Is it possible to avoid smoke smells-Or are we stuck with land based trips?

[Florida Glamazon]

Thank you for those who were kind enough to offer their advice on avoiding smoke, and sharing which cruise lines that we will be very much looking into soon.

 

 

 

My objection to smoke is twofold: I am both a non-smoker and lost a good friend and a sister to smoking related deaths, both at a young age.

I was also a caregiver for a loved one with cancer and saw many nice people suffering through chemo & cancer effects who told me that they hope I never start smoking.

My husband smoked and quit 15 years before I met him, and very mush despises smoke and the sick feeling he gets from smelling smoke.

 

 

We will very much use all of your advice to plan a longer cruise with (knock on wood) less smoke.

 

 

Bless you all and I hope we will one day meet onboard a cruise!!!

[Florida Glamazon]

My husband's first wife died of lung cancer. She was a smoker, he had already quite before she was diagnosed. He doesn't freak out over walking through cigarette smoke.

 

I have asthma. I have to use a couple of inhalers on my bad days. I don't freak out over walking through cigarette smoke.

 

We'll both even spend hours in a casino in Las Vegas. No freaking out.

 

When did I say I "freaked out"? It is one thing to say you dislike it and find it repulsive, but entirely another to "freak out".

 

 

To each their own, but I prefer not to breathe in what science has proven to be a top carcinogen, and I don't wish to have my hair & clothes reek of other people's second-hand smoke either.

 

I don't call that freaking out, rather that is a preference.

 

 

Good day and good luck.

[navybankerteacher]

When talking about “rights” in connection with cruise lines, it is important to keep an open mind. While there are certain passengers’s “rights” now recognized and enforced, there appear to be other as yet unrecognized “rights” in the U S market, which are recognized in other markets.

 

 

Of course, it can be reasonably argued that a company has the “right” to offer contracts for passage which specifically limit the “rights” of passengers: - because passengers have the “right” to either accept such limitations, or to refuse to sail with such company.

 

 

Permitting, or not permitting smoking on board is such a contract provision.

[NorthCarolinaBelle]

Hello Cruise Buddies,

I am happy to have (for the most part) enjoyed our 1st cruise, with a few exceptions.

The biggest bummer was the difficulty of avoiding smokers/smoke smells. I don't smoke, and my dear husband quit many years ago (before we met).

We just returned from a 3 night sailing aboard Carnival Liberty, and many indoor areas reeked of either recent or heavy lingering stale smoke. Plus there were plenty of people lighting up in areas not designated for smoking.

Husband gets bad headaches when he is around smoke and I'm not happy to have my hair/clothes stink after being around smoke. I understand that there are no completely smoke free ships, and that no cruise ship is perfect, but I am worried that we are not going to be able to enjoy future cruises without headaches.:confused:

Have you been on any ship(s) that were relatively smoke-free or ships that made it easy to avoid smoke smells?

Any input/advice/details would be sincerely appreciated.

 

 

Thanks in advance and I hope I get to sail again soon!!:ship:

 

Celebrity has NO INDOOR SMOKING AREAS!! :D This is why we tried them the first time, and now we sail with them exclusively.

[sloopsailor]

Celebrity has NO INDOOR SMOKING AREAS!! :D This is why we tried them the first time, and now we sail with them exclusively.

 

They were also one of the first, if not the first, mass market line to ban smoking in staterooms, then on balconies, and now anywhere inside their ships. They have consistently been a leader in the push away from smoking in the cruise industry. This is a main reason why my wife and I have favored Celebrity for the last decade. Neither of us have ever smoked, and we live in California, the state that began the now world wide move towards protecting non-smokers. So we are quite used to being in smoke free environments and much prefer to patronize companies who share those same values.

[Florida Glamazon]

This response to my post, which talked only about me and my husband, is verging on freaking out.

 

I really need to find a new hobby. ;p

Actually, this is the second time you have described me (or people wishing to avoid smoke) as "freaking out" :rolleyes:

 

Since you quoted my post, please note that your prior post did characterize people who wanted to avoid smoke & didn't linger in smoky areas being "freaked out" aka overreacting.

 

I copied it for your reference....

Any more replies to me and I will start thinking you are "freaking out", LOL.;p

 

 

fyree39

5,000+ Club

 

 

#77

SoCal Gal

6,133 Posts

Joined Dec 2011

 

 

Posted Today, 12:41 PM

 

My husband's first wife died of lung cancer. She was a smoker, he had already quite before she was diagnosed. He doesn't freak out over walking through cigarette smoke.

