroundings. And frankly, if you choose to use an electronic cigarette to feed your addiction it doesn't effect me. I like you. It's the damn smoke I hate and causes me to move away or shun those who emit it.

Jim


----------



## kwindham (Aug 20, 2013)

Passepartout said:


> This is not a 'pile on kwindham' thing. I don't find you or other people who choose to smoke to be 'scum of the earth'. It is possible that you are the most considerate smoker on earth. I wish you well, and hope you do choose to quit- there is lots of help available.
> 
> Actually, I DO get the point. Whether I am overweight, wear sunscreen, over-imbibe alcohol or big-gulps while sitting beside you has no effect on your enjoyment of the surroundings. And frankly, if you choose to use an electronic cigarette to feed your addiction it doesn't effect me. I like you. It's the damn smoke I hate and causes me to move away or shun those who emit it.
> 
> Jim



I think you made my point better than I did.    What I meant, and referenced in my op, was as long as someone's smoking doesn't affect others, don't judge them to be horrible people.  Everyone has bad habits, some worse than others.  Smokers should try to be considerate of others.  I understand people hate the smell, don't blame them _*at all*_.  I know some things irk me that may not bother others.

copied and pasted from my post

With that being said, the people who are judging the smokers in general, and I_* don't mean the ones on the balcony next door that infringe on your enjoyment of your balcony*_ because it is an unhealthy or nasty habit, I wonder what you do that is unhealthy?


----------



## geekette (Aug 20, 2013)

kwindham said:


> I think you made my point better than I did.    What I meant, and referenced in my op, was as long as someone's smoking doesn't affect others, don't judge them to be horrible people.  Everyone has bad habits, some worse than others.  Smokers should try to be considerate of others.  I understand people hate the smell, don't blame them _*at all*_.  I know some things irk me that may not bother others.
> 
> copied and pasted from my post
> 
> With that being said, the people who are judging the smokers in general, and I_* don't mean the ones on the balcony next door that infringe on your enjoyment of your balcony*_ because it is an unhealthy or nasty habit, I wonder what you do that is unhealthy?


Right, and I would say that someone near me over indulging in alcohol can most definitely affect my enjoyment as well as be unhealthy for them.

Unsupervised kids running around screaming also affects my enjoyment and is unhealthy to me in blood pressure spikes and lack of relaxation but I have not attempted to ban them.  I am happy if they stay out of adults-only areas.


----------



## ScoopKona (Aug 20, 2013)

kwindham said:


> 1) I think you made my point better than I did
> .
> .
> .
> ...




1) I think you are completely missing the point. A person with a 2-liter of soda habit isn't harming anyone other than him or herself. Not so the 2-pack a day smoker.

2) The ONLY point is that people don't like to smell smoke. That's it. While everyone would prefer it if smokers found the strength to quit, if they want to kill themselves that's fine. Just do it in a way where it doesn't affect the rest of us. Smoking on the balcony isn't fair to the 90% of the people who don't smoke. Smoking in the timeshare room isn't fair to the other owners who have the same room -- $250 cleaning fee or not. That is the point and the ONLY point.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Aug 20, 2013)

If one is having a drink  (not over indulging) right next to me, that's fine. 

If one is having a cigarette right next to me, that affects my health, my hair, my eyes, nose, etc.

This is the difference.


----------



## heathpack (Aug 20, 2013)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Cannot understand the_ point_ trying to be made. I've gone out without my sunscreen, overeaten and had too much to drink, however, it only affected me (and only me) and did not spill over to anyone else.



Upthread, there was a post containing a lot of facts about lung cancer.  One of which was: "The National Institutes of Health estimate that cancers cost the United States an overall $264 billion in 2010. It is estimated that approximately $10.3 billion per year is spent in the United States on lung cancer treatment alone."

The implication seemed to be one reason people shouldn't smoke is the literal dollars and cents cost to society.  Since this thread is about a smoking ban on a timeshare property, the comment about the dollars and cents cost of smoking could be construed as a reason to support a smoking ban.  

