bhatnasx

It may be BWI then - I can't recall.

liveon777

bhatnasx, sorry, just remembered that there is a smoking bar area between the new terminal and the old one at DCA. It is one long walk from the main terminal.
I don't usually fly out of that building, so completely forgot.

JS

The easiest solution to this problem is to install a sufficient number of indoor smoking lounges with ventilation.

You don't need a tornado to keep the cigarette smoke inside the smoking area -- that is B.S. Watch someone light up just inside the entrance to a smoking lounge in ATL, and you can watch the smoke get sucked back into the room.

Forcing all smokers to visit just one bar will result in a large amount of cigarette smoke in an area that nonsmokers will be visiting. Same goes for the outdoors, not to mention the wasted time going back through security.

Dick Ginkowski

Actually ATL is one of the airports we've received complaints about from pax and DL employees. There are no doors on the smoking rooms.

Easiest solution is a 100% smoke free airport.

SRQ Guy

there are no doors, but unless you go right up to the room you won't smell the smoke. Your complaints come from nonsmokers who refuse to mind their own business and instead choose to proselytize the smokers.

The easiest solution is for everyone to mind their own business.

FWIW, I am not a smoker.

JS

Did you not read my prior post? You don't need doors on the smoking lounges because the air goes INSIDE. But, if you makes you feel better to have doors, go right ahead and install them.

Your "easiest" solution of a smoke-free airport will generate even more complaints, because there will be more people smoking outside. People going into the airport will complain about that, and they will have to wait longer in the security line.

Complaining is becoming an ever more popular American sport. My signature line sums it up quite nicely:

Dick Ginkowski

At ATL the complaints have come from employees and pax at gates adjacent to the lounges and adjacent to those gates (in other words, within a 2-3 gate radius).

SRQ guy is correct. Since ETS is a known health hazard, then it is everyone's business.

frankc98376

OK already. Jeez- it was just a simple question "Where can I smoke at DTW".
Why does it need to go into a long winded tirade on the evils of smoking?
Just a simple "Smoking allowed in WC and Fox Bar" would have sufficed.
If people want to proselytize on the evils of smoking, drinking, drugs, gambling, prostitution, or just general moral depravity please do a Google search for an appropriate forum.

Standby4321

Dick, "As someone who is an ardent nonsmoker doing volunteer work writing smokefree legislation" it is not surprising that you think the "easiest solution is a 100% smoke-free airport." Your solution is a great one for everyone who already agrees with you. The fact is that anti-smoking zealots tend to grossly overestimate and overstate their stake and risks in these issues, just as tobacco companies and many smokers tend to understate these things. The truth is invariably somewhere in the middle and a decent solution is likely to be found there, too. Your "easiest solution" is pretty much the same as the old saying: "Be reasonable. Do it my way."

fromYXU

Well, lets face it. More and more you see states endorsing no smoking in restaurants. This is the trend and it is likely not to be reversable. If you smoke, do it somewhere out of breathing distance. Most smoking lounges that I have seen are messy and dirty. If you need a cigarette that badly...

Now, if you want smoking in airport go to Europe.

Standby4321

No question about the general trend, XYU, but a lot of the issue here has to do with the added twist of having security measures in place and people flying long distances in a non-smoking environment. This contributes to an additional problem: performing countless unnecessary security screenings for which EVERYONE has to stand in line. These are aspects of the discussion that just don't apply to most other situations. They should be considered.

And that is why I believe solutions for airports should be viewed in a different context than what would prevail for most other public buildings or private buildings that are open to the public. The "one size fits all" approach that a community might apply to, say, restaurants, isn't really such a thoughtful public policy in this case. I therefore don't believe that rabid, anti-smokers are often likely to contribute very much value to the conversation -- any more than the laissez-faire "smokers rights above all else" types. Between these polar opposites, solutions can be fashioned that deal with legitimate concerns and interests.

Personally, I don't even believe in "smokers rights", as such. I believe in reasonable rules that protect the legitimate interests of non-smokers, while going no further than they need to in order to accomplish that. Accommodations are not impossible and they should not be resisted by non-smokers, so long as their interests in clean indoor air can be protected. Demanding more than that is unreasonable.

dingo613

I don't smoke and don't know about effectiveness of this stuff, but with all this talk about airport smokers, an evil little thought crossed my mind. It surprises me that they haven't started selling nicotine gum or patches on flights (maybe liability issues?) along with all that liquor. The stuff is sold over-the-counter now isn't it? Think of the markups on a single stick and with a captive audience hooked on nicotine.... Exploitive I know,(probably bad PR too?), but no second-hand smoke and possible assistance for those who want to quit? Not sure if the stuff is sold in airport shops.

hnechets

I don't know about the gum, but no matter how tight I roll them, I just can not get those patches to stay lit.

rthib

Actually, it is not a known health hazard.
The landmark study that made the most often repeated claim of 65,000 deaths from ETS has long ago been discredited.
Anyone with any knowledge of math can tell that there is no statistically signifigant difference.

You are much more likely to die in a plane crash then from any exposure to ETS.

You can banish smokers because you don't like the smoke or think the smell is a problem, but there is no medical reason.

shedwannabe

Maybe to make this conversation a little more fun... we can join this thread to the "refer madness" thread. That way we'd get some real interesting juxtapositions.......