 

I have asthma. I have to use a couple of inhalers on my bad days. I don't freak out over walking through cigarette smoke.

 

We'll both even spend hours in a casino in Las Vegas. No freaking out.

[SRF]

What’s your point?

 

Of course a law is not a right - but it does outline what rights members of a society have - and certain rights of others which members have an obligation to respect.

 

No.

 

Laws can be based on rights, but just because there is a law that says you can get X, doesn't mean you have a RIGHT to get X.

 

Laws can also be passed that are in violation of rights. And that is a major purpose of the court system, to rule on whether the law is legal or not, based on rights.

[SRF]

My comments above. I'm not implying smoking (or breathing smoke) isn't dangerous. It simply boggles my mind how people focus on it to the exclusion of common sense and real world risks.

 

They are focused on THEIR wants.

[SRF]

Neither of us have ever smoked, and we live in California, the state that began the now world wide move towards protecting non-smokers.

 

Also the state that labels every building and product that it contains chemicals known by the State to cause cancer.

 

And is now going to limit your water usage. When some 30% of the water "usage" is loses through leaking pipes.

[navybankerteacher]

No.

 

Laws can be based on rights, but just because there is a law that says you can get X, doesn't mean you have a RIGHT to get X.

 

Laws can also be passed that are in violation of rights. And that is a major purpose of the court system, to rule on whether the law is legal or not, based on rights.

 

This sounds like double-talk: if there is a law “that says you can get X” that rather definitively means that you do have a legal “RIGHT to get X”.

 

Of course, having a legal right to something does not mean that you will get it —— but laws adopted by societies certainly DO define the rights possessed by members of those societies. You should not confuse existing rights which your personal concept of ideal rights.

[JMorris271]

This sounds like double-talk: if there is a law “that says you can get X” that rather definitively means that you do have a legal “RIGHT to get X”.

 

Of course, having a legal right to something does not mean that you will get it —— but laws adopted by societies certainly DO define the rights possessed by members of those societies. You should not confuse existing rights which your personal concept of ideal rights.

You statement sounds like double talk as well. Rights are subjective and don't always follow the norms but rather a select few.

[BillOh]

Actually, this is the second time you have described me (or people wishing to avoid smoke) as "freaking out" :rolleyes:

 

Since you quoted my post, please note that your prior post did characterize people who wanted to avoid smoke & didn't linger in smoky areas being "freaked out" aka overreacting.

 

I copied it for your reference....

Any more replies to me and I will start thinking you are "freaking out", LOL.;p

 

 

fyree39

5,000+ Club

 

 

#77

SoCal Gal

6,133 Posts

Joined Dec 2011

 

We'll both even spend hours in a casino in Las Vegas. No freaking out.

Posted Today, 12:41 PM

 

My husband's first wife died of lung cancer. She was a smoker, he had already quite before she was diagnosed. He doesn't freak out over walking through cigarette smoke.

 

I have asthma. I have to use a couple of inhalers on my bad days. I don't freak out over walking through cigarette smoke.

 

 

I see at the original poster you are still here. One of your early questions was about avoiding the smoke smell. Getting back to that, yes you can with a little planning, at least on Royal. Anytime I walk from one end of the pool deck to the other, I avoid the one side. If I want to go on their outside promenade, I avoid that side as well. I can no longer think of an indoor venue on Royal that still smells bad. (I haven't gone in or near any cigar lounges if they are still there.

Edited June 11, 2018 by BillOh
messed up the editing

[navybankerteacher]

You statement sounds like double talk as well. Rights are subjective and don't always follow the norms but rather a select few.

 

What does this mean?

 

What “norms” do rights follow, and who gets to select the “select few” that they do follow?

 

That rights are “subjective”? That “rights” are whatever any person thinks they are?

 

A word subject to that many definitions is kind of useless in any intelligent conversation.

[JMorris271]

What “norms” do rights follow, and who gets to select the “select few” that they do follow?

Different societies have different norms and these norms are reflected in their laws. That being said, just because there is a law does not mean it is right.

 

That rights are “subjective”? That “rights” are whatever any person thinks they are?

Women had a right to vote until the 19th amendment was passed when their right was recognized. But they always had the right to vote. It was just not recognized. They protested because it was their right to vote.

 

A word subject to that many definitions is kind of useless in any intelligent conversation.

There are many words have several definitions. This keeps the lawyers employed.

