What will happen with smoking at Kings Island

[Guest kwindshawne]

If you ask me i think that you should be able to leave the park and then come back in to smoke. I dont really care if they ban smoking or not because i dont smoke and i dont know anybody that does so i amfine with whatever but i do respect people's rights and i think that they need to respect those but i dont care if they ban it or not. The area i think would be the best for a smoking area would be somewhere over by FOF and now Firehawk where there is not very many people that walk by. Or you can just make a smoking tent just for smoking and that way people cannot complain because if they get in smoke it is their fault.

Perfect

[KI-ORIG-EMP]

There is no way Kings Island would have a re-entry ban as it would be a guest relations nightmare. Even if it was for the purpose of baning smoking, it would not be able to be enforced. There is no way to tell who was leaving to smoke or go to their car for lunch. There is a smoking area as you walk to the FOF and in other areas of the park. They just need to be located where the smoke will not drift for others to smell. If smoking would to be banned then all employees should be trained on how to instruct guests about the ban. Just do not do it without thought of how guests might react.

Mike

[Cory Butcher]

The arean by Firehawk and FoF I believe is going to be a congestion nightmare! In my opinion there are some slightly better areas to designate for smokers!

[Lauch]

As a recent smoker, now a non-smoker, I have to say that I never had a problem with smoking in designated areas. I even would go out of my way to make sure that my smoke was as far away from others as possible. Why should my bad habit affect others? While you are talking about the freedom to smoke, you're also talking about the freedom of others not to smell the habit. Smoke stinks..it gets on your clothes, just by being near it....you get used to it when you're a smoker, but as a non-smoker, it's the grossest smell in the world.

I believe they should have smoking tents or something with plenty of ventilation that keeps the smoke away from non-smokers. That way, if you want to smoke, you can go there to smoke.

Ohio's smoking ban, while not very well defined, does basically take away smoking priveleges in any public area, including near public entrances. And while it may be an extreme law, it was also voted on by voters. So I doubt there will be a smoking area anytime soon.

But people will smoke. And smokers aren't very good at putting out ciggarettes....always a pet peeve of mine as I was one of the only smokers who made sure the cigarette was completely out.

[SOB_TOM]

Just throwing this out there:

The extreme policies that were mentioned above were thought up AFTER the vote passed. Non-smokers voted yes to this law without any type of guidelines.

Also, a reaction as feeling strangled or sick by cigarette smoke is NOT an allergic reaction. It is a psychological reaction. Former smokers feel it because their psyche is remembering the old days, and the media has built up a negative rap on second hand smoke so bad that non-smokers are now sickened by it. Non of these problems existed when smoking was a part of society back in 1940.

And as for waking up with a cut off throat: I already do that because two big sleeping disorders run in my family: One that makes it hard for me to fall asleep, and another that causes my throat to collapse while asleep, therefor cutting off my air supply and waking me up. So yes, I have experienced those, and they are part of my life. Smoking is not going to help that at all.

[pkitrumpet08]

Just throwing this out there:

The extreme policies that were mentioned above were thought up AFTER the vote passed. Non-smokers voted yes to this law without any type of guidelines.

Also, a reaction as feeling strangled or sick by cigarette smoke is NOT an allergic reaction. It is a psychological reaction. Former smokers feel it because their psyche is remembering the old days, and the media has built up a negative rap on second hand smoke so bad that non-smokers are now sickened by it. Non of these problems existed when smoking was a part of society back in 1940.

And as for waking up with a cut off throat: I already do that because two big sleeping disorders run in my family: One that makes it hard for me to fall asleep, and another that causes my throat to collapse while asleep, therefor cutting off my air supply and waking me up. So yes, I have experienced those, and they are part of my life. Smoking is not going to help that at all.

I agree with that. While I don't like smoking, and it smells bad and whatnot it doesn't make me 'choke' or anything.

And especially back in the day smoking was commonplace, people did it all the time, and lots of people at that.

[Guest kwindshawne]

Just throwing this out there:

The extreme policies that were mentioned above were thought up AFTER the vote passed. Non-smokers voted yes to this law without any type of guidelines.

Also, a reaction as feeling strangled or sick by cigarette smoke is NOT an allergic reaction. It is a psychological reaction. Former smokers feel it because their psyche is remembering the old days, and the media has built up a negative rap on second hand smoke so bad that non-smokers are now sickened by it. Non of these problems existed when smoking was a part of society back in 1940.