My point was that many unhealthy things happen at timeshare resorts- things that ultimately increase health care costs for all of us (overeating, lack of sunscreen, etc).  If the unhealthy behavior of someone else does not affect you, who cares?  Personally, I don't think someone smoking in an outdoor designated smoking area away from me has any affect on me (something which is possible to set up at minimal cost at the majority of resorts).  Since the smoking does not affect me personally, I can't really support an outright smoking ban- certainly not for the reason of "societal healthcare costs".

H


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Aug 20, 2013)

heathpack said:


> Upthread, there was a post containing a lot of facts about lung cancer.  One of which was: "The National Institutes of Health estimate that cancers cost the United States an overall $264 billion in 2010. It is estimated that approximately $10.3 billion per year is spent in the United States on lung cancer treatment alone."
> 
> The implication seemed to be one reason people shouldn't smoke is the literal dollars and cents cost to society.  Since this thread is about a smoking ban on a timeshare property, the comment about the dollars and cents cost of smoking could be construed as a reason to support a smoking ban.
> 
> ...



  Agree.  No argument.  Hadn't even read your post.You may want to re-read my posts.

 It's just when it invades my breathing space as being physically next to me, close enough/within a close proximity as not to be diluted or permeating the room (have experienced this before) or the rental car (just happend to me in Gettysburg/Harrisburg Enterprise) that I have paid for.

I like sitting out on my lanai, but when there are smokers next door, it's not enjoyable or even do-able. I was a nurse practitioner for most of my life. I am not a fan of second hand smoke healthwise or smelling up my hair or clothing.

ETA: Smoking on the national level is not what I was posting about. I was posting about a more local, controllable situation.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 20, 2013)

As I said waaaay upthread, and this harkens back to the beginning of and the premise of the thread: A smoker's right to smoke ends at my nose. Otherwise I don't care.

Jim


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 20, 2013)

Bucky said:


> I was on the beach in front of OceanWatch yesterday and some guy probably 50 yards away lit up a cigar. Since I was downwind I could smell it just as if he was right next to me! Don't know how the poor people right around him felt but my GS and I had to move to get away from it. If people want to kill themselves fine, but at least do it away from others so we don't have to witness their gradual suicides. By smelling it at all its affecting my body in a way that almost all know is unhealthy. No person should have to be affected by another persons desire to kill themselves!
> 
> By the way, I've had quintuple bypass surgery, five MI's and am currently on the UNOS heart transplant list all because of a two pack a day habit I had for many years! The habit was so bad that the day i checked in for my bypass surgery i sat in the parking lot with my wife and had a cigarette in each hand puffing away! i knew i would never have another one so i figured id get it while i could.
> 
> Last but certainly not least is that I resent even one penny of my maintenance fees being spent to support this habit.



I agree with you - that would be irritating and it was inconsiderate of that guy to just light up.

We set up a canopy on Hilton Head every day of our stays there; as the days go on you can see a pattern of the same people setting up the same canopies in the same spots.  This past May/June, when the beach isn't nearly as crowded as full summer, we had a guy next to us at the tail-end of the "regulars" who enjoyed his cigar-a-day but he asked around before he lit up if it would bother anybody.  That worked - he would have moved if anyone said yes, and folks coming along after he asked would have seen it happening and could choose whether or not to plunk their stuff down nearby.  (Don thought it was great - he joined the guy one day to enjoy a cigar with him, which he does maybe three times a year.)

I wish you good health, Bucky.


----------



## PStreet1 (Aug 20, 2013)

I agree with the smoker's right to smoke ending at my nose.

