- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Messages
- 31,154
- Points
- 0
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
[ News ] Ski area goes totally smoke-free
- Thread starter Greg
- Start date
Stephen
New member
Hmmm, you know that these places only make decisions which are justified by the money. They must have come up with some study that the loss of business from smokers is less than the gain from new clients who abhor smoking.
-stephen
-stephen
:lol: Funniest memory of other skiers smoking: got on the Killington Summit Gondola in 2000 or 2001 and a guy chats with us and says, "sweet day, huh? I'm winded. Need some energy," before pulling out a pot pipe and lighting up. "Hope you don't mind," he said. Errrrriiiiiggghhhhtttt.
Personally, I don't care for smoking on the lifts or in places where me and my lungs are. I go skiing to get away from that. I applaud Black Mountain and their efforts.
Personally, I don't care for smoking on the lifts or in places where me and my lungs are. I go skiing to get away from that. I applaud Black Mountain and their efforts.
Joshua B
Member
I think this is a great thing for clean-living, healthy people. Now if they would just ban smoking while driving. Anytime I'm driving behind a smoker with the windows down, I get that smell in my car!
Joshua B
Member
Ummm...I am totally serious.
teachski
New member
Smokers do have rights too, let's not forget that. There is so much of an anti-smoking push by some activist groups and some governmental people...what about drinking!
I think that it's as bad, if not worse for a skier to pull a can of beer out of his/her jacket and guzzle it on the lift, repeating this several times during the day and then ski out of control endangering all of the others on the slope (This goes for hard stuff too). Not only are these people drinking the beer, but then they are throwing the cans off the lift. Have you ever been hit by a can being thrown from a lift? I have, it hurts!
It's much more dangerous to the public to have even 1 drunken skiers on the slopes than the 1 or 2 that light up from time to time. Most of these people move to the edge of the slopes to have one or in a place away from other skiers. The drunken skier has NO reguard for others, at least the smokers (for the most part) make an effort. Oh, and what about some of these skiers that partake in other "recreational" drugs and then go out on the slopes?
It's your right to smoke or not to smoke. Smoking is not illegal unless you are under 18. I can't agree with making the entire ski area smokeless...they should have some area where smokers can have one if they want or need it. I do, however, agree 100% with keeping schools and restaurants smoke free.
I think that it's as bad, if not worse for a skier to pull a can of beer out of his/her jacket and guzzle it on the lift, repeating this several times during the day and then ski out of control endangering all of the others on the slope (This goes for hard stuff too). Not only are these people drinking the beer, but then they are throwing the cans off the lift. Have you ever been hit by a can being thrown from a lift? I have, it hurts!
It's much more dangerous to the public to have even 1 drunken skiers on the slopes than the 1 or 2 that light up from time to time. Most of these people move to the edge of the slopes to have one or in a place away from other skiers. The drunken skier has NO reguard for others, at least the smokers (for the most part) make an effort. Oh, and what about some of these skiers that partake in other "recreational" drugs and then go out on the slopes?
It's your right to smoke or not to smoke. Smoking is not illegal unless you are under 18. I can't agree with making the entire ski area smokeless...they should have some area where smokers can have one if they want or need it. I do, however, agree 100% with keeping schools and restaurants smoke free.
Charlie Schuessler
New member
Who's going to enforce it? 
The mountain operators have a difficult time with thier mountain staff from smoking pot.... 8)
The mountain operators have a difficult time with thier mountain staff from smoking pot.... 8)
Tin Woodsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,099
- Points
- 48
Wow - I've never heard of someone being that sensitive. I hate cigarette/cigar smoke more than most. My parents both smoked when I was younger and it really bothers/annoys me when I have to deal with other people smoking in my face. I'm glad it's banned in most restaurants and bars now.
That said, this is a little excessive. I've been skiing for nearly 30 years, and I can recall few, if any, instances where I've detected, let alone been bothered by, tobacco smoke from chairs ahead. Again, I hate tobacco smoke and am glad to see it confined to the outdoors in public places. But why should the rights of this significant minority of the population be infringed at the behest of a VERY small number of people who can detect and are bothered by smoke blown into the open air from 30-50 ft. away on a windy mountain?
I'm sorry it causes you occasional discomfort, it bothers me too, but you'd have a tough time proving that second hand tobacco smoke from chairs ahead of you on a ski mountain have a fundamental adverse affect on your health. If it is merely inconveniencing you, then it's hard to justify what will be a far more common discomfort mandated upon Black's patrons who enjoy smoking.
