fshagan

I'm not sure how the credit card transactions work in the UK, but here in the US it can take several days to a couple of weeks for a credit to be processed. You can sometimes see that the charge is pending online when you log into the credit card account. If that's not the way it works in the UK, I would contact my credit card company and have them investigate.

I'm Gold and have the coupon, so maybe that's where it starts. I also have a cruise currently booked in May; I'm wondering if they are extending to people who already have a cruise booked too.

Emphasis is mine, but this is the portion you circled (it's very hard to read with the messy highlighter): "The first guest may redeem the promotion of $50 Shore Excursion Credit on more than one shore excursion per port." So you could conceivably take two shore excursions in a port. as long as the times don't overlap, and have the $50 applied to both. But it is also "per port" rather than a single excursion during the entire cruise.

Thanks! I edited my post when I saw yours - we were posting at almost exactly the same time. As a former NCL employee with personal knowledge on this I defer to you!

One per stateroom. But I believe it's "per port", so you take the $50 off NCL excursions in each port.

People from the UK are often on here saying they remove them because "tipping is not part of our culture". NCL in the UK now has higher fares and includes the service charges in the fares. If you have ever been to the UK you will realize that what they mean is "PAYING tips is not in our culture, but we certainly expect you to pay them when you visit our country." (Insert wry Irish comment here on the moral character of Britons).

Edited this because chengkp75 is a definitive source, and I've never had reason to doubt what he says. My conjecture was slightly different, so I'll let his stand. It makes sense that the service charges would be a line item on their paycheck that can vary; I actually had a job with profit sharing where this was the case. You can look up and verify that NCL has ships with ITF contracts at the union's website. Search for "NORWEGIAN" and you'll see the NCL ships listed. Otherwise I'll defer to chengkp75 as the expert in this matter.

..

I was wrong about that; I should have clarified I'm talking about illness or death due to popcorn lung and vaping, and the ones I've been able to find are not related to either nicotine vapes or the chemcial dicetyl. So background: The "popcorn lung" cases from vaping cannabis were around July 2019 (an article on it when the problems were first reported is here). This was a huge story at the time because of the deaths - about 50 IIRC. At first, the illnesses were thought to be from nicotine vapes, but they were all from cannabis vapes (the victims were probably hesitant to say they had illegally vaped cannabis). All but a couple were from black market cannabis vapes. There was a supplier to some smaller vape manufacturers that was selling the problem additive too. The majority were black market cannabis vapes. The illnesses were not caused by dicetyl. It was from vitamin E acetate, an additive that some vapes contained. It was only in cannabis vapes as it has the right properties to be able to "stretch" the amount of THC in a vape without thinning down the liquid too much. Nicotine vapes don't need this. The only good write up of the incident I've seen is from a cannabis industry source, Leafly and it's here. Good discussion! And you're right; cannabis still remains illegal at all US ports, and the Feds can search you (no 4th Amendment guarantees at ports) and can arrest you.

This is a common tactic. Find a chemical that, in high concentrations or at very high temperatures, could cause a problem, and state that. Then make the conclusion that there are numerous cases of "popcorn lung" possible because of this. It is simply a debating technique and has nothing to do with the actual science. Diacetyl is found in cigarette smoke at concentrations of about 335 mcg vs 9 mcg in vapes. There has yet to be any link between vaping and popcorn lung in any study. Snopes did a write up of it here. The article explains the limits of the Harvard study you cited, and why "76%" isn't an accurate percentage of the vape juice that had the flavoring in it (they only tested 8 brands). I can find a case of "popcorn lung" caused by microwave popcorn exposure, but not one from e-cigs. A man who ate microwave popcorn daily for 10 years, and loved to whiff in the aroma of the butter smell developed the disease, obliterative bronchiolitis. The link between popcorn lung and e-cigs simply does not exist, so the anti-vape crowd needs to find a new boogeyman. There may be dangers we don't know about that could develop decades from now, but we know there is no link between e-cigs and popcorn lung.

Well ... 1. Yes, I'm in agreement with you here, and responding to the comment by others that cannabis has no medical purpose. 2. You mentioned "popcorn lung" as a specific issue, and I addressed that issue. If that's a poor example to use you might not want to list it in discussions. 3. Sure, more study is needed. But since 2006 when commercial e-cigs were approved in the US, there have been many studies, and many statements from health agencies. Look for studies, and not statements, and see what you find. I don't know of any that show e-cigs as being as dangerous as cigarettes. (Cannabis, on the other hand, does have serious health risks, but they affect few people). 4. I assure you that CPB will indeed arrest you for possession of cannabis at the port.

A couple of things - one, the FDA has approved a cannabis derived CBD drug called Epidiolex. This is one reason that the Sch. 1 listing does not fit any longer; indeed, our government has found a medical use for cannabis in treating pediatric seizure disorders. Epidiolex had to be developed by a non-American company because of it's Sch. 1 status - it is next to impossible to do research on different cannabis strains in America. So when people say "it hasn't been tested" its kind of a catch-22 because it cannot legally be tested. At least as long as it's on Sch. 1. Popcorn lung has only happened in black market vapes where the formula is adulterated to cheapen the production costs. It does not happen with commercially available nicotine or cannabis vapes (at least in states like CA where there are strict standards for production of cannabis products), without someone breaking the law. But I wouldn't rush out to start vaping if you don't already. My advice is that if you don't smoke, don't start. If you smoke cigarettes, see if vaping nicotine suits you better. It's 95% safer than cigarettes according to Royal College of Physicians in the UK, and is very successful as being the bridge between smoking and cessation of tobacco products (much more effective than gum, patches or other smoking cessation products). Marijuana remains illegal at the federal level and ports, being "ports of entry", can and will arrest people for possession. It doesn't happen often, but it is possible. Many people get away with cannabis vapes as they don't smell, don't look any different than nicotine vapes, and are not as obvious as a bag of weed. Easier to smuggle and get past CBP are cannabis oil capsules that are indistinguishable from Vitamin E capsules. But, you are taking some risk of arrest and prosecution for possession of cannabis.