This thread caused me to remember that the high school where I taught was declared a smoke free area long, long before it became a nationwide focus.  I remember teachers who smoked being irate.  Some continued to smoke in their offices if they sat by a window and held the cigarette out the window; some went out to their cars to smoke--and all continued to complain loudly about their rights.  Within 5 years, 50% had quit smoking; it just wasn't worth the effort to continue.  The 50% who didn't quit simply had a habit that was too difficult to break, but there is no question that making smoking more difficult caused a number of smokers to break the habit.  Many of the (newly) non-smokers said it was a good thing that had been imposed on them.  Obviously, not all felt that way, but many did.  I suspect the same thing is true of many:  making it difficult makes it not worth doing.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 20, 2013)

ScoopLV said:


> 1) I think you are completely missing the point. A person with a 2-liter of soda habit isn't harming anyone other than him or herself. Not so the 2-pack a day smoker.
> 
> 2) The ONLY point is that people don't like to smell smoke. That's it. While everyone would prefer it if smokers found the strength to quit, if they want to kill themselves that's fine. Just do it in a way where it doesn't affect the rest of us. Smoking on the balcony isn't fair to the 90% of the people who don't smoke. Smoking in the timeshare room isn't fair to the other owners who have the same room -- $250 cleaning fee or not. That is the point and the ONLY point.



You're right, for some of us the ONLY point is that smokers shouldn't be indulging their habits such that non-smokers are negatively affected at the moment.  But for others the ONLY point is that smoking should be outright banned at the resorts (and everywhere else.)  For them, there's no room for compromise.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Aug 20, 2013)

I think Steve Martin answered it best when asked, "mind if I smoke ?".





-


----------



## heathpack (Aug 20, 2013)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Agree.  No argument.  Hadn't even read your post.You may want to re-read my posts.
> 
> It's just when it invades my breathing space as being physically next to me, close enough/within a close proximity as not to be diluted or permeating the room (have experienced this before) or the rental car (just happend to me in Gettysburg/Harrisburg Enterprise) that I have paid for.
> 
> ...



So as a nurse practitioner, what do you think the health risk is to others from a smoker smoking in an outdoor designated smoking area away from the timeshare units (including people's lanais)?  I am honestly asking- I assume there is little to no health risk to me from smoke that I cannot see or smell.  Is this assumption correct in your medical opinion?

H


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Aug 20, 2013)

Lots of variables and I usually don't respond to broadly or narrowly based hypothetical scenairos, but found this to be interesting.

The risks appear to be less (except for the occasional flying cinder into the eye or stepping on a still hot butt carelessly discarded- both have happened to me as an adult and child), but still present. 

Research (CDC) cites thus:

* “There’s no risk-free level of secondhand smoke,” said Brian King, an expert on secondhand smoke with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, it’s hard to pin down the health effects of outdoor smoke. There have been some studies — fewer than a dozen — that tried to measure how much secondhand smoke can be found outdoors. Some have found levels that rival what people may breathe indoors, depending on which way the wind is blowing or whether there’s an overhang or sheltered area that can trap smoke. One study detected significant fumes as far as 44 feet away from a smoker.
“If you can smell it, it’s obviously there,” said James Repace, a Maryland-based scientist-consultant who’s done some of the outdoor studies.
Two small studies tested about two dozen nonsmokers at a smoky outdoor dining area in Athens, Ga. The saliva tests detected significant jumps in cotinine, a substance produced when the body metabolizes nicotine.
That doesn’t mean it’s causing chronic illness, though. Repace thinks only two kinds of people may face a serious health risk outdoors — those with severe asthma and staff at outdoor cafes where smoking is allowed. * "


Interesting study excerpts here:  http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121-a229/

Stanford article here; below in next post.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Aug 20, 2013)

*Stanford Report*

HomeAll NewsFaculty & Staff NewsFor JournalistsAbout Us


Stanford Report, May 2, 2007 
Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke in outdoor settings a risk, study shows
L.A. Cicero

Wayne Ott and Neil Klepeis were members of a team of Stanford researchers who conducted the first in-depth study on how smoking affects air quality at sidewalk cafés, park benches and other outdoor locations.
BY MARK SHWARTZ

Tens of thousands of Americans die each year from secondhand tobacco smoke, according to a 2006 report by the U.S. Surgeon General. While the health risks associated with indoor secondhand smoke are well documented, little research has been done on exposure to toxic tobacco fumes outdoors. 