And as for waking up with a cut off throat: I already do that because two big sleeping disorders run in my family: One that makes it hard for me to fall asleep, and another that causes my throat to collapse while asleep, therefor cutting off my air supply and waking me up. So yes, I have experienced those, and they are part of my life. Smoking is not going to help that at all.

I smell bull****-sorry dude, those are the same arguments i made as a smoker-asthma tends to constrict your lungs-and psychology has nothing to do with it-smoke is an irritant, not a psychological issue

[Guest kwindshawne]

Just throwing this out there:

The extreme policies that were mentioned above were thought up AFTER the vote passed. Non-smokers voted yes to this law without any type of guidelines.

Also, a reaction as feeling strangled or sick by cigarette smoke is NOT an allergic reaction. It is a psychological reaction. Former smokers feel it because their psyche is remembering the old days, and the media has built up a negative rap on second hand smoke so bad that non-smokers are now sickened by it. Non of these problems existed when smoking was a part of society back in 1940.

And as for waking up with a cut off throat: I already do that because two big sleeping disorders run in my family: One that makes it hard for me to fall asleep, and another that causes my throat to collapse while asleep, therefor cutting off my air supply and waking me up. So yes, I have experienced those, and they are part of my life. Smoking is not going to help that at all.

I agree with that. While I don't like smoking, and it smells bad and whatnot it doesn't make me 'choke' or anything.

And especially back in the day smoking was commonplace, people did it all the time, and lots of people at that.

It's not the cigarette, it's the chemicals and crap that is manufactured with the cigarette that makes it an irritant-pure native tobacco is not loaded with pesticides and junk-and surprisingly, I like the smell of smoke-it's the junk put in that irritates me

[DeLorean Rider]

I suppose coughing because youre in a burning building is just a psycological reaction too then. Your body doesnt really mind you breathing in lung fulls of smoke, its just your brain being stupid telling you you dont want it in there.

[ragerunner]

I know this has already been discussed but, I really wish KI would just work harder to enforce the smoking requirements they have a this time and move one or two of the smoking areas (like the IJST area) to a more out of the way location so people that don't want to have smoke around them can achieve that goal.

[Mikewhy]

You know, all Kings Island needs to do is to learn how to create a smoke-free park from Holiday World. People there really do use the smoking sections, they are mostly away from the main walkways, and it is actually quite rare to see people smoking where they should not.

First of all it is not all that clear to most what the smoking policy is at KI. Yes, they announce it over the speakers, but 90% of the time, you can not clearly hear this. I heard it, but it was often so low as to be easy to ignore. Secondly, signage is really not prevalent at Kings Island. Look aroound Holiday World... it has very tasteful and attractive banners everywhere reminding guests that the park is smoke-free. They use the positive term smoke-free rather than No smoking. There is NO WAY any guest can claim ignorance of the smoking policy there.

Lastly, the smoking areas at Holiday World are large, comfortable, and very desirable (at least if you enjoy smoking...) By giving smokers such nice places to relax and smoke, they are made to feel more respected and therefore there is better compliance.

So Holiday World has the best compliance I have seen with their frequently seen banners, nice smoking areas, and clear smoking policy on their maps. (On most of the Kings Island maps I have seen, the smoking policy is VERY hard to find.)

I once had a Kings Island employee tell me that they can not stop the smoking when the park is crowded. I do not buy it, because I have been to Holiday World when the park was so crowded you could hardly walk, and still smoking was rarely seen outside of designated areas. Kings Island is not trying hard enough. If they were to follow the Holiday World model, I think things would be more pleasant for both smokers and non-smokers.

[OhioCutie]

I've read these boards for awhile, but never felt the need to register. Never had anything to say about a topic. This topic has drawn me in.

I'm a non-smoker, but the nineteen year old daughter of two smokers. I've also gone to King's Island with an asthmatic date who wanted to avoid smokers at all costs, even if it meant getting up from a bench if someone with a cigerette was walking by. I also have two grandmothers who have both survived cancers that cannot be around cigerette smoke. I can see this from a lot of different angles.

