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

[KroozNut]

12 hours ago, Tom47 said:

I prefer no smoking casinos.

 

Then you're in luck (no pun intended), because HAL has you covered. Oosterdam, Eurodam and Zuiderdam casinos are completely non-smoking!

 

Isn't that awesome?! 😀

[Tom47]

1 hour ago, KroozNut said:

 

Then you're in luck (no pun intended), because HAL has you covered. Oosterdam, Eurodam and Zuiderdam casinos are completely non-smoking!

 

Isn't that awesome?! 😀

The Baltic itinerary that I am considering is on the Veendam, with smoking casino.

[Wonderingabout]

Since evidence indicates that smokers are far less susceptible to the covid 19 virus.  Will cruising be reserved only for smokers and if you are a non-smoker you will be refused permission to board.  Perhaps you will be required to show your cigarettes and lighter prior to embarking.

 

April 29, 2020 - Today in the world of coronavirus news:

Few of those hospitalized with the coronavirus are smokers, and researchers are trying to understand why, according to VICE.

One hypothesis is that nicotine, which has anti-inflammatory properties, may interfere with the way that COVID-19 causes an overreaction of the immune system.

The hypothesis comes from Konstantinos Farsalinos, a cardiologist in Greece who focuses on tobacco-use reduction. Farsalinos noticed that few COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized in China were smokers, though about half of men in the country smoke.

 

Farsalinos and colleagues wrote a new paper available as a preprint and scheduled to be published in Internal and Emergency Medicine. They found that among 13 studies in China with nearly 6,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the rate of smokers ranged from 1.4% to 12.6%. No studies recorded e-cigarette use.

“The results were remarkably consistent across all studies and were recently verified in the first case series of COVID-19 cases in the U.S.,” the authors wrote, calling for an “urgent investigation.”

“We all know that smoking is obviously bad for you,” Raymond Niaura of New York University told VICE. Niaura co-authored the paper with Farsalinos. “It follows logically that smokers would be way worse off. I would think that too. But I've been surprised: That's not the story we're necessarily seeing.”

 

[Tom47]

9 minutes ago, Wonderingabout said:

Since evidence indicates that smokers are far less susceptible to the covid 19 virus.  Will cruising be reserved only for smokers and if you are a non-smoker you will be refused permission to board.  Perhaps you will be required to show your cigarettes and lighter prior to embarking.

 

April 29, 2020 - Today in the world of coronavirus news:

Few of those hospitalized with the coronavirus are smokers, and researchers are trying to understand why, according to VICE.

One hypothesis is that nicotine, which has anti-inflammatory properties, may interfere with the way that COVID-19 causes an overreaction of the immune system.

The hypothesis comes from Konstantinos Farsalinos, a cardiologist in Greece who focuses on tobacco-use reduction. Farsalinos noticed that few COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized in China were smokers, though about half of men in the country smoke.

 

Farsalinos and colleagues wrote a new paper available as a preprint and scheduled to be published in Internal and Emergency Medicine. They found that among 13 studies in China with nearly 6,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the rate of smokers ranged from 1.4% to 12.6%. No studies recorded e-cigarette use.

“The results were remarkably consistent across all studies and were recently verified in the first case series of COVID-19 cases in the U.S.,” the authors wrote, calling for an “urgent investigation.”

“We all know that smoking is obviously bad for you,” Raymond Niaura of New York University told VICE. Niaura co-authored the paper with Farsalinos. “It follows logically that smokers would be way worse off. I would think that too. But I've been surprised: That's not the story we're necessarily seeing.”

 

I read the same article.  The article went on to say that smoking causes death from stroke, cancer and heart attacks at a much greater rate than non smokers.  It said that this is NOT a reason to smoke.

[KroozNut]

1 hour ago, Tom47 said:

I read the same article.  The article went on to say that smoking causes death from stroke, cancer and heart attacks at a much greater rate than non smokers.  It said that this is NOT a reason to smoke.

