Non-smoking Fetish
Consider airports and aircraft. about 20 years ago all flights had a smoking section in the rear, and you could smoke freely in the airport.
First they banned smoking on flights lasting 2 hours or less. Fine. Then on all flights. Fine. Then on the gates where you wait for the flight. Fine. Now all airports I'm aware of ban all smoking aywhere inside the airport. Isn't that extreme?
Two years ago the airport at Mexico City had a few small smoking areas inside, plus you could smoke at bars and some restaurants. Now all smoking inside is banned. I ask you, in a really large building, with a large surface area, is it too much to keep a few square feet for a smoking area? Maybe with an air vent if necessary?
Consider, for a flight lasting 4 hours (that's Mexico City to Vegas, more or less), a smoker won't have to hold out for only 4 hours. Instead it will be closer to six. How? From the entrance to the gate is a 20 minute walk, plus whatever time you spend on security (it varies). So best go in and start at least one hour prior to departure. Next baording and departure will probably be delayed anywahere from a few minutes to one hour, call it an average of 20 minutes. We are at 5 hours and 20 minutes now.
Assuming the flight takes exactly four hours, that still means at least 20 more minutes between landing and debarkation. Add anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes to get past immigration. We now stand at 5 hours 40 minutes to six hours. Add 30 more minutes for reclaiming luggage and getting past customs, then five more minutes for walking outside of the terminal. So that's close to six and one half hours.
So what harm in a small smoking area at the end of the international boarding area to get a smoke 20 minutes before the flight?
Next consider airplanes. One reson cited for why no airlines contested smoking bans was fuel economy. Jets use bleed air from the engines to presurize and vetilate the cabin. A flight without smoking requires less ventilation, therefore less bleed air, therefore less fuel (taking air from the engines reduces thrust).
Sounds good. However, as a result of the recent Swine Flu epidemic, many airlines started advertising how often the entire volume of cabin air changed. For a medium sized plane like the A-320 or the Boeing 737 the airlines claim 4 minutes. Now, ventilation in all aircraft moves from front to back (the A-320 has a visible exhaust port right under the rudder to expel cabin air, so does the Boeing 747).
So, with that time for changing all the cabin air, can't there be one row at the back for smoking passengers?
I am a smoker too but do understand that people who don't smoke really hate it either because of the smell or for medical reasons. I miss it whenever I am playing and especially if I am drinking(even ice water).
There are a couple of options since most smoking needs are tied to nicotine addicition. First is snuff---Skoal Bandits are good for first timers. 2nd is a product called Ariva--Its not as gross as snuff and is a little tiny nicotine pill that you place between your lip and gum and let it dissolve over half an hour.
I have found that either take away the nicotine withdrawl symtoms.
I agree 100% that airports have gone overboard getting rid of smoking rooms. I see no reason why a smoking room vented to the outdoors should be a problem for anyone.
Quote: NareedNow all airports I'm aware of ban all smoking aywhere inside the airport. Isn't that extreme?
It could be worse, Indianapolis doesn't allow smoking anywhere on the property. Not outside the entrance doors, not in the parking lots, and not even in your own car on their property.
http://www.indianapolisairport.com/files/contribute/SmokingGenOrd6-2007.pdf
The end result, IMO, is to make what has arguably become a royal PITA, (flying in general that is), even worse, resulting in both the increase in appeal of driving instead of flying for shorter distance and avoiding IND for transfers.
Quote:
Next consider airplanes. One reson cited for why no airlines contested smoking bans was fuel economy. Jets use bleed air from the engines to presurize and vetilate the cabin. A flight without smoking requires less ventilation, therefore less bleed air, therefore less fuel (taking air from the engines reduces thrust).
While I can't find any reference to it on google, I believe that weight was an issue as well. Over time, the particles of smoke collecting on the plane and inside the ventilation system added up significantly. (I have no idea of the validity of this, just mentioning something I remember from way back when).
The other thing to consider about smoking bans in general is that only part of the issue is the effect of "second hand smoke". The other issue is that smoking rooms/areas have to be cleaned and someone has to go in to do that. Much of the legislation over the past few years has been to ensure that employee's are not forced into situations that might compromise their health. And it doesn't work to say "Just have a smoker do the job" because there could be people that are desperate for work that would take the job, smoker or not. And all that tar and nicotine either requires some expensive filters to keep the room clean, or a lot of ongoing maintainence in the form of window washing and repainting of surfaces.