I see absolutely no valid argument against designated smoking areas. Don't like smoke? Don't go near those areas. Simple as that. I really doubt your lungs are going to collapse if a brief smell of snoke enters your nostrils if you happen to pass quickly by the smoking area. Simply not liking the smell is also a ridiculous argument against the designated areas. You'll smell it for a few seconds while you walk by. I smell unpleasant things all the time at the amusement parks..the bathrooms sometimes smell like something died in there. Sweaty stinky people on the 90 degree days aren't exactly pleasant to smell either. Smells are part of life.

That said, I think smokers should respect the line-rule as well as staying within designated smoking areas. These areas need to be marked on the maps and there needs to be signs around stating that the park is smoke-free except in certain areas and these areas should be marked with signs as well. Some people really don't know. They see a few people smoking in an area, and they figure it must be okay to smoke there, so they do as well. They're not trying to be jerks, they really are just unaware.

Make the smoking areas "appealing". Provide seats and tables and multiple areas to dispose the cigerettes. Perhaps have a food area within 10 minute distance so that smokers and their family can enjoy a hot french fry while the smoker gets their smoking done. They don't feel punished and therefore they will be more willing to obey the rules(although I think the biggest thing is that people simply do not know). I think King's Island would only need 2 smoking areas. One at the back of the park, and one near the front.

People need to smoke. It's an addiction. Saying that they can smoke on the way there and on the way home is insane. Anybody who says that has never been around a smoker who is going through nicotine withdrawl. You can say it's pathetic, it probably is. But why punish them by making them leave the park entirely and re-enter losing 15-20 minutes of their day each time they have to leave.

The poster above me, Mikewhy, has excellent ideas taken from Holiday World. And I think those should all be worked into King's Island. It will make everyone happy.

[Gordon Bombay]

Just throwing this out there:

The extreme policies that were mentioned above were thought up AFTER the vote passed. Non-smokers voted yes to this law without any type of guidelines.

On the contrary Tom, the law that was passed had guidelines that were able to be viewed online and through the mail before you voted, the only guidelines that were still being debated on where the punishments that could be delivered, however guidelines as to where smoking would be allowed and other aspects were there and quite available. You live in Kentucky so I dont see why this bothers you that much, every time I hang out with Ryan in Ohio he has no problem following the law. What major inconveinences has this law caused YOU when your in Ohio? In response to what you said earlier there is now law in place nor any plan to ban smoking in the privacy of their own homes!

This law has not been as drastic and life ruining as you make it out to be, very little has been changed since most businesses had similar rules in place already. Whether or not 2nd hand smoke kills is quite a debate with many sides but regardless smoking does affect others. While walking into the mall the other day some raggety chick-fil-a employee was having a smoke right in front of the violation sign which states smoking must be performed on the parking garage, not under the over hang right next to the door. I had just come from shooting photos near Springdale and had a nice shirt and tie on, I dont care if somone wants to smoke and affect themselves but I dont need the smell in my clothes and I dont need the trash on the ground. I threw away my Coke bottle, why couldnt he throw his cigarette butt in the trash or the ash tray provided next to him? What it comes down to is that Ohio overwhelmingly approved this law not because smoking may or may not be causing 2nd hand cancer but because its a personal habit that gets in the way of other citizens without their consent or choice. If more smokers were more polite about how they went about the habit you wouldnt see such an outcry like this. The law passed overwehlmingly among Ohio citizens and it is here to stay.

[BoddaH1994]

I've read these boards for awhile, but never felt the need to register. Never had anything to say about a topic. This topic has drawn me in.

I'm a non-smoker, but the nineteen year old daughter of two smokers. I've also gone to King's Island with an asthmatic date who wanted to avoid smokers at all costs, even if it meant getting up from a bench if someone with a cigerette was walking by. I also have two grandmothers who have both survived cancers that cannot be around cigerette smoke. I can see this from a lot of different angles.

I see absolutely no valid argument against designated smoking areas. Don't like smoke? Don't go near those areas. Simple as that. I really doubt your lungs are going to collapse if a brief smell of snoke enters your nostrils if you happen to pass quickly by the smoking area. Simply not liking the smell is also a ridiculous argument against the designated areas. You'll smell it for a few seconds while you walk by. I smell unpleasant things all the time at the amusement parks..the bathrooms sometimes smell like something died in there. Sweaty stinky people on the 90 degree days aren't exactly pleasant to smell either. Smells are part of life.

