Single Smoking Thread (Use for all smoking discussions on HAL) )

[Barney10]

On 1/17/2020 at 12:09 AM, fatcat04 said:

From page 15 of Holland America's Know Before You Go:

SMOKING POLICY

E-cigarettes are permitted in staterooms, otherwise only in
designated smoking areas.
 

And yet the FAQ on the website says:

Electronic cigarettes are not permitted in staterooms or in other public areas of the ship other than designated smoking areas.

 

 

[Barney10]

I just did an online chat with HAL customer service and was informed the smoking of e cigarettes in state rooms is permitted. 

[T8NCruise]

1 hour ago, Barney10 said:

I just did an online chat with HAL customer service and was informed the smoking of e cigarettes in state rooms is permitted. 

 

Phone twice more you'll get different answers!

[Barney10]

30 minutes ago, T8NCruise said:

 

Phone twice more you'll get different answers!

Maybe so. She put me on hold for quite a few minutes so she could speak to a supervisor. She said the discrepancy has been reported to IT. We’ll see.

Notwithstanding, I’ll speak to Guest Services once on-board.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Barney10

[Beagleman]

On 12/11/2019 at 12:51 PM, Happy traveler 1 said:

In my opinion, as a smoker, there are not enough places to smoke on a cruise ship.  Smokers have a 3 by 3 foot area and non smokers begrudge us that.  I get casino rates and If I can’t smoke in the casino, I will not gamble.  I used to enjoy having my morning coffee on my balcony and late at night just sitting out there.  No more. I used to pay for a balcony cabin, but not worth it now. The ships are like being in a jail cell.  I only cruise now when my husband makes me.  There are just too many non smoking rules.  

maybe we choose to not have to die of second hand smoke

[Seasick Sailor]

21 minutes ago, Beagleman said:

maybe we choose to not have to die of second hand smoke

 

And it is dangerous. Even a very careful smoker could cause an accidental fire. 

[smi889]

8 hours ago, Seasick Sailor said:

 

And it is dangerous. Even a very careful smoker could cause an accidental fire. 

You are more likely to die on your way to the cruise than a fire from a cigarette on the cruise.

[smi889]

9 hours ago, Beagleman said:

maybe we choose to not have to die of second hand smoke

I guess you could just stay out of the Casino then if you believe in the second hand smoke bull. Not only that but Climate Change is more likely to get you first. 🙂

[DivotMaker]

3 hours ago, smi889 said:

I guess you could just stay out of the Casino then if you believe in the second hand smoke bull. 

 

Is it your position that secondhand smoke poses zero risk to non-smokers?

[smi889]

6 hours ago, DivotMaker said:

 

Is it your position that secondhand smoke poses zero risk to non-smokers?

I would say that if you got in a smoker's face as he/she was dragging on it you might get some smoke but the smoker already inhaled the carcinogens. Smell of smoke is a different animal. I can't stand it either in an enclosed non ventilated area. I just feel sorry for people that believe all the doom and gloom, like following the 16 year old, Greta, from Sweden. then again there are ships that don't allow smoking in the Casino. Life is full of choices isn't it?

[DivotMaker]

Just now, smi889 said:

I would say that if you got in a smoker's face as he/she was dragging on it you might get some smoke but the smoker already inhaled the carcinogens. Smell of smoke is a different animal. I can't stand it either in an enclosed non ventilated area. I just feel sorry for people that believe all the doom and gloom, like following the 16 year old, Greta, from Sweden. then again there are ships that don't allow smoking in the Casino. Life is full of choices isn't it?

Thanks for replying.  I genuinely was interested in your response, not for the sake of arguing, just my own curiosity.  Have a good day.

 

[OmarOak]

33 minutes ago, smi889 said:

I would say that if you got in a smoker's face as he/she was dragging on it you might get some smoke but the smoker already inhaled the carcinogens. Smell of smoke is a different animal. I can't stand it either in an enclosed non ventilated area. I just feel sorry for people that believe all the doom and gloom, like following the 16 year old, Greta, from Sweden. then again there are ships that don't allow smoking in the Casino. Life is full of choices isn't it?

I have to take issue here:

 

1. Second hand smoke does in fact expose an individual to carcinogens, perhaps less than the person directly inhaling from the source but still significant exposure. There is science behind regulations designed to limit exposure to second hand smoke.

 

2. I appreciate your feeling sorry for people like me who "believe all the doom and gloom like following the 16 year old Greta from Sweden." There is another word for that "doom and gloom", its called science.

[smi889]

12 hours ago, OmarOak said:

I have to take issue here:

 

1. Second hand smoke does in fact expose an individual to carcinogens, perhaps less than the person directly inhaling from the source but still significant exposure. There is science behind regulations designed to limit exposure to second hand smoke.

 

2. I appreciate your feeling sorry for people like me who "believe all the doom and gloom like following the 16 year old Greta from Sweden." There is another word for that "doom and gloom", its called science.

I would like to see that scientific study. I've been around long enough that I lived through the cooling scare, global warming, and now climate change. A lot of this type of science is based on how much grant money they can get.Linda of like our politicians staying in office to see how much wealth they can accumulate. Put that air quality monitor in a Casino and get some real research.  

