One Ship Once A Month Smokefree

[EagleRockers]

I'd love to see an alcohol-free cruise, but I know that's not going to happen.

People in hell want ice water...

[Lunar Blue]

More endless, pointless complaining. If you have complained to carnival about this they obviously don't care if you like it or not take your business elsewhere and maybe they will I'm betting not. Since other cruise lines have gone smoke free indoors smokers have flocked to Carnival. That keeps revenues up so it's not likely to change. And I am a firm believer that rules must be obeyed so if someone is smoking at a smoke free machine management should do something about it even though smoking machines are usually located within a few feet.

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

 

I didn't complain to Carnival as I am a new cruiser with them, so not being from the US I wasn't sure about the law regarding smoking. Therefore, whilst onboard I tolerated the situation, but tried to avoid it as best as I could. So as a matter of fact, not more endless pointless complaining, just expressing an opinion and that opinion means it has a point. If one person has an opinion and a suggestion for change then it cannot be pointless.

 

If cruisers are flocking to Carnival because other lines are banning smoking then no wonder they are so willfully ignoring the rights of non smokers and welcoming smoking. If that is really their policy then it is hardly surprising that no crew member in the casino is willing to enforce the no smoking area rules and are so ambivalent to those who are flagrantly ignoring those rules.

 

I hope this doesn't seem like endless pointless complaining. Just having an opinion and a different view.

[faeriemom03]

You are losing credibility in your statements. What do you mean by "there are just so many places you can go?" Why would you take an asthmatic child on a cruise you think is so bad? Was the asthma caused by someone smoking around her? Why should a smoker step outside because someone else has a breathing problem? Sounds to me the affected person should just avoid the casino. You have 90 to 95% of a ship smoke free.

 

I can hardly walk out in the ocean to give the smoke a wider berth. :-p And I have not been rabidly maligning the smoke, just pointing out that it is a bad thing. (Science backs me up on that. Yay science!) Smoking is bad. That is irrefutable. I also didn't say it was impossible to avoid, just more inconvenient. Of course her asthma was not caused by cigarette smoke, but it can certainly have a negative impact. As I said in another post, if they would enclose the casinos then it would be wonderful. Then people could smoke all they want while minimally affecting the other passengers. What individuals choose to do to themselves is not my business *until* it negatively affects me.

 

For example, health issues aside, I do not drink alcohol. I don't want alcohol to be banned, nor do I care if others drink. But when someone chooses to get drunk and see a movie, then spends the entire movie being loud and obnoxious, his choice has negatively impacted me. I don't want to stop him from drinking, I don't care what he does to himself, but I do want there to be a solution to stop him from ruining the movie. (Guess what I did this weekend. :-p)

 

But clearly this is less of a debate and more of an airing of grievances. I can see that your opinion won't be swayed, neither will mine. Hopefully, someone will find a solution that makes everyone, or at least the majority, happy.

[missholly24]

I agree with what the OP suggested. One ship each month. I would definitely go on this ship.

[johnlisac]

I didn't complain to Carnival as I am a new cruiser with them, so not being from the US I wasn't sure about the law regarding smoking. Therefore, whilst onboard I tolerated the situation, but tried to avoid it as best as I could. So as a matter of fact, not more endless pointless complaining, just expressing an opinion and that opinion means it has a point. If one person has an opinion and a suggestion for change then it cannot be pointless.

 

If cruisers are flocking to Carnival because other lines are banning smoking then no wonder they are so willfully ignoring the rights of non smokers and welcoming smoking. If that is really their policy then it is hardly surprising that no crew member in the casino is willing to enforce the no smoking area rules and are so ambivalent to those who are flagrantly ignoring those rules.

 

I hope this doesn't seem like endless pointless complaining. Just having an opinion and a different view.

Carnivals where you should take your complaints to even if it was your first cruise with them that's the only way things change. And in the USA smoking is permitted at most casinos because they want people at the machines not outside smoking. To be honest I don't smoke but it doesn't bother me the short time I'm exposed to it anyways and if it does I have a choice to go elsewhere.