That said, I think smokers should respect the line-rule as well as staying within designated smoking areas. These areas need to be marked on the maps and there needs to be signs around stating that the park is smoke-free except in certain areas and these areas should be marked with signs as well. Some people really don't know. They see a few people smoking in an area, and they figure it must be okay to smoke there, so they do as well. They're not trying to be jerks, they really are just unaware.

Make the smoking areas "appealing". Provide seats and tables and multiple areas to dispose the cigerettes. Perhaps have a food area within 10 minute distance so that smokers and their family can enjoy a hot french fry while the smoker gets their smoking done. They don't feel punished and therefore they will be more willing to obey the rules(although I think the biggest thing is that people simply do not know). I think King's Island would only need 2 smoking areas. One at the back of the park, and one near the front.

People need to smoke. It's an addiction. Saying that they can smoke on the way there and on the way home is insane. Anybody who says that has never been around a smoker who is going through nicotine withdrawl. You can say it's pathetic, it probably is. But why punish them by making them leave the park entirely and re-enter losing 15-20 minutes of their day each time they have to leave.

The poster above me, Mikewhy, has excellent ideas taken from Holiday World. And I think those should all be worked into King's Island. It will make everyone happy.

I stopped posting in this thread because the intelligence level dropped to new record lows on both sides of the argument. You, ma'am, have restored my faith in humanity.

Welcome to the forums.

[SOB_TOM]

Youre right, I do live in Kentucky. The reason that I debate this law so hard is because it is taking away the basic freedom of Choice. Most people are overlooking this point: Before the law, non-smokers had the CHOICE to go to a smoke-free facility instead of one that accomodates smokers. Smokers had the CHOICE to go into their restaraunt of CHOICE and either smoke, or wait till they leave. Now, no one has a choice. The government has said where we can and cannot smoke, and such restricted our freedoms.

Also, there is nothing stopping the Ohio government to enact a no-smoking in homes law. I didnt say that there was a law in place, I am just saying that the government can pass the law stating such, and get away with it. Did you know that it is currently illigal to smoke in your own car while a child is in the car? I will admit that smoking around children is something not to do. HOWEVER, my car is my property, and therefor private, so why can they dictate what I can and cannot do on my property? And before you even start ranting and raving "Well, does that make it right to kill on your property?" argument, you know exactly what i mean. I dont want to hear those arguments. My entire point is that the government is going above their own means by passing laws that are restricting our freedoms, and last time I checked, that was illigal by the Constitution.

One more thought: When walking through downtown Cincinnati to meet my mother at work for lunch, I saw huddles of workers in alleys smoking cigarettes. It made me realize that now the smoking citizens of the state are seen as public outcasts.

Thats all I got. Feel free to rip me apart, Im used to it. Realize though that your neighbor who may smoke is now an outcast from the Ohio society. Congratulations

Tom-who thinks that Northern KY should be lakefront property more than ever.

[OhioCutie]

I stopped posting in this thread because the intelligence level dropped to new record lows on both sides of the argument. You, ma'am, have restored my faith in humanity.

Welcome to the forums.

Thank you for the welcome, as well as the compliment.

Seems like a nice group of individuals here.

[PKIVortex]

The areas are actually marked that they are designated smoking areas, the problem is they are no other signs in the park that says that most of the park is smoke free. I feel they should do a better job of making the rule a bit more clear.

[The Interpreter]

With all due respect, there are MANY more than two sides to this issue. . .

[Guest kwindshawne]

Youre right, I do live in Kentucky. The reason that I debate this law so hard is because it is taking away the basic freedom of Choice. Most people are overlooking this point: Before the law, non-smokers had the CHOICE to go to a smoke-free facility instead of one that accomodates smokers. Smokers had the CHOICE to go into their restaraunt of CHOICE and either smoke, or wait till they leave. Now, no one has a choice. The government has said where we can and cannot smoke, and such restricted our freedoms.

Also, there is nothing stopping the Ohio government to enact a no-smoking in homes law. I didnt say that there was a law in place, I am just saying that the government can pass the law stating such, and get away with it. Did you know that it is currently illigal to smoke in your own car while a child is in the car? I will admit that smoking around children is something not to do. HOWEVER, my car is my property, and therefor private, so why can they dictate what I can and cannot do on my property? And before you even start ranting and raving "Well, does that make it right to kill on your property?" argument, you know exactly what i mean. I dont want to hear those arguments. My entire point is that the government is going above their own means by passing laws that are restricting our freedoms, and last time I checked, that was illigal by the Constitution.