[smi889]

20 hours ago, DivotMaker said:

 

Is it your position that secondhand smoke poses zero risk to non-smokers?

Probably not near as much as sitting in bumper to bumper traffic on a California Freeway.

[OmarOak]

Really? So all the scientific studies are fake and biased and you know better?? None are so blind as those who refuse to see....or use Google.

[KroozNut]

16 hours ago, OmarOak said:

"believe all the doom and gloom like following the 16 year old Greta from Sweden." There is another word for that "doom and gloom", its called science.

 

You mean like the 'science' that resulted in Glacier National Park putting up signs more than a decade ago, and then recently removing them, warning visitors that the glaciers would be gone by 2020?

[OmarOak]

2 minutes ago, KroozNut said:

 

You mean like the 'science' that resulted in Glacier National Park putting up signs more than a decade ago, and then recently removing them, warning visitors that the glaciers would be gone by 2020?

 

The fact remains that the Glaciers are shrinking.

 

The replacement signs say: "When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking".

[KroozNut]

Just now, OmarOak said:

 

The fact remains that the Glaciers are shrinking.

 

The replacement signs say: "When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking".

 

The point is the 'gloom and doom' of some so-called scientific studies such as the Glacier Park example, whereby they assured us that 'the glaciers would be completely gone' by 2020. Only to have to embarrassingly change that assessment.

 

"Scientific' hyperbole certainly makes headlines, and causes some folks to clutch their pearls and worry about the end of the world; but in the case of 'climate change' in general, there is currently way too much of this going on. 

[OmarOak]

They modified the assesment but did not alter the direction things at Glacier Park are going. I was there as a teenager and returned as an adult in my 50's. The change is profound and sad.

 

The evidence of what is happening is crystal clear. While the speed at which specific impacts of climate change develop may vary, the directional evidence is clear.

 

The dangers of smoking and second hand smoke have been proven and well publicized for decades. Do you dismiss that science as well?

 

 

 

 

[Seasick Sailor]

Regardless of climate change or dangers of smoking and second hand smoke, I am sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke and thankful the smoking areas are shrinking. Walking thru smoking areas and looking at the ash trays smoldering or even being on the elevator with a smoker makes me queasy. 

You will not get a sympathetic reply here from a smoker. 

 

[KroozNut]

13 hours ago, OmarOak said:

They modified the assesment but did not alter the direction things at Glacier Park are going. I was there as a teenager and returned as an adult in my 50's. The change is profound and sad.

 

'Modified' is right, they had to eat crow and accept the notion that 'climate change' may not be as much of a near term existential threat as some would like you and I to believe.

 

Quote

 

The evidence of what is happening is crystal clear. While the speed at which specific impacts of climate change develop may vary, the directional evidence is clear.

 

The notion that 'the evidence is crystal clear' is in fact debatable, and dependent on which scientific 'evidence' one happens to be reading or listening to at any given moment.

 

Quote

 

The dangers of smoking and second hand smoke have been proven and well publicized for decades. Do you dismiss that science as well?

 

As a former smoker myself, I do not dismiss the dangers inherent in the habit; which is why I quit 10 years ago in the first place. Now, regarding second hand smoke, I'm not as convinced that there exists any significant health risks.. any more so than walking down a city street today in most cities.

 

Quote

 

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by KroozNut

[OmarOak]

...and you are not convinced that the earth is not flat? Sad. 

[KroozNut]

21 minutes ago, OmarOak said:

...and you are not convinced that the earth is not flat? Sad. 

 

It's sad that the earth is not flat? 🙄

[OmarOak]

😏

 

Hard to believe - in the course of the last few days you have dismissed the impact of second hand smoke on others, brought up climate change in a thread about smoking and then ridiculed those concerned about it, dissembled and dismissed established science after deciding that "you know better". Truly sad, though perhaps better described as pathetic. 

 

You've taken a forum about cruising and turned it into a personal science denial screed. I'm done here.

[NCTribeFan]

Haven't sailed HAL in a couple of years and came here to see what the latest is on smoking and now I'll have to backtrack a few pages to get to the actual info about smoking on the ships!  Thanks for making a very long thread even longer by throwing in a climate change debate! 🙄

 

As a former smoker, I'm one of those who is hyper-sensitive to the smell.  And too much smoke (like in the casinos on Carnival ships) makes my asthma kick in.  Not to mention making my clothes, and therefore my cabin, reek of the stale-smoke stench.

 

It's the defensive attitude of the smokers that turns every smoking thread into arguments.  Yes, it's legal to smoke.  Yes, some smokers are courteous.  Many are not.  When you sit at a non-smoking slot machine in a casino and the smokers surround you, both playing next to you or standing behind you ignoring the rules (because most ship crew will NOT say anything to them), then having non-smoking sections is pretty pointless.

 

I'm not sure why having non-smoking casinos would stop smokers from gambling.  You can go take a smoke break at any time.  Do you refuse to eat because restaurants are non-smoking?  Do you refuse to work because an office building is non-smoking?

 

FWIW, I'll be on Zaandam.  Was really hoping casino would be totally non-smoking but I guess not.  First time I sailed her, I don't recall the casino be terribly smoky.  Hope that's still the case.