They can ban smoking because there really are very few smokers at the ski areas. I know as I am a "sometimes" smoker and my husband a habitual. No big deal. WE just duck into the woods and sit down for a spell, have a smoke and a little conversation and whatever. A snack....Oh, he takes his butts with him. I know as I get to clean them out of his stinky jacket. I really hate it when people toss their butts out the window. Why do they do that?
It really doesn't bother me at all that they have banned smoking. Half the time I hate it and the other half...well it goes great with a glass of wine. In my yard where hopefully I can continue to have a smoke if I so desire. Let's face it, smoking is nasty to a non smoker. You shouldn't have to inhale our second hand smoke. I agree. It's been around forever and probably always will. Although at $5.00 and over for a pack..maybe not.
Just my 2 cents worth.
It really doesn't bother me at all that they have banned smoking. Half the time I hate it and the other half...well it goes great with a glass of wine. In my yard where hopefully I can continue to have a smoke if I so desire. Let's face it, smoking is nasty to a non smoker. You shouldn't have to inhale our second hand smoke. I agree. It's been around forever and probably always will. Although at $5.00 and over for a pack..maybe not.
Just my 2 cents worth.
hmmm. i dont know what to think about this new ban. i agree that smokers have rights, but i dont really want to be around someone that is smoking and skiing, for me it takes away form the skiing and out doors experence. i could see banning smoking from the slopes and lodge but not the whole ski area property. either way it doesnt effect me.
Tin Woodsman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,099
- Points
- 48
When someone is blowing it in your face, or making no effort to blow it away from you while in close proximity, then that is most certainly the case. The question, in my mind, is where do you draw the boundary b/w rudeness and imposition on the smoker's rights? We'd all agree that a guy smoking in his back yard next to your house has every right to do so. He's far away and is in his own space. But where does it cross the line to rudeness? Should smokers on chair lifts go so far as to ask the chairs in back of them if they can smoke before lighting up? That's excessive, IMHO.
Again, I'm not a smoker (nor do I play one on TV), and really don't like breathing someone else's second hand smoke, so I think I have a pretty unbiased viewpoint here. I think that at some point you cross a line where you are reaching beyond the limits of your personal space into the realm of others. A chairlift 50 ft. away doesn't constitute your personal space, or even general vicinity. I'm sympathetic to the problem you experience with smoke being left behind, but surely you realize that your level of sensitivty is something of an extreme case. 100% of smokers shouldn't have to suffer just to avoid bothering the 5% (if that) of non-smokers who are affected by their exhaust from 50ft away.
tirolerpeter
New member
Smoking at ski areas.
Nicotine is highly addictive. There is not a single known benefit to using tobacco. And, most smokers go on and on about their heroic efforts to quit. Funny thing, when you "help" them by banning it they jump on the "rights" bandwagon. Until smoking was banned in theaters, restaurants, and other public venues, my wife and I virtually stopped going out. Despite the p---ing and moaning by smokers, and business owners whenever new bans are proposed, business actually improves and profits increase. I find it a pleasure to actually stop for a drink with a friend when I don't have to end up reeking of smoke. And finally, YES ...I have often been annoyed with the smoke blowing down the lift line while I am trapped in my chair. And, when the smoke is from a cigar, I am tempted to turn my pole into a spear! :uzi: Yes, I am one of those "reformed" smokers (over thiry years ago) who wishes he could find everyone he ever annoyed with smoke and apologize for having done so.
Nicotine is highly addictive. There is not a single known benefit to using tobacco. And, most smokers go on and on about their heroic efforts to quit. Funny thing, when you "help" them by banning it they jump on the "rights" bandwagon. Until smoking was banned in theaters, restaurants, and other public venues, my wife and I virtually stopped going out. Despite the p---ing and moaning by smokers, and business owners whenever new bans are proposed, business actually improves and profits increase. I find it a pleasure to actually stop for a drink with a friend when I don't have to end up reeking of smoke. And finally, YES ...I have often been annoyed with the smoke blowing down the lift line while I am trapped in my chair. And, when the smoke is from a cigar, I am tempted to turn my pole into a spear! :uzi: Yes, I am one of those "reformed" smokers (over thiry years ago) who wishes he could find everyone he ever annoyed with smoke and apologize for having done so.
Charlie Schuessler
New member
I met an elderly lady from Cambridge Mass at Sunapee last season that was the former "Smoke Free Czar" of Cambridge. From her I was pleased to learn that the Restaurants that freely created "Smoke Free Establishments" became busier and thus more profitable before the City forced the issue with local ordinances. Once the local ordinances took effect, only the places that had substandard services went OOB...