One more thought: When walking through downtown Cincinnati to meet my mother at work for lunch, I saw huddles of workers in alleys smoking cigarettes. It made me realize that now the smoking citizens of the state are seen as public outcasts.

Thats all I got. Feel free to rip me apart, Im used to it. Realize though that your neighbor who may smoke is now an outcast from the Ohio society. Congratulations

Tom-who thinks that Northern KY should be lakefront property more than ever.

Our freedoms are gone-that is a fact. I have seen huge differences in my 41 years of life. However, I have a huge problem with your arrogance of wishing Ohio was part of lake erie. Geesh, lighten up.

[Gordon Bombay]

What personal freedoms are gone? You still have your basic freedoms of the constitution. Seriously, smoking is NOT a necessity and it does AFFECT THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU whether its causing 2nd cancer, which is still being debated, just bothering someones asthma, or the smell and trash getting in someones way. The government has the right to tell me where I can and cant use my firearms, and they have the right to tell you where you can and can not smoke! Its not going to kill you to have stricter designated areas in any way. I dont believe there is any possitive evidence that proves 2nd hand smoke is killing someone, however I have the right to not be affected by your private choice on public domain. My father personally choose to own a firearm, however he does not that the right to wield it on public property. SOB_TOM really needs to stop playing up this arrogant bulls**t argument that the government has become some facist organization taking away our freedoms like its a dypostian George Orwell future, theyre telling you to smoke elsewhere because the rest of us dont want to be bothered by your personal habit. Get over it, the law OVERWHELMINGLY passed in 72 out of 87 counties here in this fine state.

Your being told to take your personal habit that affects others without their consent elsewhere, and instead your trying to make the government appear as if theyre acting like Big Brother in the novel 1984, they're not, its a fair law, and your trying to warp it.

Boddah1994 has presented the perfect point on how smokers should view this law. His only issue is with certain organizations like Truth and Stand who at times can be very misleading, he has no trouble compling with law and I've been good friends with him before, after, and during it passed and when he decides to take a smoke break when we're together theres no extra hoops he has to jump through.

Outcasts from society? Tom, I know you on a personal level and do like you, but honestly that is the stupidest, stupidest argument I ever heard! Outcasts? Are you kidding me. This isnt nazi germany where they made the Jews live in Ghettos and this isnt the heat of the civil rights movement where we had seperate drinking foutnains and dining facilities. Smoking is a personal choice that is NOT a neccesity for you to keep living. No one is being outcasted, just asked to take their habit elsewhere, and if they dont want to do that theres ways (ways even provided for FREE by the state of OHIO for them to kick that habit) The Jews couldnt stop being Jewish and the African Americans could'nt just change the color of their skin, those attrocities of the second world war and civil rights movement caused those people to be outcasts based on unjust factors about their culture, heritage, and make up that they couldnt change! You can change from being a smoker to a non smoker! Are smokers out casts because of the law? Only becuase they chose to be by choice!

Stop trying to make it look like you and those who chose to smoke are being persecuted and infringed upon by the government because that is total bull. Its as simple as this. Truth and Stand try to warp the views, as do arrogant pro-smokers such as yourself but this is where it stands and its very, very simple:

Smoking affects the citizens around you without their consent. Whether it may be 2nd hand lung effects (proven or unproven), a bad smell, allergies, eye irritation, or a million other factors. THe general population (those who approve the law in the vote) dont want to be bothered by it. If you choose to smoke go right ahead, just follow the rules and dont bother those who dont want any part of it. When Im with Ryan or firends at work who smoke they go to their area, and I can chose to go with them or not.

[AintNutinElse2Do]

Okay as a current smoker (though i've quit many times) I have an idea that might just work. Everyone seems to think that there's not a real problem with designated smoking areas as long as people stayed in them to smoke. Well I know this may seem a little silly but I think it would totally work. What if you outright ban bringing cigarettes into the park. You can afterall generally see a pack of cigarettes in someones pockets, and women's pocket books well those really need to be checked better anyways. So if you prevent people from bringing in cigarettes they wouldnt have that cigarette to light up where they shouldn't.