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

[Hog Rider]

No it isn't. I just sailed HAL and smoked on the balcony. Price was lower than Carnival. One side of adult pool, outside on one of the lower decks. Casino had area for smoking. Not in shops etc or auditoriums.

 

You should go re read to comprehend.

[Lunar Blue]

Carnivals where you should take your complaints to even if it was your first cruise with them that's the only way things change. And in the USA smoking is permitted at most casinos because they want people at the machines not outside smoking. To be honest I don't smoke but it doesn't bother me the short time I'm exposed to it anyways and if it does I have a choice to go elsewhere.

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

 

Good point. No complaints from me.

 

Have a nice day.

[johnlisac]

I'd love to see an alcohol-free cruise, but I know that's not going to happen.

People in hell want ice water...

LOL Yeah that's one thing for sure that won't change.[emoji1]

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

[chengkp75]

Not sure how they would extinguish the biggest smoking object though; the funnel. Seems this doesn't bother you, or do you cruise in sail ships?

 

 

 

I hear this all the time - Straw man argument..... uh huh...

 

Soooo a HUGE funnel that shoots out massive amounts of smoke into the air that when at rest floats down onto the ship - ask the residents of downtown Charleston and their lawyers, who have been fighting to stop a new terminal downtown for Carnival and are using that very argument - and all the cruisers. That smoke has all kinds of "evil" stuff in it as the fuel being burnt is of the cheapest kind made - bunker fuel.

 

I don't care about the smoking questions so much as I find it so crazy when you have this thing above you pumping out all kinds of "second hand smoke", that according to balcony cruisers can linger at full speed. So even at sea you have it "floating" down on your head whenever outside, wearing it inside and causing all your fellow cruisers to inhale 2nd hand smoke right off your clothes!

 

No straw man argument, just facts... the facts are that anyone who complains about 2nd hand smoke on a cruise SHIP is just fooling themselves if they don't count the biggest one right above them.

WindStar or another Sail Boat cruise would be the best for NO smoking....

 

Uh, you are aware that for the last 15 months, the ships have been required to burn low sulfur marine diesel fuel when within 200 miles of the US coast, or to install scrubbers that will allow low sulfur residual fuel to meet the same emissions as the low sulfur diesel fuel?

 

And engine exhaust is really different from cigarette smoke. In the desire to maximize fuel efficiency, the diesel fuel is nearly completely burned while cigarette smoke is nearly all products of incomplete combustion.

 

I've spent 40 years at sea in the environment of diesel exhaust, and guess what? I don't have any symptoms of second hand smoke. Due to working on tankers, I have to take a pulmonary function test every two years, and pass with flying colors every time.

 

I'm a non-smoker but I don't equate the ship's exhaust to cigarette smoke for health hazards. The ship's exhaust is no more a problem than walking the sidewalks of any city in the US, and breathing car, truck, and bus exhaust, which is pumped out at the same level as you are, as opposed to high overhead.

[MaineBirdBrain]

This silly childish ranting discussion filled with exaggerations, red herrings, and straw men has been an eye opener. I am thankful for the heads up on the casino. I am one of those silly people that avoids carcinogens and does not mind exercise. I notice there are stairs forward and aft of the casino on the ship I will be on. Easy peasy. I will just use the stairs and let the gamblers enjoy the smoke.

[golfb4cruzing]

This has nothing to do with nothing but when Chengpk75 "speaks", everyone sits up in their chairs and pays attention. It truly is a breath of fresh air. Pun intended.

[boaterette]

I will have to do more digging into that, thank you. But it's hardly "the other side". In fact, it bolsters my position. I never said the only thing to worry about was lung cancer. I also have a daughter with asthma. I am taking her on her first cruise next year. We will have to be careful to avoid the casino and the surrounding area. If we were on land, that would be less of an inconvenience, but on a ship, where there is only so many places to go to avoid it, it becomes a bit harder.