[bUU]

What “norms” do rights follow, and who gets to select the “select few” that they do follow?

Different societies have different norms and these norms are reflected in their laws. That being said, just because there is a law does not mean it is right.

 

That rights are “subjective”? That “rights” are whatever any person thinks they are?

Women had a right to vote until the 19th amendment was passed when their right was recognized. But they always had the right to vote. It was just not recognized. They protested because it was their right to vote.

 

A word subject to that many definitions is kind of useless in any intelligent conversation.

There are many words have several definitions. This keeps the lawyers employed.

Yes but it goes deeper than that. There was a time when practically no one would say women had a right to vote, a right that just was not recognized. As such, practically anything could be something that, a couple of hundred years from now, will be recognized as a right. Expecting rights to be neat and tidy, unchanging over time is naive.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[navybankerteacher]

Yes but it goes deeper than that. There was a time when practically no one would say women had a right to vote, a right that just was not recognized. As such, practically anything could be something that, a couple of hundred years from now, will be recognized as a right. Expecting rights to be neat and tidy, unchanging over time is naive.

 

...

 

quote]

 

Which can also mean that some things which are now seen as rights could conceivably not be seen as rights in the future. Wouldn’t their future non-right status jeopardize their current status as rights — just as today’s status as a right is here claimed to retroactively change a previous non-right status?

 

.

[bUU]

Which can also mean that some things which are now seen as rights could conceivably not be seen as rights in the future.

Please list a few rights people had for which how those rights were seen evolved to a point where they are no longer seen as rights today, and explain why you personally mourn the passing of these rights.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[navybankerteacher]

Please list a few rights people had for which how those rights were seen evolved to a point where they are no longer seen as rights today, and explain why you personally mourn the passing of these rights.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

The “Divine right of kings” for one.

 

Where did you see grounds for your absurd contention that I “personally mourn the passing of these rights”?

 

Back on sub-topic: it is silly to say things like women had the right to vote in previous centuries just because they now have that right. Yes, they SHOULD have had that right; but a right denied should not be given the same name as a right recognized.

[JMorris271]

The “Divine right of kings” for one.

 

Where did you see grounds for your absurd contention that I “personally mourn the passing of these rights”?

 

Back on sub-topic: it is silly to say things like women had the right to vote in previous centuries just because they now have that right. Yes, they SHOULD have had that right; but a right denied should not be given the same name as a right recognized.

 

 

OK. Point taken. Call it an Inherent right

 

eg. To breathe clean air.

Edited June 12, 2018 by JMorris271

[bUU]

The “Divine right of kings” for one.

No that's a right that was trumped by another right that became predominant.

 

So it sounds like your earlier comment was not relevant to the comment you were replying to.

 

Expecting rights to be neat and tidy, unchanging over time is naive.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

[JMorris271]

No that's a right that was trumped by another right that became predominant.

 

So it sounds like your earlier comment was not relevant to the comment you were replying to.

 

Expecting rights to be neat and tidy, unchanging over time is naive.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

That depends on which definition of rights you are using.

legal rights or

Human rights

inherent rights

[navybankerteacher]

No that's a right that was trumped by another right that became predominant.

 

So it sounds like your earlier comment was not relevant to the comment you were replying to.

 

Expecting rights to be neat and tidy, unchanging over time is naive.

 

This message may have been entered via voice recognition. Please excuse any typos.

 

Wrong again.

 

First, it was relevant.

 

Of course rights evolve - and some recognized rights are surpassed by by others. I hope you don’t think you are the only one to grasp that.

 

As a matter for general. discussion - and particularly on this thread - a concept of “rights” needs to be modified by the type of “rights” under consideration:

Here it is the right to breathe clean air vs. the right to smoke.

 

The right to smoke is being continually constrained in favor of (what many people see as a much higher right) the right to breathe clean air.

[newcruiser1956]

Viking Ocean does not have the casino's and only one space outside to smoke...

[navybankerteacher]

That depends on which definition of rights you are using.

legal rights or

Human rights

inherent rights

 

Exactly - it is silly to use the term “rights” interchangeably - with the modifying adjective. And, beyond that, to fail to recognize the fact that some sorts of “rights” are in direct conflict with other sorts - and even then, some people’s “legal rights” might not be capable of co-existing with other people’s “legal rights”.

[bUU]

Wrong again.

What else would you say? [emoji849]

 

Expecting rights to be neat and tidy, unchanging over time is naive.

 

This message may have been drafted using voice recognition. Please forgive any typos.