I smoke, and try to be considerate of others. But given all the circumstances, the limited and shrinking number of smokers, and the problems caused by it I wouldn't expect to see a rush in the future to include more smoking areas, and suspect they will become increasingly rare.
Quote: PaulEWogIt could be worse, Indianapolis doesn't allow smoking anywhere on the property. Not outside the entrance doors, not in the parking lots, and not even in your own car on their property.
I don't think they can regulate what you do inside your car, even if it's in their property. What you do with the car in their property, such as speeding or parking, is a different matter. Luckily there's no need for me to visit Indianapolis.
Quote: PaulEWogThe end result, IMO, is to make what has arguably become a royal PITA, (flying in general that is), even worse, resulting in both the increase in appeal of driving instead of flying for shorter distance and avoiding IND for transfers.
Quote:
I like to fly, even with the smoking ban in place. Of course, I won't be flying any really long distances without a sleeping pill any time soon. That's too bad. I realy enjoyed the very long flights I've taken in the past.
When smoking was first banned on flights in the US, some investors launched an airline called Freedom Air, which would allow smoking. It failed in short order, as it couldn't offer enough routes or low enough rates. Truth is I would forego smoking for a better rate or a more convenient schedule.Quote: PaulEWogWhile I can't find any reference to it on google, I believe that weight was an issue as well. Over time, the particles of smoke collecting on the plane and inside the ventilation system added up significantly. (I have no idea of the validity of this, just mentioning something I remember from way back when).
Quote:
That doesn't sound right. But even if it is right, you could simply penalize smokers, say, $10 or $15 per flight, as a surcharge for a seat in the smoking section. I'd pay that gladly. I'd pay more, too.
Maybe it would still be okay to ban smoking on short flights. But flights of six hours or more should allow it. And airports definitely should have a smoking area close to boarding. In vegas smoking is allowed in bars, except the bars at the sirport terminals. Why?Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1202239
You can't smoke in a vehicle if you are carrying a child under 16 here. Come to think of it, if you're a truck driver, technically, you are smoking in a workplace and you can't smoke in your own cab!!!
However, I don't know how one can possibly defend smoking in public places, indoors. The dangers from 2nd hand smoke are pretty obvious. What goes in the air and what goes in your lungs (and you exhale) is just as bad in aggregate to what you are breathing. So indoor smoking bans make sense.
Once I had a smoking asst manager and we had to take a car trip. I told him no way he was smoking in my new company car. He cried about "holding out for the 4 hour trip."
My reply was if I don't need to eat or drink on such a trip he could surely make it without lighting up.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs a nonsmoker I do think many bans have gone too far and surely can see having some smoking rooms or areas at the airport.
Thank you. I'll tell you right now I dind't expect this much sympathy.
Quote:However, I get tired of hearing smokers complain of having to "hold out" for a few hours.
Once I had a smoking asst manager and we had to take a car trip. I told him no way he was smoking in my new company car. He cried about "holding out for the 4 hour trip."
My reply was if I don't need to eat or drink on such a trip he could surely make it without lighting up.
At the risk of alienating you, your reply doesn't come close to what your colleague experienced. try this: drink a Big Gulp before starting a 4 hour drive, then hold out those 4 hours before using a rest room. Unless you have a serious bladder or kidney problem, you should be able to hold out that long, but it won't be pleasant.
Quote: Nareed
At the risk of alienating you, your reply doesn't come close to what your colleague experienced. try this: drink a Big Gulp before starting a 4 hour drive, then hold out those 4 hours before using a rest room. Unless you have a serious bladder or kidney problem, you should be able to hold out that long, but it won't be pleasant.
The difference is relieving one's self in not controllable except to the extent that I try to avoid drinking 32 oz (or the "double gulp of 64 oz--are people nuts?) before a trip. I stand by my reply, if you cannot go 4 hours without a cigarette you really need to consider the hold they have on your life.
On a similar note I once worked at a company that had a big campus and you could not light up anywhere, even in your own car. Most people were on a 4/10 workweek so figuring in getting there early, lunch and a little time to leave made it 11 hours. I would shake my head with all the hard cases lined up in their cars outside the gate. The really hard cases I swore drove off to smoke instead of eat at lunch.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe difference is relieving one's self in not controllable except to the extent that I try to avoid drinking 32 oz (or the "double gulp of 64 oz--are people nuts?) before a trip.
