The airport terminal should be smoke-free
How encouraging to see that the Greensboro Coliseum is now smoke-free and that the incidence of teenage smoking is decreasing.
Sadly, on a recent trip through the airport terminal, I was appalled at the strong odor of smoke coming from the lounge area on the concourse. It was uncomfortable to buy food in the nonsmoking area because the smell was so pungent. This is the first impression visitors to the Triad get upon landing. Not only is this unhealthy for the employees and passengers at PTI, but is this the impression we want to give others who visit us? If Chicago's O'Hare Airport is smoke-free, there is no reason why Greensboro's airport shouldn't be smoke-free.
William E. Morris Jr.
Eden
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Lets all move to Chicago!
Posted on March 16, 2006 7:08 AM
Ain't it appalling that we here in Greensboro don't do what they do in Chicago?
I fly the airlines alot and see different setups for smoking. At CLT you can smoke in some of the restaurants. At ATL they have the enclosed smoking boxes, which I like best. It's interesting to see a group of people enclosed together in a box with the common goal of inhaling carcinogens into their bodies. Some airports ban smoking totally except outdoors.
I agree with the LTE writer that smoking should be banned in the terminal building, but NOT because that's the way Chicago does it.
Posted on March 16, 2006 7:42 AM
I would agree with the writer if it wasn't so hard to get outside to smoke. I flew into Chicago, had to walk a half mile to the exit, then had to get 'screened' again just to get back in. That was before they started taking away cigarette lighters. I guess it would be even more of a pain now.
I was just looking for some daylight and some fresh air but I know that smokers would have to go through the same junk. The bad thing is that you don't always have an hour layover to do something like this.
Imagine you're terrified of flying. All you want is a cigarette before you get on the next plane to whereever. So now you're juiced up on a nic fit, terrified and getting on a plane with a bunch of passengers. Nice. All because the smell of smoke offended poor billy's nose.
Posted on March 16, 2006 5:23 PM
Yellowdog,
You are oversimplifying the issue of second hand smoke. To say "All because the smell of smoke offends little billy's nose" is discounting all the health problems associated with smelling "little billy's smoke". Some of us are more than just "offended" by smoke. We are truly allergic to it. The more concentrated the smoke, the more violent the reaction.
Thank God I have never had an anaphylactic reaction. Those with severe asthma run that risk each time they are exposed to high concentrations of second hand smoke.
Separate rooms with good ventilation are a viable option for smokers and non-smokers.
Posted on March 16, 2006 11:07 PM
They might also have those reactions from perfume, other hygiene products, peanuts, certain vegetables, etc.
So let's ban perfume, deoderant, food, air, water and everything else.
Give me a break. I don't believe Billy's concern isn't about the astmatic. He sure as heck didn't mention them. He just doesn't like the smell of smoke. On top of that, he's an old busy body.
Your idea of seperate ventilation systems makes sense to me but that wouldn't satisfy Billy.
Posted on March 17, 2006 2:25 PM
I recently flew out to Vegas, and have never been happier that I quit smoking as I was in the airports. Trying to catch a smoke in between flights had gotten to the point of ridiculous.
*I'll be a nonsmoker for a year in May*
Posted on March 18, 2006 12:04 AM