Another money grab...

[mckennarose]

Back to the original topic;

1. Disney adding more places to sell alcohol does not necessarily equate to a downhill spiral of bad behavior, over indulgence or the parks turning into a drunk-fueled free for all.

2. People's own poor decisions and lack of self control DO equate to bad behavior, over indulgence and the potential to cause problems.

To vilify an entire business practice because of "what if's" removes the responsibility that all adults need to have.

Without going into too much personal detail, I used to work with addicts in various stages of recovery. Mostly drugs, but also alcohol. What always got me was the knee jerk reaction of families of the addicts to banish all alcohol from every place the addict would be, including putting demands on others who would be around the person in recovery. One instance comes to mind of a family telling another member that they needed to have a dry wedding because it wouldn't be fair for so-and-so if they had to miss the wedding if there was alcohol there. A person in recovery needs to take responsibility to change people and places and decide which environments they can comfortably be in. Trying to make the world accommodating to the addict does nothing for their own growth other than "fix things" for them and enabling them. (I'm not talking about supporting an addict in recovery, I'm talking about enabling)

I am not debating the effects of alcohol on people who are drunk. Yeah, it can get bad. I'm pointing out the individual's responsibility to manage themselves.

 

[cadien]

You make some valid points...though I never said or implied that " the parent of a young child does not "deserve" to have an adult beverage while walking around a theme park on vacation , or is doing something not "family friendly" or wrong ."

Some of those reactions were to posts other than your own.

 

[cadien]

Oh my gosh! That would send peopple through the roof! I have no problems if there are areas that are adult only, and if I had the kids with me I woudl just choose to go elsewhere, however there are those who want their little ones to be welcomed in every establishment. I bet an adults only resort would be a wonderful respite for those who traveled without kids, especially parents who left their little darlings at home for a change. But in DIsney that woudl be almost dead before it was announces.

I'm not so sure. There are definitely those super obnoxious parents who want their kids everywhere, even when the kids won't enjoy it. And WDW did just close all those kid clubs, so you can't drop them there on the way to an adult meal. So just looking at WDW, I would think no way. But we've been on the Disney cruises and the adults-only areas are very popular there. And enforced. There are 1-2 restaurants per ship, a coffee shop, and a pool deck. All child-free. The option of peace and quiet was really nice, parent or not.

 

[Smittolis]

Playing devils advocate..

"To vilify an entire business practice because of "what if's" removes the responsibility that all adults need to have."

Couldn't this same argument be used for things like Seat belt laws? Gun control? Safe injection sites? etc...

Not saying this is my opinion, but this is the land of 'rule by the lowest common denominator' and while that is obviously questionable, it cannot arbitrarily be used to bolster 1 argument and then disregarded in another. Again, not accusing you or anyone in the thread of doing so, just bringing up a point for discussion.

 

[cadien]

Separate from alcohol, I just read the DIS Boards review of the new lounge and the inside looks like the aftermath of a zombie attack.

 

[mckennarose]

Playing devils advocate..

"To vilify an entire business practice because of "what if's" removes the responsibility that all adults need to have."

Couldn't this same argument be used for things like Seat belt laws? Gun control? Safe injection sites? etc...

Not saying this is my opinion, but this is the land of 'rule by the lowest common denominator' and while that is obviously questionable, it cannot arbitrarily be used to bolster 1 argument and then disregarded in another. Again, not accusing you or anyone in the thread of doing so, just bringing up a point for discussion.

I hear you.
My opinion is based on operating within current laws. Even if I disagree with or question a law, I still abide by it.

Alcohol is not illegal for those over 21 and it is not illegal for establishments to sell alcohol with proper permits. It is illegal to drive without a seat belt, carry a concealed weapon without a permit (including purchasing laws, at least in my state, though I admit I don't know the laws across the country), and purchase/use illegal drugs.

I have an issue with painting all establishments as potential trouble sources because they serve alcohol. People are the ones who make the decisions on if and how much they drink.

 

[SteveH]

Well aware of that but I don't believe they should be there . Should be limited to TS restaurants at AK & MK ...just my opinion .

Key here is that is "your opinion" clearly Disney does not agree with you, be it for pure profit or to meet the demands and desires of some of the Disney goers. You are in full control and can choose to no longer go to Disney that will solve the problem for you. You might want to go to The Holy Land Experience, pretty sure that's alcohol free.

So far it hasn't been a problem. If drinking starts to ruin the experience for too many people I'm sure Disney will reign it in.

You are 100% right. They control it several ways; prices are the first way - getting drunk at Disney isn't cheap. Security is also keeping an eye on things. I have more faith in Disney's ability to control consumption then some others.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Playing devils advocate..

"To vilify an entire business practice because of "what if's" removes the responsibility that all adults need to have."

Couldn't this same argument be used for things like Seat belt laws? Gun control? Safe injection sites? etc...

Not saying this is my opinion, but this is the land of 'rule by the lowest common denominator' and while that is obviously questionable, it cannot arbitrarily be used to bolster 1 argument and then disregarded in another. Again, not accusing you or anyone in the thread of doing so, just bringing up a point for discussion.