It's an analogy. You're supposed to imagine the situation, not pick it apart. Surely you've found yourself in a situation where rest rooms are either scarce or crowded?
Quote:I stand by my reply, if you cannot go 4 hours without a cigarette you really need to consider the hold they have on your life.
Granted. That doesn't make holding off the cravings any easier.
Quote: blackchipjimThe smoking question is just about dead and will always be the favorite peeve of everyone everywhere. As far as the casinos are concerned they killed there own bottom line. Any casino located in an country,state or region that inacted the ban suffered a 60% drop in revenue. That is a fact and jobs were lost overall. I have always said one vice follows the other and if you restrict one you hurt the other. Canada's casino industry is went down so much that I won't even bother to cross the border to play anymore. I was in the falls region during the summer and it even got worse. They offer garbage games because the cliental has changed to carnival goers. So goes for the tail wagging the dog.
I can't speak to your assessment of the Niagara casinos but it is not true in Vancouver. The newer casinos have been non smoking from the get go. They suffered as all business's did last year but are recovering nicely. The hot game in the River Rock is baccarat and they can't keep up with demand. They have recently moved their poker room across the street to the parking garage in order to turn the old poker room to a large baccarat pit/room and they already had a couple of dozen baccarat tables. Doesn't seem to fit your carnival game characterization.
(1) Free drinks.
(2) There are two casinos on the Canadian side that split the action (Fallsview, the resort casino, and Niagara, more of a locals casino).
(3) Table minimums are generally lower and slot returns are generally higher, making it a better place to gamble overall, especially on weekend nights.
(4) The Seneca casino generally attracts consumers from Buffalo who don't have to cross the border to get into Canada and back into the States.
(5) Most of all, it is the exchange rate that drives the visits to the Canadian side of the border. When Fallsview opened and Seneca opened, the Canadian dollar was about 70 cents to the greenback. Now it is close to par. An equal dollar conversely sends Canadians to the American side, who if they stay more than 48 hours can bring back cheap duty free items (alcohol) and groceries.
I avoid the Seneca because I live on the Canadian side, don't smoke, and don't drink alot.
Quote: Nareed
Next consider airplanes. One reson cited for why no airlines contested smoking bans was fuel economy. Jets use bleed air from the engines to presurize and vetilate the cabin. A flight without smoking requires less ventilation, therefore less bleed air, therefore less fuel (taking air from the engines reduces thrust).
Sounds good. However, as a result of the recent Swine Flu epidemic, many airlines started advertising how often the entire volume of cabin air changed. For a medium sized plane like the A-320 or the Boeing 737 the airlines claim 4 minutes. Now, ventilation in all aircraft moves from front to back (the A-320 has a visible exhaust port right under the rudder to expel cabin air, so does the Boeing 747).
So, with that time for changing all the cabin air, can't there be one row at the back for smoking passengers?
Actually, the main benefit of no smoking on airplanes was maintenance! The amount of air moving through the cabin wasn't changed, except for minimum pack operations. (One or Two packs actually operating instead of all three, which was basically overkill in cruise).
The cabin "outflow valves" used to be just one giant tar stain at the aft bottom of the cabin where the pressurized air was controlled with an outflow valve. They used to get really nasty back there.
After the smoking ban came into vogue, those outflow valves actually looked good for a change!
I often wondered how the girls in the back could stand that heavy smoke on the 4 to 8 hour flights.
AD
Quote: boymimboThe Seneca in Niagara Falls, New York is busier for a few reasons besides smoking.
(1) Free drinks.
(2) There are two casinos on the Canadian side that split the action (Fallsview, the resort casino, and Niagara, more of a locals casino).
(3) Table minimums are generally lower and slot returns are generally higher, making it a better place to gamble overall, especially on weekend nights.
(4) The Seneca casino generally attracts consumers from Buffalo who don't have to cross the border to get into Canada and back into the States.
(5) Most of all, it is the exchange rate that drives the visits to the Canadian side of the border. When Fallsview opened and Seneca opened, the Canadian dollar was about 70 cents to the greenback. Now it is close to par. An equal dollar conversely sends Canadians to the American side, who if they stay more than 48 hours can bring back cheap duty free items (alcohol) and groceries.
I avoid the Seneca because I live on the Canadian side, don't smoke, and don't drink alot.
Also no pai gow tiles on American side.
