Smokers Flout The Rules

[Floatsflyer]

Floats,
Congratulations!!! I am on my first week of being reformed. Any tips? How do you feel after 6 months?
Rick

Congrats to you too! And the very best of luck especially the first 3-4 weeks. Getting off nicotine is worse than heroin. At least with heroin there's a 12 step program.

I have no tips for you because my circumstances were different than yours. Sounds like you made an actual decision to stop. Me, I came down with a really bad flu at the end of January and it lasted about 4 weeks. You know, as a smoker, when you're sick and feeling really crappy, the last thing you want to do is smoke or even think of smoking. That was my situation, I didn't miss it at all and by the end of 4 weeks all traces of nicotine were out of my body. So I just said to myself, let's see if I can continue to not smoke for another month, another and another. Now it's 6 months. I don't say I've quit, I say I've stopped and await the next month to be finished. I'm thinking that if I make it to a year, then perhaps I'll say I quit.

I feel really good so far and I'm really proud of myself, after 40 plus years of smoking, I never thought I could stop. I chew a lot of sugarless gum which seems to be a substitute for having a cigarette in my mouth or having to satisfy some oral fixation. The only time I have any sense of a craving appears to be after dinner in the evening. I get the sense that when I'm finished, something is missing like I'm forgetting to do something. What's missing is going outside to have a smoke. I don't have that feeling after breakfast or lunch. Weird?!

Once again, all the best.

[Floatsflyer]

much easier to enforce a total ban. If someone is smoking anywhere on the grounds, they are ejected from the grounds. No claim of I thought this was a smoking area because the entire grounds are non smoking.

Have a heart Chris. Smoking is a disease like any other disease, only worse because of the addiction factor. You wouldn't ban people with heart disease, or kidney disease, or chrones disease or a myriad of other diseases. Would you? So why smoking?

[miemsed]

Have a heart Chris. Smoking is a disease like any other disease, only worse because of the addiction factor. You wouldn't ban people with heart disease, or kidney disease, or chrones disease or a myriad of other diseases. Would you? So why smoking?

Well that may be but the problem with smoking is everyone around them at Airventure is forced to smoke with them. Many attendees value their health and do not want to breath the cancer causing smoke generated by others who choose to smoke in areas where they are not supposed to. A ban would benifit all attendees for both safety of aircraft and attendee health. By the way no one said ban smokers from attending just ban smoking on the grounds.

[scuba72]

Granted, smoking in non designated areas needs to be fixed. I have attended Airventure as a smoker and always looked for the designated areas to fulfill my nasty habit. If the non smokers don't wish to inhale second hand smoke, you can always walk around that area. You don't need to walk through an area roughly the size of a small house and look with disgust at some one enjoying a smoke and complaining they are hurting you. Walking 20 or 30 feet out of the way won't hurt you.

If you see some one smoking where they shouldn't, instead of getting upset, politely explain to them why that isn't a good place to light up. If they ignore you, then its time to get EAA staff involved.

Unfortunately I am not there this year, but if I was I would no longer be looking for a place to smoke. I stopped smoking almost 4 weeks ago. How you may ask? I use Nicorette Gum and an electronic cigarette. (I think they call it Vaping) Now what I would like to know is how all you non smokers feel about us using electronic cigarettes? I still would go to a smoking area to use it, but at least its not lighting up.

Dave in Missouri

[Floatsflyer]

Well that may be but the problem with smoking is everyone around them at Airventure is forced to smoke. A ban would benifit all attendees for both safety of aircraft

No one is forced to smoke, that's absurd. People walk around, not through the designated areas. And besides all of this occurs outside where the smoke dissipates very quickly.

I have never seen anyone smoking around an airplane. And if they did so what! Obviously the big certifieds of the 60's, 70's and 80's (Cessna, etc.) didn't think that was an issue because in the cockpits they had ash trays built into the the arm rests. If you learned to fly in the late 60's on up to the early 80's you trained in 150's, 152's and 172's with ashtrays in them. They were there for smoking IN the plane.

[miemsed]

No one is forced to smoke, that's absurd. People walk around, not through the designated areas. And besides all of this occurs outside where the smoke dissipates very quickly.