The solution to make smokers happy at least IMHO would be to then have maybe 2 or 3 outdoor smoking patios. Since no was able to enter the park with cigarettes the park could then sell single cigarettes for $2 easy. Then you would have complete control of the smoking situation. You could of limited entry and exit to the patio so you could easily keep someone from walking out of the patio with a cigarette. Maybe a park trying to promote a non-smoking enviroment could actually make things more comfortable for the guests by selling cigarettes.

Sounds crazy I know but it might just work

[Gordon Bombay]

^YOu bring up a valid point and a good idea sir and the park used to sell cigarettes. However I dont think the problem is with people bringing them in, guests are more than welcome to smoke in the park, the whole park is not smoke free, it does have designated areas. A few of those areas just could use better placement for the conveinence of both smokers and guests a like. The KI system works great.....but....only when its enforced.

[Guest kwindshawne]

What personal freedoms are gone? You still have your basic freedoms of the constitution. Seriously, smoking is NOT a necessity and it does AFFECT THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU whether its causing 2nd cancer, which is still being debated, just bothering someones asthma, or the smell and trash getting in someones way. The government has the right to tell me where I can and cant use my firearms, and they have the right to tell you where you can and can not smoke! Its not going to kill you to have stricter designated areas in any way. I dont believe there is any possitive evidence that proves 2nd hand smoke is killing someone, however I have the right to not be affected by your private choice on public domain. My father personally choose to own a firearm, however he does not that the right to wield it on public property. SOB_TOM really needs to stop playing up this arrogant bulls**t argument that the government has become some facist organization taking away our freedoms like its a dypostian George Orwell future, theyre telling you to smoke elsewhere because the rest of us dont want to be bothered by your personal habit. Get over it, the law OVERWHELMINGLY passed in 72 out of 87 counties here in this fine state.

Your being told to take your personal habit that affects others without their consent elsewhere, and instead your trying to make the government appear as if theyre acting like Big Brother in the novel 1984, they're not, its a fair law, and your trying to warp it.

Boddah1994 has presented the perfect point on how smokers should view this law. His only issue is with certain organizations like Truth and Stand who at times can be very misleading, he has no trouble compling with law and I've been good friends with him before, after, and during it passed and when he decides to take a smoke break when we're together theres no extra hoops he has to jump through.

Outcasts from society? Tom, I know you on a personal level and do like you, but honestly that is the stupidest, stupidest argument I ever heard! Outcasts? Are you kidding me. This isnt nazi germany where they made the Jews live in Ghettos and this isnt the heat of the civil rights movement where we had seperate drinking foutnains and dining facilities. Smoking is a personal choice that is NOT a neccesity for you to keep living. No one is being outcasted, just asked to take their habit elsewhere, and if they dont want to do that theres ways (ways even provided for FREE by the state of OHIO for them to kick that habit) The Jews couldnt stop being Jewish and the African Americans could'nt just change the color of their skin, those attrocities of the second world war and civil rights movement caused those people to be outcasts based on unjust factors about their culture, heritage, and make up that they couldnt change! You can change from being a smoker to a non smoker! Are smokers out casts because of the law? Only becuase they chose to be by choice!

Stop trying to make it look like you and those who chose to smoke are being persecuted and infringed upon by the government because that is total bull. Its as simple as this. Truth and Stand try to warp the views, as do arrogant pro-smokers such as yourself but this is where it stands and its very, very simple:

Smoking affects the citizens around you without their consent. Whether it may be 2nd hand lung effects (proven or unproven), a bad smell, allergies, eye irritation, or a million other factors. THe general population (those who approve the law in the vote) dont want to be bothered by it. If you choose to smoke go right ahead, just follow the rules and dont bother those who dont want any part of it. When Im with Ryan or firends at work who smoke they go to their area, and I can chose to go with them or not.

Well said. I think both of those organizations go too far-especially the one with the body parts in the trash cans. That is plain sick.

[BoddaH1994]

Outcasts from society? Tom, I know you on a personal level and do like you, but honestly that is the stupidest, stupidest argument I ever heard! Outcasts? Are you kidding me. This isnt nazi germany where they made the Jews live in Ghettos and this isnt the heat of the civil rights movement where we had seperate drinking foutnains and dining facilities. Smoking is a personal choice that is NOT a neccesity for you to keep living. No one is being outcasted, just asked to take their habit elsewhere, and if they dont want to do that theres ways (ways even provided for FREE by the state of OHIO for them to kick that habit) The Jews couldnt stop being Jewish and the African Americans could'nt just change the color of their skin, those attrocities of the second world war and civil rights movement caused those people to be outcasts based on unjust factors about their culture, heritage, and make up that they couldnt change! You can change from being a smoker to a non smoker! Are smokers out casts because of the law? Only becuase they chose to be by choice!