 

Of course it's not a reason to smoke, or start smoking. That goes without saying.. But it is an interesting study, never-the-less.

[Wonderingabout]

I wrote the previous post mostly as a humorous take on the virus, fear and its effect on cruising.  But as I think more about it there is a serious side to our pooh poohing the studies' results.

 

1. Threats of death from stroke, heart attacks, cancer and no doubt other diseases increase with smoking.  But these are chronic results of smoking over long periods of time.  There is little if any evidence that smoking over short-term periods result in an lasting negative results.  In fact many anti smoking ads tout that stopping smoking can reverse or at least halt the chronic effects of smoking.  " It is never too late to quit smoking"  But Covid 19 and its effects are immediate, real and deadly.

 

2. If these studies as indicated show smoking reduce hospitalizations due to Covid 19 by 85% to 98% then by not pushing smoking as a short -term therapeutic response to the Virus, atleast to the elderly, we are in our political correctness condemning people to death.  We are literally killing people because we have such an aversion to smoking.

 

3. Considering that most people who die of the disease are over 60, the detriments of the chronic diseases are likely not to be important even if they become addicted to smoking.  These people will likely die of something else before the effects of smoking kills them.  It is the reverse of the teenager who starts smoking and is likely to die of the effects of smoking before something else kills him.

 

4. The costs to our society, including our social relationships with other people because of masks, social distancing and the costs to our economy because of mandated shutdowns  The cost to our health because of delayed or undiagnosed  or untreated illness due to the lock down and limited access to other medical care  versus the cost to the society by pushing smoking is too vast to quantify whether from an economic, moral or mental health point.

 

I would like to say that I have never smoked, I do not like being in a smokey environment but I do have an open mind to people that do smoke and an open mind to the idea that logic should supersede political correctness or whatever we want call our obsession with smoking. 

[Lindaru]

The good news for people who do not want to start smoking is that they do not have to.

There are nicotine patches and gums that will be healthier for them and create that same effect against the virus due to the fact that it is the nicotine itself that inhibits the virus and not the other things in cigarettes, cigars or vaping.

I suppose the balance would be how much to keep the virus at bay as compared to the cost of any nicotine addiction.

As a smoker myself, I was somewhat relieved to hear this news.  I have never used the nicotine patches or gums, but perhaps there is a dosage they could come up with that would be effective without being addictive.
 

[dogs4fun]

On 2/9/2020 at 8:11 AM, fabuloso said:

What I find interesting about the health aspect is how smoking is a huge target, but fragrance is not.  If you Google "asthma/perfume" or "perfume/allergy/irritant" you would wonder why fragrances are allowed on cruise ships. 

I have wondered about this very issue. We have a friend who is extremely sensitive to fragrances - she carries an EpiPen for acute allergy attacks. I witnessed one of her acute attacks caused by cologne worn by a person seated near us at a concert - it was very frightening. Thank goodness she had her EpiPen! 

[T8NCruise]

On 9/17/2020 at 12:49 PM, dogs4fun said:

I have wondered about this very issue. We have a friend who is extremely sensitive to fragrances - she carries an EpiPen for acute allergy attacks. I witnessed one of her acute attacks caused by cologne worn by a person seated near us at a concert - it was very frightening. Thank goodness she had her EpiPen! 

The usual diversion - every time smoking was mentioned on CC, fragrances was mentioned.  The worst offenders were usually those who smoke and douse themselves in perfume to cover the smell (it didn't work).

[Himself]

A cigarette commercial from years ago said: "Are you smoking now more and enjoying it less?" I was a two and a half day smoker.  I quit June 8th 1992.  Now I am smoking a lot less and enjoying it much more.

[KroozNut]

On 9/19/2020 at 7:40 AM, T8NCruise said:

The usual diversion - every time smoking was mentioned on CC, fragrances was mentioned.  The worst offenders were usually those who smoke and douse themselves in perfume to cover the smell (it didn't work).

