Norwegian Cruise Line Bans Smoking on Balconies

[DMH15]

Yes, I remember the Silver City Casino. I guess they were Vegas's version of Carnival's Paradise, which sailed smoke-free for several years but eventually gave up that policy. And I'm pretty sure they did it because of lower than desired revenue.

 

The smoke-free areas within large casinos are not very effective since smoke does not observe the designated boundaries. Walls are needed but they would disrupt traffic flow and probably ruin the aesthetics of the layout.

 

Having a non smoking section of a casino is like having a no-pee section of a pool. Just doesn't get the job done. Two casinos is an excellent idea. One large for smokers and small one for non. And I will make a prediction. Within a fee years the new builds will reverse that. Two examples:

 

1. The bingo rooms at Red Rock in Vegas started with the big room smoking and the little one non. They are now vice versa.

 

1. In the Las Vegas airport there was this small glassed in room for non smokers. Now THAT is for the smokers.

 

I think two spaces could mske everyone happy.

[Charles4515]

Just wrong.

 

The original e-cig manufacturers were small independent start ups with an idea. They competed directly with the big tobacco companies and they were winning the competition. It is only recently that the tobacco companies have shown an interest in e-cigs, previously they had been among the group seeking their ban. When they realized the FDA could not ban them, and the competition increased, only then did they try and get into the market themselves. The vaporizer that I use is manufactured in the USA by a company with no ties whatsoever to any tobacco company.

 

And as to the "better safe than sorry" argument, the logic is just lacking. Shouldn't we live in a world where someone has to prove something harmful before seeking to ban it? Virtually every new product would be banned if before it could be marketed the producer had to prove that it is impossible that it could have any negative effects.

 

And, as I said before, the science is being done and it is showing precisely what I said: while there MAY be some slight harm possible to users and those near them in enclosed areas, there is no doubt that e-cigs are far, far safer than cigarettes (or any other number of everyday items that emit an odor or evaporate into the air). Read the letter from a group of anti-smoking scientists to the World Health Organization: http://nicotinepolicy.net/n-s-p/1753-who-needs-to-see-ecigs-as-part-of-a-solution

 

Skallagrim

 

No, something that is inhaled and exhaled needs to be proven safe. Caution is the wisest course until the results are in from multiple studies. Not just one study.

 

PS. The devices originated in China. Another reason to be wary in my opinion.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Charles4515

[klingoncruiser]

We got notification last week about our cruise in late november that smoking will no longer be allowed on the balcony. Yet another reason to like NCL. However more and more of the cruise lines are moving to it.

 

On our cruise this summer in Alaska, we kept finding cig butts on our balcony from someone above.

[untailored bostonian]

Well put. BTW Princess allows e-cigs in your cabin but not on balconies. A name change would certainly help and educating the public would help even more. To ban just because the squeeky wheels are uneducated on the product is ridiculous

http://www.shipdetective.com/ships/smoking_policies.htm

 

I find it odd that a ship can have a cigar bar that bans the smoking of cigarettes in the cigar bar.

[luvtheships]

http://www.shipdetective.com/ships/smoking_policies.htm

 

I find it odd that a ship can have a cigar bar that bans the smoking of cigarettes in the cigar bar.

 

I also find it odd that:

 

They don't have 2 casinos

 

And

 

They don't have a smoking bar

 

Oh wait I have been suggesting that all along. Oh darn

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Skallagrim]

Actually the quotation came from a literature review of over 120 studies.

 

The question is not if e-cigs is better for smokers then regular cigarettes. They are that. That is why some studies and physicians support them. If e-cig use was limited to regular smokers trying to quit then that would be one thing. The problem is that they are not, marketing is also aimed at attracting non-smokers, especially young non-smokers. We do not need another generation addicted to nicotine.

 

As far as industrial and cooking practices. The ship does not vent either industrial process output or cooking hoods into the ship. As such e-cigs should also be restricted from inside space.

 

....