Now, Stanford University researchers have conducted the first in-depth study on how smoking affects air quality at sidewalk cafés, park benches and other outdoor locations. Writing in the May issue of the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association (JAWMA), the Stanford team concluded that a non-smoker sitting a few feet downwind from a smoldering cigarette is likely to be exposed to substantial levels of contaminated air for brief periods of time. 

"Some folks have expressed the opinion that exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke is insignificant, because it dissipates quickly into the air," said Neil Klepeis, assistant professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and lead author of the study. "But our findings show that a person sitting or standing next to a smoker outdoors can breathe in wisps of smoke that are many times more concentrated than normal background air pollution levels." 

Klepeis pointed to the 2006 Surgeon General's report, which found that even brief exposures to secondhand smoke may have adverse effects on the heart and respiratory systems and increase the severity of asthma attacks, especially in children. 

"_We were surprised to discover that being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we measured in previous studies of homes and taverns," said Wayne Ott, professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and co-author of the JAWMA study. "For example, if you're at a sidewalk café, and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke." 

Unlike indoor tobacco smoke, which can persist for hours, the researchers found that outdoor smoke disappears rapidly when a cigarette is extinguished. "Our data also show that if you move about six feet away from an outdoor smoker, your exposure levels are much lower," Klepeis added. 

The public has become increasingly concerned about the effects of outdoor smoking, Ott noted. More than 700 state and local governments have passed laws restricting outdoor smoking at playgrounds, building entrances and other public areas, according to the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. Some of the strictest ordinances are in California. The city of Santa Monica, for example, recently banned smoking at parks, beaches, automatic teller machines, theater lines, open-air restaurants and other outdoor locations. 

"Throughout the country, cities and counties are looking at various laws against outdoor smoking, and some of the proposals are pretty drastic," Ott said. "The problem is that until now, there have been virtually no scientific data to justify such restrictions. In fact, our paper is the first study on outdoor smoking to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." 

Particulate matter 
In the study, the researchers used portable electronic monitors to make precise measurements of toxic airborne particles emitted from cigarettes at 10 sites near the Stanford campus. "We wanted to quantify the potential level of exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke that could occur in everyday settings," Klepeis said. "To do this, we used five different, state-of-the-art instruments to measure secondhand smoke at parks, open-air cafés, sidewalks and outdoor pubs where smokers were present." 

Each instrument was calibrated to measure an airborne pollutant known as particulate matter-2.5 (PM2.5), which consists of thousands of microscopic particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in width—about 30 times narrower than a human hair. 

"PM2.5 is a toxic pollutant produced by cigarettes, wood-burning stoves, diesel engines and other forms of combustion," Ott explained. "It contains benzo(a)pyrene, a carcinogen, and many other toxic chemicals that can penetrate deep inside the lungs." 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, exposure to PM2.5 can lead to serious health problems, including asthma attacks, chronic bronchitis, irregular heartbeat, nonfatal heart attacks and even premature death in people with heart or lung disease. The current EPA ambient air standard for PM2.5 is 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over 24 hours. Levels that exceed 35 micrograms are considered unhealthy. "However, since tobacco smoke contains many toxic components, including carcinogens, it may be even less healthy than typical ambient air pollution," Klepeis noted. 

Test results 
To measure PM2.5 levels in secondhand smoke, the researchers placed the instruments near actual smokers in different open-air environments. "We also performed controlled experiments with burning cigarettes, which allowed us to make precise measurements of PM2.5 levels at different distances," Klepeis said. 

The results were clear: The closer you are to an outdoor smoker, the higher your risk of exposure. 

"A typical cigarette lasts about 10 minutes," Klepeis said. "We found that if you're within two feet downwind of a smoker, you may be exposed to pollutant concentrations that exceed 500 micrograms of PM2.5 over that 10-minute period. If you're exposed multiple times to multiple cigarettes over several hours in an outdoor pub, it would be possible to get a daily average of 35 micrograms or more, which exceeds the current EPA outdoor standard." 