I have never seen anyone smoking around an airplane. And if they did so what! Obviously the big certifieds of the 60's, 70's and 80's (Cessna, etc.) didn't think that was an issue because in the cockpits they had ash trays built into the the arm rests. If you learned to fly in the late 60's on up to the early 80's you trained in 150's, 152's and 172's with ashtrays in them. They were there for smoking IN the plane.

pictures have been posted in this thread that show smoking near airplanes. The argument that it dissipates outside and does not force those around to breath it is foolish. I was their Mon and tues this year. Smokers were smoking well outside the designated areas. We were eating in a food vendor seating area and two smokers sat at the upwind table right next to us and started smoking. We had to stop eating and leave or breath the cancer causing smoke. This of course was a non smoking area. Of course their young child was also breathing the smoke but that is another story. Many smokers do not believe second hand smoke is dangerous to others because they will not even admit smoking is dangerous to their own health. I have even witnessed smokers smoking while fueling an airplane. Anytime you have smoking around the exterior of an airplane, there is the potential for fuel and fuel vapors which is dangerous. It does not matter if you do not feel there is a danger, it is a fact that it is. I am sorry that many smokers are not convinced of the dangers of smoking but they are well documented. For the safety, health and comfort of all attendees, smoking should be banned on the EAA grounds. EAA has tried the designated smoking areas for years and unfortunately many smokers just ignore the rules. Some smokers follow the rules but unfortunately the ones that do not, ruin it for everyone. A ban would be much easier to enforce and increase safety for everyone. Sorry you disagree with that. You can continue to advocate for smoking, that is your right. I will continue to advocate for the right to be safe and to breath smoke free air..

[JesseD]

pictures have been posted in this thread that show smoking near airplanes. The argument that it dissipates outside and does not force those around to breath it is foolish. I was their Mon and tues this year. Smokers were smoking well outside the designated areas. We were eating in a food vendor seating area and two smokers sat at the upwind table right next to us and started smoking. We had to stop eating and leave or breath the cancer causing smoke. This of course was a non smoking area. Of course their young child was also breathing the smoke but that is another story. Many smokers do not believe second hand smoke is dangerous to others because they will not even admit smoking is dangerous to their own health. I have even witnessed smokers smoking while fueling an airplane. Anytime you have smoking around the exterior of an airplane, there is the potential for fuel and fuel vapors which is dangerous. It does not matter if you do not feel there is a danger, it is a fact that it is. I am sorry that many smokers are not convinced of the dangers of smoking but they are well documented. For the safety, health and comfort of all attendees, smoking should be banned on the EAA grounds. EAA has tried the designated smoking areas for years and unfortunately many smokers just ignore the rules. Some smokers follow the rules but unfortunately the ones that do not, ruin it for everyone. A ban would be much easier to enforce and increase safety for everyone. Sorry you disagree with that. You can continue to advocate for smoking, that is your right. I will continue to advocate for the right to be safe and to breath smoke free air..

First note: I dislike "zero tolerance" zealots. Whether it's smoking, "drugs" (see: girl who was suspended from school over Midol), or pretty much anything else, zero tolerance is generally a stupid idea.

The primary thing, for me, is that they shouldn't be smoking near airplanes. While, in many cases, you can throw a lit cigarette into a pail holding gas with no effect (one of my friends used to do this as a demo) that doesn't make it right. I think the smoking areas, which are spread out nicely, should be used as intended. There is a ridiculously small chance, primarily with cheaper cigarettes, that the chemical the paper is soaked in will cause an ignition. That's just bad news and should be avoided. I fully support going up to smoker and politely asking them to extinguish the flame source near the potentially large source of fuel is wise. Should they refuse, then I think it's time to get staff involved, and maybe the guys (especially in the central square / warbird island / et al.) who own the planes involved to get the problem corrected. Do not be confrontational about it, because they're just going to be like anyone else who is being confronted. That means they'll go into one of two modes: flight or fight. Now they probably won't enter fisticuffs with anyone, but they will be as belligerent to you as you are to them. Belligerence is useless, and they may not really understand anyway until it is politely pointed out. Politeness usually wins, with a sheepish apology for the error.

The secondary thing, and this is because you want to harp on the dangers of smoking outdoors, is you're around Av-gas planes. According to the same people that declared smoking so harmful, Av-gas is a horrible (HORRIBLE) thing that contains unimaginably TOXIC lead. Now consider, for a second, that the amount of lead you're (in theory) being exposed to (especially if you touch or hang around the exhaust on planes, particularly Warbirds) is significantly more dangerous than smoke wafting by you. Do you think Jet A smells good? Most environmentalists don't. Do you think Av-gas has a great smell? Again, most environmentalists don't and they positively freak out over the trace amounts of lead. Tetra-ethyl lead has all sorts of nasty carcinogenic (and non-carcinogenic, but still unhealthy) effects on your body. Why, it's positively destructive to children! That's why there's such a push to find an alternative fuel. Do you want to know (because this is a huge airshow with a ton of Av-gas burning aircraft, in particular warbirds) how much lead is being shot out the exhaust? Trace amounts, of course (we use as little lead as possible) but enough to make an environmentalist's blood boil in rage.

This is the zealot's point of view: "Should all of the good citizens of Oshkosh that live 'near' the airport be forced to endure the extra doses toxic lead from the fly-in / airshows? They should ban Av-gas (and Airventure, at least until a safer fuel alternative is found) IMMEDIATELY! Think of the CHILDREN! How many of them will suffer neurological effects from that lead!? How many people can actually afford to leave the area during the fly-in and avoid all that health destroying, tetra-ethyl lead!?"