Y
YeOld210Straights
Guest
Well, This thread is way old, but I figure I'd put my 2 cents in... I am completely in support of the smoke-free ski area. There is nothing greater than the fresh air of the mountains (especially if you are from the city), and there is also nothing like getting that whiff of cigarette smoke on the lift (yech). Of course I am a non-smoker, but I am a drinker. The problem with smoking is that it affects all those around, while drink generally does not (generally...). I agree that smokers do have rights and should be able to smoke, just in a manner that it doesn't ruin a day in the fresh air for anyone else.
As for the person who throws the beercan off the lift, or gets intoxicated to the point of skiing recklessly, they too should get their tickets pulled. I guess the rule should be: don't ski/ride in such a way that it takes away from the experience of other skiers/riders (That includes those little punks who try to ski trails way beyond their experience level, and end up sitting in the middle of the trail, or scraping any snow that is left off the trail... but that's just my opinion).
As for the person who throws the beercan off the lift, or gets intoxicated to the point of skiing recklessly, they too should get their tickets pulled. I guess the rule should be: don't ski/ride in such a way that it takes away from the experience of other skiers/riders (That includes those little punks who try to ski trails way beyond their experience level, and end up sitting in the middle of the trail, or scraping any snow that is left off the trail... but that's just my opinion).
GadgetRick
New member
Bans do not help business...
I'm not a smoker, although I do enjoy an occasional cigar, and I'm not defending smokers in the least bit. But something was mentioned about business improving and profits going up after bans have been implementing. This is just not true.
Sure, in some specific establishments this may be the case but, overall, the opposite has happened in areas where smoking has been banned (I'm talking about cities, states, etc.). NYC is a prime example. Bloomberg was saying how business would improve after the smoking ban takes effect. Now that it's been there for quite a while, they've done studies and have found business has been declining as well as profits.
I'm all for a more healthy environment. I have no problem with banning smoking in places like mountains or bars for the most part. I don't think they should keep people from smoking in a bar like a cigar bar since that's why people go there in the first place (but that's another story). Anyway, like I said, go ahead and ban smoking but don't try and justify it by saying business will be better because of it. Justify it for the right reasons--it's more healthy for everyone involved.
I'm not a smoker, although I do enjoy an occasional cigar, and I'm not defending smokers in the least bit. But something was mentioned about business improving and profits going up after bans have been implementing. This is just not true.
Sure, in some specific establishments this may be the case but, overall, the opposite has happened in areas where smoking has been banned (I'm talking about cities, states, etc.). NYC is a prime example. Bloomberg was saying how business would improve after the smoking ban takes effect. Now that it's been there for quite a while, they've done studies and have found business has been declining as well as profits.
I'm all for a more healthy environment. I have no problem with banning smoking in places like mountains or bars for the most part. I don't think they should keep people from smoking in a bar like a cigar bar since that's why people go there in the first place (but that's another story). Anyway, like I said, go ahead and ban smoking but don't try and justify it by saying business will be better because of it. Justify it for the right reasons--it's more healthy for everyone involved.
Charlie Schuessler
New member
Re: Bans do not help business...
Is this time frame the same as disposable income shrinking the last few years?
More & more people I've spoken with, stated that due to income modifications the last few years, they go to pubs & restaurants much less often.
GadgetRick said:
Is this time frame the same as disposable income shrinking the last few years?
More & more people I've spoken with, stated that due to income modifications the last few years, they go to pubs & restaurants much less often.
I have to jump back in. We smoke, still go out and smoking bans don't bother us at all. The few people I know who still smoke are also not bothered by the bans. Nobody's business is going to be hurt by a smoking ban. Ski Areas included.
No big deal. Hell, the whole world could go smoke free and people would still find something to complain about. Ohhh, that man has alcohol on his breath. That's the next thing to go. Bye bye beer. Breath meters at doors. You shouldn't be having more than one drink anyway. That's next. Everyone breath into your car meter. Can't have too (2) many and drink ya know. That's drinking and driving and that's against the law. Then you will see establishments losing money. Don't worry my friends. That will never happen. So...police yourselves. Let's be careful out there!
Skiing anyone? I for one am ready. Oh, and if you see my husband and I ski off into the woods. We are probably having a smoke. Don't follow! Ewww smokers! I need a beer and a butt! LOL! :beer:
No big deal. Hell, the whole world could go smoke free and people would still find something to complain about. Ohhh, that man has alcohol on his breath. That's the next thing to go. Bye bye beer. Breath meters at doors. You shouldn't be having more than one drink anyway. That's next. Everyone breath into your car meter. Can't have too (2) many and drink ya know. That's drinking and driving and that's against the law. Then you will see establishments losing money. Don't worry my friends. That will never happen. So...police yourselves. Let's be careful out there!