Outdoor tobacco smoke consists of brief plumes that sometimes exceed 1,000 micrograms, Klepeis added. "On the other hand, clean air typically contains less than 20 micrograms of PM2.5," he said. "Therefore, a person near an outdoor smoker might inhale a breath with 50 times more toxic material than in the surrounding unpolluted air." 

However, the researchers found that air quality improved as they moved away from the smoker. "These results show what common sense would suggest—when you're within a few feet downwind of a smoker, you get exposed," Ott explained. "But likewise, when you go a little distance or stay upwind, the exposure goes way down. If there's just one smoker, and you can sit six feet away, you would have little problem. At the same time, if there are a lot of smokers nearby, you may be exposed to very high levels of secondhand smoke. So this thing that critics have been dismissing as trivial is not." 

Added Klepeis: "If people realize that being near outdoor smokers can result in potentially large exposures to toxic air pollution, they may decide they do not wish to be exposed in a variety of outdoor settings. This realization may lead to an increased number of smoking bans in public locations." _The study also was co-authored by Paul Switzer, professor of statistics and of geological and environmental sciences at Stanford. The research was supported by grants from the State of California and the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute in Miami.


----------



## heathpack (Aug 20, 2013)

Beaglemom3 said:


> Lots of variables and I usually don't respond to broadly or narrowl based hypothetical scenairos, but found this to be interesting.
> 
> The risks appear to be less (except for the occasional flying cinder into the eye or stepping on a still hot butt carelessly discarded- both have happened to me as an adult and child), but still present. Research (CDC) cites thus:
> 
> ...



If there is actually a significant health risk (ie to asthmatics) from smoking even when smoking isolated to a designated area outdoors, then I would support a resort-wide ban on smoking.  To me, thats the crux of the issue.

Lol on you telling me to go back and read your posts when you had not read mine.  The basic summary of this thread is: 
1.  OP notes that a TS resort has banned all smoking throughout a TS property, not just indoors or on lanais
2.  Others reply "good, I don't like smoke"
3.  Others reply they also don't like smoke but are ok with a designated smoking area somewhere on property as long as innocent bystanders are not exposed to secondhand smoke
4.  Some of the folks who had originally expressed the sentiment in item #2 respond with (essentially) "well smoking is a nasty habit and people should not smoke for a number of different reasons."
5.  I make the point that many, many people indulge in a number of unhealthful habits while on TS vacations, and an unhealthful habit which does not impact me is none of my business.  I give examples of unhealthful habits which do not impact any one else (like overeating) and I state that I believe outdoor smoking that I cannot see or smell does not impact me.  Others continue this line of discusiion.
6.  Multiple people respond that the examples of habits that don't impact others (like overeating) are bad examples because smoking does impact others.
7.  I ask you if there is any public health evidence that outdoor smoking in a designated area _does_ impact the health of others.
8.  You reply that it might.
9.  I somewhat change my mind and (weakly) support the smoking ban- and my support is weak because it does not seem to me that the evidence is very strong or that there is a strong degree of certainty that outdoor smoking in a designated area is a significant health risk to non-smokers. 

Funny how people who are in agreement on a subject can find themselves in an "argument."  Its also funny how I get caught up replying repeatedly to some of these threads when I don't really feel that strongly about the underlying subject!  

H


----------



## timeos2 (Aug 20, 2013)

I remember that Steve Martin line. Yes, that is a very good reply! 

Proudly Microsoft / Apple free with Droid Bionic & Tapatalk


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Aug 20, 2013)

heathpack said:


> If there is actually a significant health risk (ie to asthmatics) from smoking even when smoking isolated to a designated area outdoors, then I would support a resort-wide ban on smoking.  To me, thats the crux of the issue.
> 
> Lol on you telling me to go back and read your posts when you had not read mine.  The basic summary of this thread is:
> 1.  OP notes that a TS resort has banned all smoking throughout a TS property, not just indoors or on lanais
> ...




 I did read your posts, but not at the time I first posted.  Hence the verb tense- hadn't (not haven't). I did prior to responding to you. I am at work and had read just the several posts before my first one.