 

Smoking is not a right. It is not a need. (I'm not talking about addiction.) No one is forced to start smoking in the first place. If the consequences affected those who choose to smoke exclusively, then I couldn't care less what they did. But it affects people around them as well. So at what point do we finally say "your desire to smoke while gambling doesn't trump this person's desire to gamble without having an asthma attack." I don't expect anyone to ban smoking. There's too much money in it. But they can say "if you choose to smoke, step outside, then come back in and gamble." Inconvenient for smokers, sure, but you wouldn't close yourself in a room with someone doing something dangerous that may affect you on purpose. At least that's what logic tells us.

 

Have you thought of taking her on celebrity since there is no smoking in their casino's. Then you wont have to worry about your daughters asthma.

[boaterette]

I understand why Carnival won't ban smoking in the casino. The revenue from people who sit and smoke obviously exceeds the lost of revenue from those who choose not to gamble because of the smoke.

 

What I don't understand is why some smokers are so defensive instead of compassionate. On some ships, like the Sunshine, walking through the casino can hardly be avoided without great hassle if someone wants to walk the length of the ship indoors, go to several major activity venues, or check in for Your Time Dining. Some people are allergic to cigarette smoke and others have asthma and other medical conditions that are negatively affected by cigarette smoke. It's not like the fat from my bacon floats down into your lungs. My son and I will hold our breath, grimace, and walk quickly past you as you voluntarily puff out poison. I'm sorry if I am a member of the smoking police. :)

 

What I dont understand is why people dont choose a cruise line that offers what they want. Celebrity has no smoking inside. That appears to be a better fit for your lifestyle. Why do you insist on choosing a cruise line that allows smoking inside and then complain about it.

[boaterette]

This silly childish ranting discussion filled with exaggerations, red herrings, and straw men has been an eye opener. I am thankful for the heads up on the casino. I am one of those silly people that avoids carcinogens and does not mind exercise. I notice there are stairs forward and aft of the casino on the ship I will be on. Easy peasy. I will just use the stairs and let the gamblers enjoy the smoke.

 

Carnival doesnt have any organic food.

[MaineBirdBrain]

Carnival doesnt have any organic food.

 

Are you suggesting it is synthetic? :-D

 

I have it on good authority that the lobster is not gmo.

Edited March 29, 2016 by MaineBirdBrain

[missholly24]

Uh, you are aware that for the last 15 months, the ships have been required to burn low sulfur marine diesel fuel when within 200 miles of the US coast, or to install scrubbers that will allow low sulfur residual fuel to meet the same emissions as the low sulfur diesel fuel?

 

And engine exhaust is really different from cigarette smoke. In the desire to maximize fuel efficiency, the diesel fuel is nearly completely burned while cigarette smoke is nearly all products of incomplete combustion.

 

I've spent 40 years at sea in the environment of diesel exhaust, and guess what? I don't have any symptoms of second hand smoke. Due to working on tankers, I have to take a pulmonary function test every two years, and pass with flying colors every time.

 

I'm a non-smoker but I don't equate the ship's exhaust to cigarette smoke for health hazards. The ship's exhaust is no more a problem than walking the sidewalks of any city in the US, and breathing car, truck, and bus exhaust, which is pumped out at the same level as you are, as opposed to high overhead.

 

Haha Love it....

[KatieCharlotte]

What I dont understand is why people dont choose a cruise line that offers what they want. Celebrity has no smoking inside. That appears to be a better fit for your lifestyle. Why do you insist on choosing a cruise line that allows smoking inside and then complain about it.