 

 

I appreciate, RDC! that you are respectful and use logic and actual science in your replies. I do not think, however, that this is the appropriate place to engage in a highly scientific debate. My short response, primarily for you, is that 1) there are studies contradicting your numbers, 2) the fact that propylene glycol "may cause irritation" when substantial amounts of its vapor is inhaled does not mean the amount of PG used in e-cigs will have the same effect, and 3) None of your studies indicate the likelihood that a non-e-cig user will be exposed to enough particles or other irritants as the user, especially in non-enclosed areas (which is why I have used that term in previous posts).

 

The e-cig user MAY be doing something more harmful than doing nothing, but is certainly, we agree, doing something far less harmful that smoking, both with respect to themselves and their neighbors.

 

But I did want to directly address the points I quoted:

 

We already have a number of young people addicted to nicotine - my main point has been all along that it is wrong for NCL to demand that these people also subject themselves to cigarette smoke while using e-cigs to either maintain or slowly eliminate that addiction.

 

Also, no one sells e-cigs to minors and there is no evidence of marketing to kids.

 

Finally, while ships do not directly vent the cooking or cleaning areas directly into public areas, many restaurants have the cooking done in an area quite close to the consumer. Also, the use of other solvents and cleaning methods which release various objectionable fine particles occurs regularly in public areas. This issue is one of the quantity of the exposure to the general public. E-cig use has never been shown to produce the level of irritants (or other particles) in neighboring areas as has been proven to occur with cigarettes and numerous other producers of things in the air. E-Cig vapor dissipates and settles far too quickly for others not immediately exposed to ever have to worry about it.

 

And isn't that what should be the key point? People using vaporizers in non-enclosed spaces or spaces where only they are enclosed while use is occurring (like balconies and private cabins) - should be supported, not discouraged and forced to inhale cigarette smoke too.

 

And it is for that reason I remain extremely upset with the new NCL policy.

 

Skallagrim

 

PS - RCD1's post above about the WHO proposals are precisely what the anti-smoking scientists were arguing against in the cite I provided earlier.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Skallagrim

[RDC1]

I appreciate, RDC! that you are respectful and use logic and actual science in your replies. I do not think, however, that this is the appropriate place to engage in a highly scientific debate. My short response, primarily for you, is that 1) there are studies contradicting your numbers, 2) the fact that propylene glycol "may cause irritation" when substantial amounts of its vapor is inhaled does not mean the amount of PG used in e-cigs will have the same effect, and 3) None of your studies indicate the likelihood that a non-e-cig user will be exposed to enough particles or other irritants as the user, especially in non-enclosed areas (which is why I have used that term in previous posts).

 

The e-cig user MAY be doing something more harmful than doing nothing, but is certainly, we agree, doing something far less harmful that smoking, both with respect to themselves and their neighbors.

 

But I did want to directly address the points I quoted:

 

We already have a number of young people addicted to nicotine - my main point has been all along that it is wrong for NCL to demand that these people also subject themselves to cigarette smoke while using e-cigs to either maintain or slowly eliminate that addiction.

 

Also, no one sells e-cigs to minors and there is no evidence of marketing to kids.

 

Finally, while ships do not directly vent the cooking or cleaning areas directly into public areas, many restaurants have the cooking done in an area quite close to the consumer. Also, the use of other solvents and cleaning methods which release various objectionable fine particles occurs regularly in public areas. This issue is one of the quantity of the exposure to the general public. E-cig use has never been shown to produce the level of irritants (or other particles) in neighboring areas as has been proven to occur with cigarettes and numerous other producers of things in the air. E-Cig vapor dissipates and settles far too quickly for others not immediately exposed to ever have to worry about it.

 

And isn't that what should be the key point? People using vaporizers in non-enclosed spaces or spaces where only they are enclosed while use is occurring (like balconies and private cabins) - should be supported, not discouraged and forced to inhale cigarette smoke too.

 

And it is for that reason I remain extremely upset with the new NCL policy.

 

Skallagrim

 

PS - RCD1's post above about the WHO proposals are precisely what the anti-smoking scientists were arguing against in the cite I provided earlier.

 

Why not have a highly scientific debate, better than a marketing type debate that the companies that sell e-cigs make.

 

As I have said e-cigs are better than cigarettes as far as smokers are concerned and are probably ok as far as second hand impact goes outside.

It is pretty clear from several studies that they do generate very fine particles that can have substantial impact upon air quality indoors, that inhaling the results from propylene glycol can have negative effects. For that reason they should not be used indoors in public space. Inside cabins could also be an issue depending upon the design of the ventilation system since each cabin is likely to have air outflow in hallways and other shared space and does not have a totally isolated ventilation system. Balconies, being outdoors not a problem.

 

 

However, whenever anyone tries to claim that there is not an impact from e-cigs or that they should be used indoors then I will continue to respond with peer reviewed information.

 

Now it is pretty factual information that over the past 20 years one of the biggest drivers in getting people to stop smoking has been the restrictions placed on where one can smoke. As such it will also be one of the best ways to prevent non-smokers from taking up e-cigs, which is very clearly the aim of the producers of e-cigs manufacturers, which is why the University of California paper made the recommendations it did.

 

Now it is pretty clear that using e-cigs to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked does not improve health outcomes. Papers are very clear that one has better mortality outcomes if they stop smoking but that even a 50% reduction in smoking does not improve mortality outcomes.

 

So the only real improvement in health outcomes is if someone uses e-cigs to stop smoking regular cigarettes totally. So a policy of leniency by allowing them to be used in more places then regular cigarettes becomes more of mechanism where people use them where they cannot smoke, but then go back to regular cigarettes otherwise.

[LMaxwell]

http://www.shipdetective.com/ships/smoking_policies.htm

 

I find it odd that a ship can have a cigar bar that bans the smoking of cigarettes in the cigar bar.

 

I don't. Much different smells. If you enjoy a cigar and the aroma, cigarette can be just as tasteful second hand as it may be to a non smoker. That is to say, not all tobacco smoke is equal.

 

 

Sent from my cm_tenderloin using Tapatalk

[RDC1]

As far as the comment about e-cigs not being marketed to adolescents

 

Data on e-cigarette use among adolescents are more limited but, like for adults, show rapid increases in awareness and use in 5 countries (United States, Poland, Latvia, Finland, and Korea), with higher rates of trial and current use in European countries than the United States or Korea.9,10,32,33 In Korea, youth ever use of e-cigarettes rose from 0.5% in 2008 to 9.4% in 2011,10 and in the United States, it rose from 3.3% in 2011 to 6.8% in 2012.9 As with adult population-based studies, data suggest that e-cigarette use is most appealing and prevalent among youth who are also experimenting with or are current users of tobacco cigarettes. Dual use with conventional cigarettes is the predominant pattern of e-cigarette use: 61% in US middle school students and 80% among US high school students in 2011.9 These results indicate rapid market penetration of e-cigarettes among youth, with trial among US high school students (10.0%) in 2012 even higher than the 2011 rate for adults (6.2%).5 Despite a law prohibiting e-cigarette sales to minors, e-cigarette use among Utah youth (grades 8, 10, and 12) tripled between 2011 and 2013, with youth 3 times more likely to report current e-cigarette use than adults.34

 

Although dual use with cigarettes is high, some youth experimenting with e-cigarettes have never tried a tobacco cigarette, which indicates that some youth are initiating use of nicotine, an addictive drug, with e-cigarettes. In 2012, 20.3% of middle school and 7.2% of high school ever e-cigarette users reported never smoking conventional cigarettes.9 Similarly, in 2011 in Korea, 15% of students in grades 7 through 12 who had ever used e-cigarettes had never smoked a cigarette.10 The Utah Department of Health found that 32% of ever e-cigarette users reported that they had never smoked conventional cigarettes.34

 

 

Now we could have all kinds of fun with the analysis of the recent marketing push as the large tobacco companies have entered into the e-cig business area.

[NLH Arizona]

As I've said, I didn't have a problem with e-cigarettes, as long as they are un-flavored, but after reading all this, I thought I would go to where my medical professionals are and see what they are saying. But it is just like everything else, we will not know the real story as to whether they are safe or not for about 20 more years.

 

Here is what the Mayo Clinic says:

 

What are electronic cigarettes? Are they safer than conventional cigarettes?

 

Electronic cigarettes, often called e-cigarettes, are battery-operated devices designed to look like regular tobacco cigarettes. Like their conventional counterparts, electronic cigarettes contain nicotine. Here's how they work: An atomizer heats a liquid containing nicotine, turning it into a vapor that can be inhaled and creating a vapor cloud that resembles cigarette smoke.

 

Manufacturers claim that electronic cigarettes are a safe alternative to conventional cigarettes. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has questioned the safety of these products. When the FDA analyzed samples of two popular brands, they found variable amounts of nicotine and traces of toxic chemicals, including known cancer-causing substances (carcinogens). This prompted the FDA to issue a warning about potential health risks associated with electronic cigarettes.

 

Until more is known about the potential risks, the safe play is to say no to electronic cigarettes. If you're looking for help to stop smoking, there are many FDA-approved medications that have been shown to be safe and effective for this purpose.

[negc]

Just wrong.

 

...

 

And as to the "better safe than sorry" argument, the logic is just lacking. Shouldn't we live in a world where someone has to prove something harmful before seeking to ban it? Virtually every new product would be banned if before it could be marketed the producer had to prove that it is impossible that it could have any negative effects.

 

And, as I said before, the science is being done and it is showing precisely what I said: while there MAY be some slight harm possible to users and those near them in enclosed areas, there is no doubt that e-cigs are far, far safer than cigarettes (or any other number of everyday items that emit an odor or evaporate into the air). Read the letter from a group of anti-smoking scientists to the World Health Organization: http://nicotinepolicy.net/n-s-p/1753-who-needs-to-see-ecigs-as-part-of-a-solution

 

Skallagrim

Rather, they need to prove that they are safe before the health of the general public is put at risk.Just as drug manufacturers have to prove the safety of their medicines, so should the e-cig manufacturers be held to a similar standard. "Slight harm" is hardly reassuring and just what would be considered "slight harm" anyway - something just short of being toxic?

Marketing e-cigs to adolescents and thus introducing them to addictive nicotine hardly seems a worthy goal, so while the jury is still out, I will continue to support NCL and so many other entities that have banned or restricted their use.

 

We can debate this issue ad nauseam but the bottom line is that NCL has included e-cigarettes in their policy restricting smoking on their ships and it is highly unlikely that anything posted here will change anything including most people's minds.

[Out to sea!]

Totally correct.

 

I predict within a few years ships casinos will be non smoking as well

That is not to say the ship will entirely non smoking as the vast majority of the crew do smoke so an outdoor area or 2 will always be available to smoke

 

I still say build some sort of aft outdoor area with a restaurant bar entertainment area maybe even a small pool and hot tub and wall it off in 3 sides with glass and have the open area face the sea and in bad weather have an awning or something like the great outdoors

 

Simply said just take some space aft and really segregate it from the non smokers and any balcony cabins and just be done with it. Smoke there 24/7 who cares just keep that deadly aroma away from everyone else

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

That is very possibly true. But I believe they will have to build a covered outdoor area for smokers first.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Out to sea!

[Out to sea!]

Not trying to start a fight here at all but at some point all cruise lines will be 100% smoke free. Yeah it has been tried before, but the operative word there is 'before'. I'm not saying it will be soon or at any specific time frame, just at some point it is going to happen. Never say never.

 

Sorry I don't see it (at least not in my life time). It's one thing to tell smokers (and even at conservative estimates that would be 20% of your customer base) that they will be inconvenienced by walking to the casino or outdoor smoking area, it's a completely different animal to tell smokers to voluntarily wait 1 to 3 days until they reach their first port to have a smoke. Who in their right mind would volunteer and pay for such lack of service (from the smoker's point of view) when so many other options are available?

Edited July 28, 2014 by Out to sea!

[Out to sea!]

Even the massive jones beach in New York is smoke free

 

Of course there is an occasional smoker but they always know the can't smoke and are on the lookout.

 

The woman behind me was smoking the other day and the minute I turned around she snuffed it in the sand

 

She was definitely a native new yawker and a tough one as well but she knew the rules and knew she could get fined big time.

 

Yep they actually do patrol this kind if thing.

 

They patrol beach drinking out there as well and the beach I was on was a radio free zone

 

Just sayin that apparantly the vocal majority has won if at the greatest beach in New York State just miles away from rough and tough New York neighborhoods can enforce a no smoking no drinking no loud music ordinance that it can be done

 

Please no " footloose" references because the reason for radio free and alcohol free beaches us because beach goers can't seem to control the volume of the music or the amount if alcohol consumed that plus the general

Use of iPods! Lol

 

Btw I love music but don't mind forgoing it at times

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Maybe this is why so many New Yorkers are moving to Florida where personal liberties are not being trampled so easily.

[Out to sea!]

I believe times have changed a lot since then. Like the former 100% smoke-free Carnival Paradise many years ago, they were ahead of their time. If tried again now, with so many more former & non-smokers, I believe it would be a different story.

 

Maybe, maybe not. But would you be willing to bet your livelihood and the livelihood of hundreds of workers on it? because that's what you would be asking a casino to do.

[Out to sea!]

Well of course legislation needs to be passed.

 

Companies and organizations do next to nothing willingly we all know that by now and anyone who thinks otherwise is just ill informed

 

I have to disagree about any space as non smoking will lose revenue though

 

People still fly and go out to restaurants and pay steep parking fees at the beach and bars are popping up everyday

 

All it would take is some nails and a hammer on older ships and a smart architect on newer ships

 

I recall a situation at a beachfront condo I own a few years ago where everyone was up in arms over a nothing issue

 

My solution which wound up being the answer to this silly problem was to find a screwdriver!!

I remember being on the phone with them and telling them I would come over with it and did they need Phillips head or flat head? Lol

 

It was such a stupid issue that I solved for them by saying " just get a screwdriver"

 

I am not asking for adoration on this silly thing just saying the solution is right in front of their eyes! Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

Companies do plenty of things willingly if they think it will make them more money.

 

You may disagree but all of the CEOs in Vegas disagree with you. If they thought they could make more revenue (and profit) by converting their casinos to non-smoking they would do it overnight.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Out to sea!

[luvtheships]

Companies do plenty of things willingly if they think it will make them more money.

 

You may disagree but all of the CEOs in Vegas disagree with you. If they thought they could make more revenue (and profit) by converting their casinos to non-smoking they would do it overnight.

 

Just make 2 casinos. Smoking and nonsmoking

 

So simple and definitely will happen at some point

 

As I have posted previously, other than the fire hazard from sloppy smokers with their butts, I am all for balcony smoking as I don't want to book one anyway.

 

I like segregation of smokers on their balconies and keeps them away from the lido smoking section and casino if their aim is just to smoke and not gamble

 

As far as Vegas is concerned, well I guess they don't have regs there yet and I haven't been there since 1971 but I can assure you that once smoking regs are in ace those CEOs will implement them because as I said they only do what they are forced to do

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Edited July 28, 2014 by luvtheships

[luvtheships]

Maybe this is why so many New Yorkers are moving to Florida where personal liberties are not being trampled so easily.

 

No it's the taxes and weather in New York plus the cheap real estate and great weather in Florida

 

Not to mention that JetBlue has a great schedule

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[luvtheships]

That is very possibly true. But I believe they will have to build a covered outdoor area for smokers first.

 

Read my previous posts. I have been suggesting that all along. Segregated smoking areas!!!!!!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Aquahound]

Just make 2 casinos. Smoking and nonsmoking

 

So simple and definitely will happen at some point

 

RCI Oasis Class is already doing that, and it seems to be working out just fine. I don't see any reason NCL cant do it on large ships.

[EyeSeaEwe]

Just FIVE MORE posts to go. Come one we can do this...

[mugtech]

just five more posts to go. Come one we can do this...

 

do what?

[mugtech]

oH, HIT 4 FIGURES

[mugtech]

oH, HIT 4 FIGURES

 

Seems possible

[cocoabeachcruiser]

seems possible

 

1000!!!