  I did my own summary, but thanks for your interpretaton of same. 

  No argument, just healthy discussion.

  IMHO, right now, it's a matter of ethics v. science and the data is growing to support an outdoor ban. More scientific, peer-reviewed data is forthcoming as the debate widens.

  I worked for Dr. Amar Bose many years ago who banned any smoking on the Bose Campus ("The Mountain & the old one on Otis St. in Westborough). One could not even smoke in their own car in the company parking lot.  When the smokers would gather on the edge of the company property, the neighbors from the abutting lots filed a complaint about all the butts being left .
Smoking is a privilege and not a right he would say. I agree. His property = his rules.  Timeshare owners/HOA = their rules.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Aug 20, 2013)

heathpack said:


> So as a nurse practitioner, what do you think the health risk is to others from a smoker smoking in an outdoor designated smoking area away from the timeshare units (including people's lanais)?  I am honestly asking- I assume there is little to no health risk to me from smoke that I cannot see or smell.  Is this assumption correct in your medical opinion?H




  Forgot to answer your last question. 
Based on the Stanford and NIH studies, your assumption is incorrect.

One cannot see or smell carbon monoxide, but it is a health risk. It'll kill you.


----------



## Bucky (Aug 20, 2013)

SueDonJ said:


> I agree with you - that would be irritating and it was inconsiderate of that guy to just light up.
> 
> We set up a canopy on Hilton Head every day of our stays there; as the days go on you can see a pattern of the same people setting up the same canopies in the same spots.  This past May/June, when the beach isn't nearly as crowded as full summer, we had a guy next to us at the tail-end of the "regulars" who enjoyed his cigar-a-day but he asked around before he lit up if it would bother anybody.  That worked - he would have moved if anyone said yes, and folks coming along after he asked would have seen it happening and could choose whether or not to plunk their stuff down nearby.  (Don thought it was great - he joined the guy one day to enjoy a cigar with him, which he does maybe three times a year.)
> 
> I wish you good health, Bucky.



Thanks Susan. Funny thing about your line of regulars. We were at the Royal Caribbean one spring and every morning we would go out and get a palapa at the far end of the line and everyday this same guy would come out and get the palapa at the very end because he knew he was downwind from everyone else and none of us would complain about his cigar smoking. Very courteous gentleman. Too bad most of us aren't. When I was a smoker I never thought of anyone else around me at all! Of course that was before we even knew it was hazardous to our health. We even used to be able to smoke on airplanes! Now that was really ugly. Life changes and people need to be able and change with it. Not only is it now known how hazardous it is to ones health, it is basically socially unacceptable in today's society.


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 21, 2013)

I'm not sure second-hand smoke from smokers is any worse than the smoke in the air these days from the Idaho fires.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 21, 2013)

Im an off and on smoker. I can go years without then start right back where I was. I agree with smoke being smelly, especially cigars and pot. Its probably a good idea to ban smoking at resorts or at least limit it. 

On this recent trip to my beach ts, ashtrays were on the balconies and smoking and bbq-ing is allowed. Since this was in WA every sunset was accompanied with the aroma of pot as well as oysters and burning meats.

In Canada smoking is banned at the Vancouver Canadian TS except in one small area near the back alley. Smoking is not allowed on the balconies as fire code doesn't allow smoking on skyscraper balconies. 

I find that when I smoke in these designated areas most smokers are older. I can see a day that no one is going to put up with smokers. In Cabo last year we couldn't smoke at the night clubs. I might have to give up on it soon.

Bill


----------



## FL Guy (Aug 21, 2013)

Bucky said:


> We even used to be able to smoke on airplanes! Now that was really ugly.



But the smoking section was at the back of the plane.  That kept the smoke all confined to one area, right?  

It's kind of scary to occasionally board a plane for a flight that still has ash trays in the seat arms, or an obvious "fill" where the ash tray was.  Just how many years ago has smoking on flights been banned and how old (and safe) does that make that plane?  I remember my first flight was in 1985 and smoking was still permitted then as I traveled with a friend who smoked and they sat in the back of the plane.