Wearing a seatbelt is so that you have a better chance at living should you be in an accident and so that you are not a projectile and potentially kill your passengers should you be in an accident.

Having the opportunity to have a beer flight before IllumiNations is not the same thing as wearing a seatbelt for safety.

 

[TeresaWen]

@OrangeCountyCommuter
I remember you sharing that story on another thread about alcohol. It stuck in my mind along with another member posting how he/she had just gotten a drink in Epcot, not even taken one sip out of it, and tripped on something and a woman loudly complained behind him/her about "the drunks" in Epcot! People will find things to reinforce their beliefs, whether they are true or not.

That was ME! I had a bad knee at the time and it locked up and I tripped. Before I could even get “excuse me” out I was loudly accused of being a fabled Epcot drunk

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

I'm not so sure. There are definitely those super obnoxious parents who want their kids everywhere, even when the kids won't enjoy it. And WDW did just close all those kid clubs, so you can't drop them there on the way to an adult meal. So just looking at WDW, I would think no way. But we've been on the Disney cruises and the adults-only areas are very popular there. And enforced. There are 1-2 restaurants per ship, a coffee shop, and a pool deck. All child-free. The option of peace and quiet was really nice, parent or not.

Apparently you were not on here when mass hysteria broke out because people can't take their kids to Trander Sam's at midnight to hang out in the bar. (No I am not making that up, there were posters on the DIS just hysterical that Disney had the daring idea to open ONE adults only location for limited hours. After all their precious chlld was so special that he/she should be allowed to do everything adults do LOL!)

 

[Smittolis]

I hear you.
My opinion is based on operating within current laws. Even if I disagree with or question a law, I still abide by it.

Alcohol is not illegal for those over 21 and it is not illegal for establishments to sell alcohol with proper permits. It is illegal to drive without a seat belt, carry a concealed weapon without a permit (including purchasing laws, at least in my state, though I admit I don't know the laws across the country), and purchase/use illegal drugs.

I have an issue with painting all establishments as potential trouble sources because they serve alcohol. People are the ones who make the decisions on if and how much they drink.

That was my point though, the reason some of the examples above are illegal is due to the actions of a few, things or particular groups of people being painted in a negative light....... The rule of the common lowest denominator, which is sad.

Again, i'm not suggesting you are trying to be argumentative at all, its just an interesting conversation. In order to highlight it easier, I've changed a few words of one of your sentences:

"Gun's are not illegal for those over 21 (18 for rifle) and it is not illegal for establishment to sell guns with proper permits."

Obviously its going off on a tangent and that wasn't my prerogative, i agree with you on your points, I just wanted to highlight how it can often be problematic when using 'logic' and the government lol

 

[Smittolis]

Wearing a seatbelt is so that you have a better chance at living should you be in an accident and so that you are not a projectile and potentially kill your passengers should you be in an accident.

Having the opportunity to have a beer flight before IllumiNations is not the same thing as wearing a seatbelt for safety.

But this implies that everyone who drives without a seatbelt is injured or going to be injured. Is the risk greater if in an accident? of course, however, to suggest that not wearing a seatbelt automatically means you would be injured or injure others just isn't true. Conversely, are the odds of making a poor decision increased under the influence of alcohol? of course this is a physiological fact, does that mean everyone who drinks alcohol is going to make poor choices that negatively affect others? of course not....... That was my point.

 

[MomOTwins]

I'm not so sure. There are definitely those super obnoxious parents who want their kids everywhere, even when the kids won't enjoy it. And WDW did just close all those kid clubs, so you can't drop them there on the way to an adult meal. So just looking at WDW, I would think no way. But we've been on the Disney cruises and the adults-only areas are very popular there. And enforced. There are 1-2 restaurants per ship, a coffee shop, and a pool deck. All child-free. The option of peace and quiet was really nice, parent or not.

As a parent, I am all for Disney adding a few adult-only venues. I think the cruise line strikes a good balance. I would be disappointed, though, if Disney were to ban children from all signatures. One of my favorite things about WDW is that we can take our kids to a nice restaurant and order a nice meal with our children, instead of having to leave them with a babysitter. And my kids do enjoy it too; they like to dress up in their nice button down shirts and order a steak. Disney cruise is the same way; even though the specialty restaurants are adult only, they do provide a refined dining experience for families somewhere between a TS and a signature in the main dining rooms. Not sure if signatures are what you had in mind when you said obnoxious parents want their kids everywhere, but I have definitely heard that expressed many times on this forum by others who think you are a bad parent if you bring a child to a signatures and "spoil" the atmosphere for "everyone" else who is trying to have a romantic or quiet adult meal.

 

[cadien]

Apparently you were not on here when mass hysteria broke out because people can't take their kids to Trander Sam's at midnight to hang out in the bar. (No I am not making that up, there were posters on the DIS just hysterical that Disney had the daring idea to open ONE adults only location for limited hours. After all their precious chlld was so special that he/she should be allowed to do everything adults do LOL!)

Oh I don't disagree at all that some parents will complain long and loud on the internet. But probably a larger quieter number would make reservations.

 

[NuJoy]

Playing devils advocate..

"To vilify an entire business practice because of "what if's" removes the responsibility that all adults need to have."

Couldn't this same argument be used for things like Seat belt laws? Gun control? Safe injection sites? etc...

It would be my belief that laws regarding matters like these are more for protecting the innocent than placing preemptive regulation on "what if" scenarios. Sometimes there are no laws at all regulating such matters until an abundance of new extenuating circumstances dictate change. For example, when more cars are on the road and speed limits are increased on interstates, and advancement of seat belt and air bag technology are available and proven to dramatically save lives, and our knowledge and understanding greatly increases regarding said matter; governments with the power and responsibility to protect the lesser and weaker, put in place laws that will do so. Even then, punishments for violations are tiered based on severity: Mild (a mere fine for a driver seat belt violation, which only risks the violator) to severe (charges resulting from the lack of or improper securing of a minor child, which risks the helpless who is unable to defend himself).

Social norms, moral views, and personal health standards do a good job of regulating most people's consumption of alcohol. Laws are in place to protect the innocent should that become necessary. Even the imbiber can be a victim if he is over served or is underage.

 

[cadien]

As a parent, I am all for Disney adding a few adult-only venues. I think the cruise line strikes a good balance. I would be disappointed, though, if Disney were to ban children from all signatures. One of my favorite things about WDW is that we can take our kids to a nice restaurant and order a nice meal with our children, instead of having to leave them with a babysitter. And my kids do enjoy it too; they like to dress up in their nice button down shirts and order a steak. Disney cruise is the same way; even though the specialty restaurants are adult only, they do provide a refined dining experience for families somewhere between a TS and a signature in the main dining rooms. Not sure if signatures are what you had in mind when you said obnoxious parents want their kids everywhere, but I have definitely heard that expressed many times on this forum by others who think you are a bad parent if you bring a child to a signatures and "spoil" the atmosphere for "everyone" else who is trying to have a romantic or quiet adult meal.

I think children should be allowed in Signatures. We bring our kid to nice local restaurants all the time. Cheaper than a babysitter and he loves getting fancy. I don't think they should be allowed in V&A. And if they want to add more places with very slow meals and very set menus, it's reasonable to make those also adult only. A place the size of WDW has room for more than one.

 

[Moliphino]

Key here is that is "your opinion" clearly Disney does not agree with you, be it for pure profit or to meet the demands and desires of some of the Disney goers. You are in full control and can choose to no longer go to Disney that will solve the problem for you. You might want to go to The Holy Land Experience, pretty sure that's alcohol free.

If they aim for authenticity they should at least have wine.

 

[mckennarose]

That was my point though, the reason some of the examples above are illegal is due to the actions of a few, things or particular groups of people being painted in a negative light....... The rule of the common lowest denominator, which is sad.

I agree.

 

[Smittolis]

It would be my belief that laws regarding matters like these are more for protecting the innocent than placing preemptive regulation on "what if" scenarios. Sometimes there are no laws at all regulating such matters until an abundance of new extenuating circumstances dictate change. For example, when more cars are on the road and speed limits are increased on interstates, and advancement of seat belt and air bag technology are available and proven to dramatically save lives, and our knowledge and understanding greatly increases regarding said matter; governments with the power and responsibility to protect the lesser and weaker, put in place laws that will do so. Even then, punishments for violations are tiered based on severity: Mild (a mere fine for a driver seat belt violation, which only risks the violator) to severe (charges resulting from the lack of or improper securing of a minor child, which risks the helpless who is unable to defend himself).

Social norms, moral views, and personal health standards do a good job of regulating most people's consumption of alcohol. Laws are in place to protect the innocent should that become necessary. Even the imbiber can be a victim if he is over served or is underage.

I don't disagree.

Interestingly, perhaps discussion for another topic, this segues nicely into the notion that Disney relies upon the 3 leading causes of preventable deaths in the USA, as a foundation of its Parks business models......

Top leading causes of preventable death in 2017 (USA)
1. Tobacco
2. Poor Diet and physical inactivity
3. Alcohol

lol I believe Pandora's box is officially open

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

But this implies that everyone who drives without a seatbelt is injured or going to be injured. Is the risk greater if in an accident? of course, however, to suggest that not wearing a seatbelt automatically means you would be injured or injure others just isn't true. Conversely, are the odds of making a poor decision increased under the influence of alcohol? of course this is a physiological fact, does that mean everyone who drinks alcohol is going to make poor choices that negatively affect others? of course not....... That was my point.

Hmm I'm struggling to word it but I don't think you quite understood what my statement was.

I didn't suggest not wearing a seatbelt automatically you would be injured or injury others. I said in regards to an accident and the stats are overwhelmingly that wearing a seatbelt saves lives-that's in an accident which is something that can occur in an instant.

Either way I'm more in line with NuJoy's viewpoint in the conversation you brought up.