That's what zero tolerance gets you, zero intelligence.

BTW: Ex-smoker, quit before I went to get my medical and it was PITA. I'm going on 8 years without a cigarette. I don't like smoking, but I dislike zero tolerance zealots even more.

[miemsed]

First note: I dislike "zero tolerance" zealots. Whether it's smoking, "drugs" (see: girl who was suspended from school over Midol), or pretty much anything else, zero tolerance is generally a stupid idea.

The primary thing, for me, is that they shouldn't be smoking near airplanes. While, in many cases, you can throw a lit cigarette into a pail holding gas with no effect (one of my friends used to do this as a demo) that doesn't make it right. I think the smoking areas, which are spread out nicely, should be used as intended. There is a ridiculously small chance, primarily with cheaper cigarettes, that the chemical the paper is soaked in will cause an ignition. That's just bad news and should be avoided. I fully support going up to smoker and politely asking them to extinguish the flame source near the potentially large source of fuel is wise. Should they refuse, then I think it's time to get staff involved, and maybe the guys (especially in the central square / warbird island / et al.) who own the planes involved to get the problem corrected. Do not be confrontational about it, because they're just going to be like anyone else who is being confronted. That means they'll go into one of two modes: flight or fight. Now they probably won't enter fisticuffs with anyone, but they will be as belligerent to you as you are to them. Belligerence is useless, and they may not really understand anyway until it is politely pointed out. Politeness usually wins, with a sheepish apology for the error.

The secondary thing, and this is because you want to harp on the dangers of smoking outdoors, is you're around Av-gas planes. According to the same people that declared smoking so harmful, Av-gas is a horrible (HORRIBLE) thing that contains unimaginably TOXIC lead. Now consider, for a second, that the amount of lead you're (in theory) being exposed to (especially if you touch or hang around the exhaust on planes, particularly Warbirds) is significantly more dangerous than smoke wafting by you. Do you think Jet A smells good? Most environmentalists don't. Do you think Av-gas has a great smell? Again, most environmentalists don't and they positively freak out over the trace amounts of lead. Tetra-ethyl lead has all sorts of nasty carcinogenic (and non-carcinogenic, but still unhealthy) effects on your body. Why, it's positively destructive to children! That's why there's such a push to find an alternative fuel. Do you want to know (because this is a huge airshow with a ton of Av-gas burning aircraft, in particular warbirds) how much lead is being shot out the exhaust? Trace amounts, of course (we use as little lead as possible) but enough to make an environmentalist's blood boil in rage.

This is the zealot's point of view: "Should all of the good citizens of Oshkosh that live 'near' the airport be forced to endure the extra doses toxic lead from the fly-in / airshows? They should ban Av-gas (and Airventure, at least until a safer fuel alternative is found) IMMEDIATELY! Think of the CHILDREN! How many of them will suffer neurological effects from that lead!? How many people can actually afford to leave the area during the fly-in and avoid all that health destroying, tetra-ethyl lead!?"

That's what zero tolerance gets you, zero intelligence.

BTW: Ex-smoker, quit before I went to get my medical and it was PITA. I'm going on 8 years without a cigarette. I don't like smoking, but I dislike zero tolerance zealots even more.

For the health, safety and comfort of all attendees, smoking should be banned on the Airventure grounds.

Thanks for your comments.

[vaflier]

Lets see what else should be banned ?????. How about all the drinking that goes on, we all know about those drunk drivers and how many people they kill. While we are at it we should ban all aircraft smoke, boy that would make for a dull airshow. And how about all the golf carts and scooters, certainly there are people injured by them every year. While we are at it we should ban all internal combustion engines since we know how bad the exhaust fumes are for all of us, so there go the trams, all deliveries of food and equipment, no Porta Potty pumpouts, no aircraft, that means no airshow. Loud noise has to go since that is really bad for our ears and keeps us awake at night causing sleep deprivation which is really bad. I guess the best thing to do is simply ban the entire event so there would be no crashes and no one hurt just to be on the safe side. I really dislike zealots in most any form since they can only be pleased with extreme actions. Yet when they are the ones affected , and they will be, there will raise holy h@$& that it is unfair. One extreme or the other is rarely ever the best aproach to a problem.

[JesseD]

For the health, safety and comfort of all attendees, smoking should be banned on the Airventure grounds.

Thanks for your comments.

For the health, safety, and comfort of all residents of Oshkosh, Airventure should be banned until an alternative lead free fuel is in use.

That, my good compatriot, is EXACTLY how you sound. Zero tolerance is for zealots. Zealots have accomplished little, if any, good throughout history.

Thank you for your opinion, and lack of a direct counter-argument. Please feel free to suffer the cancerous (and non-cancerous, but still bad for your health) effects of Tetra-Ethyl lead (TEL) on your body. Who knows, it may be the last one, because some "environmentalist" might sue to ban Airventure because of the effects.