----------



## Beaglemom3 (Aug 21, 2013)

I can remember patients having ash trays and smoking in their hospital rooms (those who were not on oxygen) as well as nurses smoking in shift report.  Ay, yi, yi. Hated it and as mentioned before, no one could/would speak up as that was not accepted practice. 

It seemed that non-smokers were a minority at one time (at least in my urban neighborhood).


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 21, 2013)

easyrider said:


> Im an off and on smoker. I can go years without then start right back where I was.



Then you are a smoker. There is no such thing as a non smoker who 'occasionally' smokes.

Your statement that you can stop and start again at will is the addiction talking. It's fooling you.

Please. Stop. Completely.

Jim


----------



## easyrider (Aug 21, 2013)

Yup, Im going to quit, eventually. Im on and off smoking because of fishing. Steelies can smell a cig and dont like them so they wont bite. Salmon are just as picky. So Im off of the cigs during these seasons. Marlin, dorado and tuna  really dont mind if your smoking so its no problem fishing and smoking in Mexico. 

That being said I guess I need something new. 
Bill

I want a new drug 
One that won't make me sick 
One that won't make me crash my car 
Or make me feel three feet thick 

I want a new drug 
One that won't hurt my head 
One that won't make my mouth too dry 
Or make my eyes too red


----------



## sjsharkie (Aug 21, 2013)

FL Guy said:


> It's kind of scary to occasionally board a plane for a flight that still has ash trays in the seat arms, or an obvious "fill" where the ash tray was.  Just how many years ago has smoking on flights been banned and how old (and safe) does that make that plane?  I remember my first flight was in 1985 and smoking was still permitted then as I traveled with a friend who smoked and they sat in the back of the plane.



Ashtrays are still required in the lavatory by the FAA.  The logic being if caught smoking, they don't want you panicking and throwing it into the waste bin where the paper towels can catch on fire.

Many years ago, we couldn't depart because someone stole the lavatory ashtray on a puddle jumper I was on in Idaho.  Now, I think they have revised the rules so that it can depart as long as it is replaced within a certain period of time.

-ryan


----------



## csxjohn (Aug 21, 2013)

easyrider said:


> ...
> That being said I guess I need something new.
> Bill
> 
> ...



Love is the drug you're describing here.  But after thinking about it, love can make you do all those things if it goes bad.


----------



## Bucky (Aug 22, 2013)

FL Guy said:


> But the smoking section was at the back of the plane.  That kept the smoke all confined to one area, right?



LOL. Nope. Smoking was allowed anywhere on the plane. All the seats had ashtrays in the armrests! Hard to believe it was that big a part of my life. At least that is until I look at my current medical condition. My mother finally quit when she was 70 and was dead at 72 from lung cancer! My dad died when he was 58 from his second MI, which I am sure was brought on by his heavy smoking. We know so much more now its a shame to still see people embracing this deadly habit. Funny thing is that if you ask a smoker if he would ever commit suicide, they usually look at you like you're nuts and say "absolutely not". So sad.


----------



## theo (Aug 22, 2013)

*Borrowed lines...*



csxjohn said:


> Love is the drug you're describing here.  But after thinking about it, love can make you do all those things if it goes bad.



Rather than a "description", I believe that this is all actually borrowed material (albeit without attribution) from an old _Huey Lewis and the News_ song entitled "I Want a New Drug".

I saw 'ol Huey and the News a few times live at the Hampton Beach Casino in New Hampshire. Tight rockers, great saxaphone and great lead guitar. A good take and a rocking good time! 

P.S. No smoking allowed anywhere on the entire Casino property either, but they still sell out the place.


----------



## easyrider (Aug 22, 2013)

csxjohn said:


> Love is the drug you're describing here.  But after thinking about it, love can make you do all those things if it goes bad.



My lovely wife, who must love me after 35 years, won't let me smoke in the house or car even though I would let her if she wanted. Yup, Im whipped. 

Bill


----------