 

Wrong on so many levels... and if you've ever experienced being in an enclosed space (such as a cruise ship elevator) with someone who is wearing WAY too much fragrance, you might understand this argument. Some folks are just as allergic and/or adversely affected by fragrances as others are cigarette smoke.

 

P.S. And no, I don't smoke..

[kazu]

On 9/19/2020 at 11:40 AM, T8NCruise said:

The usual diversion - every time smoking was mentioned on CC, fragrances was mentioned.  The worst offenders were usually those who smoke and douse themselves in perfume to cover the smell (it didn't work).

 

I don’t usually disagree with you but I have to on this one.

 

I’ve been on enough ships in elevators to be overwhelmed by the perfume (I’m not allergic but my mother taught me long ago a little goes a one way 😉 )   

 

These ladies were not smokers, guaranteed. 

I will say they were feeling a tad good and older (and I’m not young) and I suspect they don’t realize how much they are putting on.

 

I’ve also seen/smelled a full gentlemen douse the cologne on as well so it’s not gender restricted.

 

We sadly have pretty much stopped wearing perfume and cologne (even though we know a little dab will do you) because of the no scent policies in so many places and knowing they can bother some people.

 

 

[edgee]

On 1/30/2021 at 6:49 PM, kazu said:

 

I don’t usually disagree with you but I have to on this one.

 

I’ve been on enough ships in elevators to be overwhelmed by the perfume (I’m not allergic but my mother taught me long ago a little goes a one way 😉 )   

 

These ladies were not smokers, guaranteed. 

I will say they were feeling a tad good and older (and I’m not young) and I suspect they don’t realize how much they are putting on.

 

I’ve also seen/smelled a full gentlemen douse the cologne on as well so it’s not gender restricted.

 

We sadly have pretty much stopped wearing perfume and cologne (even though we know a little dab will do you) because of the no scent policies in so many places and knowing they can bother some people.

 

 

This thread is a smoking thread. Any mention of perfume is not relevant.

[richstowe]

1 hour ago, edgee said:

This thread is a smoking thread. Any mention of perfume is not relevant.

It's relevant if you wish to equate the stink of smoke to other annoying smells . So smoking defenders (who often mention they are non-smokers ) bring up perfume as something just as bad . Delusional or dishonest , you choose .

It may not be relevant but in every smoking thread someone always brings up perfume .

[NavyCruiser]

Wow.  Took me 3 days to slowly read thru this post's 18 pages & 439 posts.  Should re-name this post to the "Single Anti-Smoking Thread".

 

[Blackduck59]

On 2/15/2021 at 8:45 PM, NavyCruiser said:

Wow.  Took me 3 days to slowly read thru this post's 18 pages & 439 posts.  Should re-name this post to the "Single Anti-Smoking Thread".

 

 

I'm not a smoker and was kinda hoping to find some knowledge as to where to avoid with regard to smoking on Holland America. We are considering an east coast Canada cruise in 2022 and we have never sailed in Holland America. This is an important issue for us because my wife has severe asthmatic reactions to cigarette smoke (and dare I add fragrance).

[KroozNut]

7 hours ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

I'm not a smoker and was kinda hoping to find some knowledge as to where to avoid with regard to smoking on Holland America. We are considering an east coast Canada cruise in 2022 and we have never sailed in Holland America. This is an important issue for us because my wife has severe asthmatic reactions to cigarette smoke (and dare I add fragrance).

 

HAL generally limits smoking to one side of deck 9 aft on most ships, so if you avoid that location you should be good to go for the other public areas (again, generally speaking).

 

For more specifics (per ship), their 'Know Before You Go' publication details that information.

[edgee]

2 hours ago, KroozNut said:

 

HAL generally limits smoking to one side of deck 9 aft on most ships, so if you avoid that location you should be good to go for the other public areas (again, generally speaking).

 

For more specifics (per ship), their 'Know Before You Go' publication details that information.