Skiing anyone? I for one am ready. Oh, and if you see my husband and I ski off into the woods. We are probably having a smoke. Don't follow! Ewww smokers! I need a beer and a butt! LOL! :beer:
GadgetRick
New member
Bans are good
Don't get me wrong, I actually like the bans. I, like many of you, hate to spend any money (doesn't have to be a lot) on food while someone is sitting next to me smoking. I'm just pointing out the argument of improving business isn't the best argument in the world for all areas. Heck, most bars make most of their business on Thursday/Friday/Saturday nights. Why? Because the partiers (i.e. younger crowd) comes in and drinks a lot and smokes a lot. This type of business has been seriously hurt. This has nothing to do with econimic climate.
Anyway, I liked what NYC implied they were trying to do with their ban. They wanted to allow places like cigar bars to stay in business. Why? Well, if you can't smoke in a cigar bar why would anyone go? This certainly directly puts a business like this out of business. Not really fair in the grand scheme of things. Besides, if you're a non-smoker and don't want to be around smokers you're not going to stop into a cigar bar-type establishment. NYC tried to do this by making a company prove a certain amount of revenue comes from selling tobacco products. I think that is a bit much. Just saying it's a cigar bar should be sufficient to keep anyone who doesn't want to be there out of there.
Besides, it's nice (for me) to sit with friends at a nice cigar bar with a glass of cognac and a cigar and relax. Sure I could do it at home but I could also cook all of my meals at home yet I choose to go out to eat often enough. It's fun to be out sometimes.
Anyway, I don't think this is an argument anyone can win. I understand why both sides get up in arms regarding this. So I'm (basically) nuetral and I'm trying to suggest a common ground.
Don't get me wrong, I actually like the bans. I, like many of you, hate to spend any money (doesn't have to be a lot) on food while someone is sitting next to me smoking. I'm just pointing out the argument of improving business isn't the best argument in the world for all areas. Heck, most bars make most of their business on Thursday/Friday/Saturday nights. Why? Because the partiers (i.e. younger crowd) comes in and drinks a lot and smokes a lot. This type of business has been seriously hurt. This has nothing to do with econimic climate.
Anyway, I liked what NYC implied they were trying to do with their ban. They wanted to allow places like cigar bars to stay in business. Why? Well, if you can't smoke in a cigar bar why would anyone go? This certainly directly puts a business like this out of business. Not really fair in the grand scheme of things. Besides, if you're a non-smoker and don't want to be around smokers you're not going to stop into a cigar bar-type establishment. NYC tried to do this by making a company prove a certain amount of revenue comes from selling tobacco products. I think that is a bit much. Just saying it's a cigar bar should be sufficient to keep anyone who doesn't want to be there out of there.
Besides, it's nice (for me) to sit with friends at a nice cigar bar with a glass of cognac and a cigar and relax. Sure I could do it at home but I could also cook all of my meals at home yet I choose to go out to eat often enough. It's fun to be out sometimes.
Anyway, I don't think this is an argument anyone can win. I understand why both sides get up in arms regarding this. So I'm (basically) nuetral and I'm trying to suggest a common ground.
ChileMass
Active member
Rick - as far as I can see, only one respondent (skican - God bless her) has indicated she smokes, so you can't really claim "both sides are up in arms" on this thread. It's been pretty one-sided. But - you're probably right that no one can really hope to win this argument as both sides are very defensive.
All that said - I am a smoker fighting the ongoing battle to quit (haven't had a cig in 4 days), and it amazes me that non-smokers are soooooooo aggressive towards smokers. A couple parts of CO per trillion while outside on a chairlift may momentarily annoy you, but I can't believe it can make you sick, and I also find it hard to believe non-smokers, those typically liberal doves, get so in-your-face at the first whiff of tobacco smoke. I like skican's idea - police yourself - and if the ski area mentioned in this thread bans smoking, perhaps it ought to be your new home hill.......
All that said - I am a smoker fighting the ongoing battle to quit (haven't had a cig in 4 days), and it amazes me that non-smokers are soooooooo aggressive towards smokers. A couple parts of CO per trillion while outside on a chairlift may momentarily annoy you, but I can't believe it can make you sick, and I also find it hard to believe non-smokers, those typically liberal doves, get so in-your-face at the first whiff of tobacco smoke. I like skican's idea - police yourself - and if the ski area mentioned in this thread bans smoking, perhaps it ought to be your new home hill.......
Similar threads
- Locked