You make some very good points Ronny. I only have a problem with the bolded section. If it's a smoking ban, then you can't really take smoking elsewhere. I do not disagree with any of the health consequences of smoking, what I disagree with is the element of choice. I mean, what if you're in a group of four people, all of which are smokers, and you want to go somewhere and relax and smoke? Not in Ohio. HOWEVER four non-smokers can go wherever they want and not have to deal with smoke at all.

If you open a business in Ohio you HAVE to make it non-smoking, you have no choice in the matter what so ever... regardless of what your customer base or business plan dictates. Thankfully, I'm from a state like KY which doesn't force things upon people like that, but if I were to open a restaurant or bar in Ohio and had no choice in the matter, I'd be pretty angry.

Should smoking be banned in the future? Certainly. I hope to God that it gets phased out of society, but I think this approach, so soon, is more discrimination than anything else.

-Ryan... who doesn't 100% disagree with Tom's Lake Erie-front property comment.

[The Interpreter]

But, in order for something to be ILLEGAL discrimination, it must be treating a protected class differently due to their membership in that class. And, so far, at least, smokers have not been defined as a protected class. (There is an argument to be made that they are disabled, but that argument has not been accepted, as far as I know..)

On a national level, protected classes include race, religion, color, national origin, handicapped, age and gender. Some states add sexual orientation, though at the federal level, this is not the case.

If discimination as such were illegal, it would not be legal to give smart people preference over dumb people in teaching jobs, those with high mechanical ability preference over those with none for maintenance positions, etc.

[WooferBearATL]

But, in order for something to be ILLEGAL discrimination, it must be treating a protected class differently due to their membership in that class. And, so far, at least, smokers have not been defined as a protected class. (There is an argument to be made that they are disabled, but that argument has not been accepted, as far as I know..)

On a national level, protected classes include race, religion, color, national origin, handicapped, age and gender. Some states add sexual orientation, though at the federal level, this is not the case.

If discimination as such were illegal, it would not be legal to give smart people preference over dumb people in teaching jobs, those with high mechanical ability preference over those with none for maintenance positions, etc.

What always entertains me is that protected class in every state and territory is religious affliliation. Something that is clearly a choosen matter .... Seems like it would open it up for so many other folks.

[Purplehaze]

Honestly I think this whole subject is stupid and should be locked. It looks bad. Not one person here is right or wrong. There is no winners here. Just like Global Warming. Just aint gonna change anything. If they allow smoking or not...sheesh

[The Interpreter]

Well, one reason I disagree with locking the topic is this...whether smoking is not allowed, or is allowed only in designated areas, the park faces one heck of an enforcement battle. Last year Kings Island (and Great Adventure) managed only to upset members of both the smoking and non-smoking classes. Meanwhile, parks like Holiday World had very few complaints.

People go to amusement parks to be amused, not offended. And both many smokers and non-smokers were offended by what passed for an enforced "smoking in designated areas only" policy.

[Purplehaze]

Well, one reason I disagree with locking the topic is this...whether smoking is not allowed, or is allowed only in designated areas, the park faces one heck of an enforcement battle. Last year managed only to upset members of both the smoking and non-smoking classes.

People go to amusement parks to be amused, not offended. And both many smokers and non-smokers were offended by what passed for an enforced "smoking in designated areas only" policy.

I agree however it is just RED TAPE POLITICS. I am a smoker and I hate that it is coming down to this, When I smoke I am Consious about others feelings and rights. I stay off to the side and do my business, however rights/no rights doesnt even matter at this point.... The park will do whats best for them as they should. I know several people in security and believe me the smoking ban enforcment is not high on anyones list there, unless someone is complaining or smoking like a fiend out of the correct areas. It is what it is.... And also if it goes for or against the smokers and non-smokers there is always gonna be someone out there unhappy with the result and want to cry about it.....

[PKIVortex]

I don't see anything wrong with keeping the designated areas. KI just needs to do a better job of enforcing the policy.