The MOST important thing to remember is that some HAL ships allow smoking in casinos which wafts into many indoor areas of the ships. Stick with the following ships that forbid casino smoking: Noordam, Zuiderdam, Nieuw Amsterdam, Westerdam, Eurodam. It is unfortunate that HAL's newer larger ships all allow smoking in casinos. Immediately post Covid some of these newer ships may prohibit casino smoking initially, but company intends to permit casino smoking again on the newest ships again at some point. This includes the newest ship, Rotterdam.

[Blackduck59]

Well this is a little disconcerting, we don't use the casino but any open concept indoor space which allows smoking will waft for quite a distance. I understand the addiction but there should be no indoor smoking areas except perhaps a designated smoking pit with negative pressure so when the sealed door is opened the smoke stays inside. Where I work we have one smoker and he smokes outside but if we have he doors open I can smell his smoke from 25 meters away even without wind.

[lyndarra]

6 hours ago, Blackduck59 said:

Well this is a little disconcerting, we don't use the casino but any open concept indoor space which allows smoking will waft for quite a distance. I understand the addiction but there should be no indoor smoking areas except perhaps a designated smoking pit with negative pressure so when the sealed door is opened the smoke stays inside. Where I work we have one smoker and he smokes outside but if we have he doors open I can smell his smoke from 25 meters away even without wind.

I've cruised on four different HAL ships and never had a problem with cigarette smoke, which I always try to avoid due to a medical issue,  caused by passive smoking in an office environment years ago before OHS. None of the four ships allowed smoking in the casino. HAL at one time allowed smoking on balconies but I believe that's now history.

 

Noordam, Maasdam, Oosterdam & Voledam.

[Tom47]

There are cruise lines that don't allow indoor smoking: Celebrity, Azamara and  Pearl Seas.  We like all 3.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Tom47

[edgee]

11 hours ago, edgee said:

The MOST important thing to remember is that some HAL ships allow smoking in casinos which wafts into many indoor areas of the ships. Stick with the following ships that forbid casino smoking: Noordam, Zuiderdam, Nieuw Amsterdam, Westerdam, Eurodam. It is unfortunate that HAL's newer larger ships all allow smoking in casinos. Immediately post Covid some of these newer ships may prohibit casino smoking initially, but company intends to permit casino smoking again on the newest ships again at some point. This includes the newest ship, Rotterdam.

Slight correction to my earlier post. Ooosterdam also does not allow casino smoking. BTW if you are considering a New England/Canada cruise, that is usually done by the Zuiderdam which has no casino smoking.

[Blackduck59]

2 minutes ago, edgee said:

Slight correction to my earlier post. Ooosterdam also does not allow casino smoking. BTW if you are considering a New England/Canada cruise, that is usually done by the Zuiderdam which has no casino smoking.

 

The cruise we are looking at is in the Nieuw Statendam and she doesn't seem to be among the "no smoking" group. Also looking at the 10 year old smoking policy there seems to be smoking allowed on the cabin verandas which would really suck if we happened to have a smoker in the cabins forward of ours. Much to consider.

[kazu]

41 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

The cruise we are looking at is in the Nieuw Statendam and she doesn't seem to be among the "no smoking" group. Also looking at the 10 year old smoking policy there seems to be smoking allowed on the cabin verandas which would really suck if we happened to have a smoker in the cabins forward of ours. Much to consider.

 

There is NO smoking permitted on any balcony/verandah cabin.

[edgee]

47 minutes ago, Blackduck59 said:

 

The cruise we are looking at is in the Nieuw Statendam and she doesn't seem to be among the "no smoking" group. Also looking at the 10 year old smoking policy there seems to be smoking allowed on the cabin verandas which would really suck if we happened to have a smoker in the cabins forward of ours. Much to consider.

No smoking in cabins or on balconies. However on Nieuw Statendam you will have casino smoking. As others have mentioned, better to check out Celebrity which has zero indoor smoking.