 

Because Celebrity does not fit my current lifestyle as a mother of three children vacationing on a budget? I love to see the gamblers and the drinkers helping to make my Carnival cruise affordable. :D I will even still cruise on Sunshine because my kids loved it, even though I hate the walkway through the casino and hope no more ships are designed that way. But, I appreciate it when smokers acknowledge that smoking does affect other people in a way that other unhealthy habits don't. When a mother says her child has asthma, for example, be empathetic instead of defensive. :)

[johnlisac]

Finally someone admitted they don't want to pay more for smoke free casino!!

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk

[bobsfamily]

Uh, you are aware that for the last 15 months, the ships have been required to burn low sulfur marine diesel fuel when within 200 miles of the US coast, or to install scrubbers that will allow low sulfur residual fuel to meet the same emissions as the low sulfur diesel fuel? Not sure that Carnival is doing either yet? Do you know, I thought the scrubbers were still a work in progress. If they are, great!

And engine exhaust is really different from cigarette smoke. In the desire to maximize fuel efficiency, the diesel fuel is nearly completely burned while cigarette smoke is nearly all products of incomplete combustion.

 

I've spent 40 years at sea in the environment of diesel exhaust, and guess what? I don't have any symptoms of second hand smoke. Due to working on tankers, I have to take a pulmonary function test every two years, and pass with flying colors every time.

 

I'm a non-smoker but I don't equate the ship's exhaust to cigarette smoke for health hazards. The ship's exhaust is no more a problem than walking the sidewalks of any city in the US, and breathing car, truck, and bus exhaust, which is pumped out at the same level as you are, as opposed to high overhead.

 

You are quite right in what you say... but as engineers are want to do sometimes we miss the forest for the trees.

 

As always I take you information with more weight than most on here, but the sad fact is the massive amount of exhaust would far outweigh what several hundred smokers could produce in the same amount of time. So yes the engines do burn more efficiently than a burning cigarette might, although some smokers might disagree with the price of them. BUT the amount dispersed is so much more that there is no comparison.

 

Very glad to hear you have no ill effects from inhaling 40 years of "smoke", there are smokers that never have problems with smoking cigarettes as well.

 

My comments still stand, no, not about cig smoking but about complaining about it on a ship that "Smokes".... again check out the lawsuit(s) (sorry no link to it but not hard to find with uncle google) filed by lawyers for the "hurt" people downtown Charleston, SC.... one of their claims is the amount of "soot" that would rain down on the city and neighborhoods if the ships are allowed to run their engines while docked. They want the new terminal to require all cruise ships to use land power and cut off their engines while docked.... because of the harmful emissions of the smokestacks, which are more harmful than first or secondhand smoke from cigarettes.

Edited March 29, 2016 by bobsfamily

[chengkp75]

You are quite right in what you say... but as engineers are want to do sometimes we miss the forest for the trees.

 

As always I take you information with more weight than most on here, but the sad fact is the massive amount of exhaust would far outweigh what several hundred smokers could produce in the same amount of time. So yes the engines do burn more efficiently than a burning cigarette might, although some smokers might disagree with the price of them. BUT the amount dispersed is so much more that there is no comparison.

 

While I would agree that there will be more greenhouse gases from the exhaust, that gas contains far less carcinogens and particulate matter.

 

Very glad to hear you have no ill effects from inhaling 40 years of "smoke", there are smokers that never have problems with smoking cigarettes as well.

 

My comments still stand, no, not about cig smoking but about complaining about it on a ship that "Smokes".... again check out the lawsuit(s) (sorry no link to it but not hard to find with uncle google) filed by lawyers for the "hurt" people downtown Charleston, SC.... one of their claims is the amount of "soot" that would rain down on the city and neighborhoods if the ships are allowed to run their engines while docked. They want the new terminal to require all cruise ships to use land power and cut off their engines while docked.... because of the harmful emissions of the smokestacks, which are more harmful than first or secondhand smoke from cigarettes.

 

A marine diesel engine running at a nearly continuous load (in port hotel load) would produce very little soot, certainly less than the cumulative soot from all the diesel trucks in downtown Charleston. Cold ironing (plugging into shore power) is fine, but someone has to pay for the infrastructure ashore, are the citizens willing to pay the estimated $8-10 million for this? The ship would require about $1-1.5 million refit to accept shore power. Now, I see that South Carolina gets about half of its electricity from nuclear power, and 30% from coal. So, your state might be a bit of an anomaly because of its dependence on nuclear (actually a bit surprised that new reactors are being built), but for the most part, cold ironing is just shifting hydrocarbon fuel burning from one site to another.

 

Singling out cruise ships for cold ironing, while allowing cargo ships to continue to burn fuel while in port is disingenuous. A quick look at the ports of SC website, shows that over the next 30 days, Charleston will have 6 port calls by Carnival, at about 10 hours per port call, and over 140 port calls by cargo ships, where each port call is 24 or more hours. If you are going to cold iron Carnival's ship, then all 5 terminals handling cargo in Charleston should be mandated for cold ironing as well, as California ports have done.

[bobsfamily]

A marine diesel engine running at a nearly continuous load (in port hotel load) would produce very little soot, certainly less than the cumulative soot from all the diesel trucks in downtown Charleston. Cold ironing (plugging into shore power) is fine, but someone has to pay for the infrastructure ashore, are the citizens willing to pay the estimated $8-10 million for this? The ship would require about $1-1.5 million refit to accept shore power. Now, I see that South Carolina gets about half of its electricity from nuclear power, and 30% from coal. So, your state might be a bit of an anomaly because of its dependence on nuclear (actually a bit surprised that new reactors are being built), but for the most part, cold ironing is just shifting hydrocarbon fuel burning from one site to another.

 

Singling out cruise ships for cold ironing, while allowing cargo ships to continue to burn fuel while in port is disingenuous. A quick look at the ports of SC website, shows that over the next 30 days, Charleston will have 6 port calls by Carnival, at about 10 hours per port call, and over 140 port calls by cargo ships, where each port call is 24 or more hours. If you are going to cold iron Carnival's ship, then all 5 terminals handling cargo in Charleston should be mandated for cold ironing as well, as California ports have done.

Oh, I completely agree! I think that the lawsuits and the people behind it are doing it because they cannot stand the fact that CARNIVAL is downtown... now if Celebrity or Oceania wanted to have a new terminal and have a permanent ship ported here they would fall all over themselves to have it built as fast as they could. Complete farce and everyone knows it, but some of the arguments are amazing... including the one about the soot invading the neighborhoods, most of which are industrial or tourist areas. Most of us that live here (other than the few "bluebloods") wish they would wander off the bridge and just let the new port be built!

 

What I am trying to show is the idiocy of complaining about smoking on a Smoking ship.... and thanks for the info!

Edited March 29, 2016 by bobsfamily

[StolidCruiser]

This has nothing to do with nothing but when Chengpk75 "speaks", everyone sits up in their chairs and pays attention. It truly is a breath of fresh air. Pun intended.

 

I for one agree - I don't usually understand half of it, but just reading a Chengpk post impresses the bejeebers out of me.

[SMSACE6]

I for one agree - I don't usually understand half of it, but just reading a Chengpk post impresses the bejeebers out of me.

 

Ditto.

 

Very informative, educational, and interesting.

[rok233]

Such a disgusting habit. Smoking will eventually be banned from all indoor facilities. Just a matter of time folks. :D

[johnlisac]

Such a disgusting habit. Smoking will eventually be banned from all indoor facilities. Just a matter of time folks. :D

Already is in most states. But I don't think the government should be dictating to business owners what they will allow in there business. And I agree it's is a bad habit just like someone who over eats and is extremely overweight. And I don't want to hear it doesn't affect anyone else cause it does ever ones insurance rates are higher and when I purchase a seat on a plane I expect to be able to use the whole seat not share it with the fat slob next to me. Maybe companies should charge overweight people like luggage that over 50 pounds.

Just stirring the pot!!

 

Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk