Smoking on QM2 after UK ban

[Linerguy]

Steve Martin said it best when someone ask if he minded if they smoke: "Mind if I fart?" was his reply.

 

-Russ

[Kindlychap]

Well spotted! Perhaps that should belong to the smokers?;)

 

I was thinking of Gin, myself. Maybe 'Friends of :

• Johnnie (Walker)
  
• Jack (Daniels)
  
• Jim (Beam)
  
• Magellan (Gin - French :eek:)

I'm sure we could go on......

 

Peter

 

Friends of the Widow?

 

Sounds good to me!

 

Matthew

[travel-to-go]

Mary,

Are those floating voters those who were thrown overboard for daring to light up, or those who were thrown overboard for daring to bitch about smoke?

 

Karie,

who hopes she can still float after being tossed over!

[travel-to-go]

If you just want to incommode smokers as much as possible whilst still keeping the revenue through taxation then I'm very much against.

Here we go with those floaters again- Putting smokers in the commode!:eek:

And I do think it is sickening (whether about smoking or other subjects) that the governments fiddle around and make pronouncements about one thing or another, but won't give up that tax revenue! Gambling, for instance- (I don't care a white one way or the other about it) or for that matter, Indian tribes selling tobacco! Cuts into their stash! And don't get me started on Exxon Mobil having the largest profit IN HISTORY! All the while getting tax abatements, and no doubt, grants for things from the government. The "Save the family farm"-type give-aways, that go to the likes of Tyson (poultry) and Con-Agra

I didn't realise I wasn't happy before!

 

I think you mean gay, not happy!

 

P.S. Count me as one who s definitely harmed even by second hand smoke. No ifs' ands' or buts... or is it butts! <LOL>

[guernseyguy]

Friends of the Widow?

 

Good one! I wonder why Monsieur Cliquot died so young.....do you think he was a smoker?;) Madame on the other hand lived to be 89.......

 

Peter

[pnhmrk]

Your so out of touch Malcom its scarey ! :rolleyes:

 

I don't understand. Why "out of touch"?:confused: (oh - Malcolm has a second "l" at the end. Malcolms are generally very touchy about their name!)

[pnhmrk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pnhmrk

"I'm alright Jack"?

 

:confused:

 

I meant that as long as you've got your non-smoking area you aren't bothered if anyone else is comfortable or not.

 

I like the way that they do it in Canada where smoking areas have to be completely cut off from the non-smoking area.

 

That is a sensible suggestion - although I'm not sure how it could be implemented on Cunard.

[pnhmrk]

It seems perfectly simple to me - for years non-smokers had the choice of going into foul smoke filled atmospheres or probably not going out much at all. Now... smokers have a similar amount of choice, to smoke outside or not go out much at all.

 

Interesting. So, by the same logic once upon a time White Europeans shipped Black Africans to the Americas to be slaves; Slavery is wrong so to make amends should we allow White Americans to ship White Europeans to Africa to be their slaves?

 

Two wrongs do not make a right. If a minority were inconvenienced in the past why should you insist that a different group get penalised now?

[pnhmrk]

You did say you smoke, right?[.quote]

 

No - I would still class myself as a smoker, but one that had his last cigarette over a year ago:(

[pnhmrk]

Mind if I fart?

 

At lease smokers display common courtesy - Farters don't normally!

[KenC]

Interesting. So, by the same logic once upon a time White Europeans shipped Black Africans to the Americas to be slaves; Slavery is wrong so to make amends should we allow White Americans to ship White Europeans to Africa to be their slaves?

 

Two wrongs do not make a right. If a minority were inconvenienced in the past why should you insist that a different group get penalised now?

 

Oh Malcolm you do exaggerate the logic don't you :rolleyes: perhaps you need a cigarette???

 

So are you admitting that non-smokers were inconvenienced / penalised in the past??? And .... having to smoke outside is hardly much of a 'penalty' especially compared to having to breath someone else's cigarette smoke.

 

Ken

[KenC]

At lease smokers display common courtesy - Farters don't normally!

 

Where did you get this idea from???? :(

[GAV BOY]

I don't understand. Why "out of touch"?:confused: (oh - Malcolm has a second "l" at the end. Malcolms are generally very touchy about their name!)

 

 

Your very touchy anyway MalcoLm :D

[GAV BOY]

At lease smokers display common courtesy - Farters don't normally!

 

 

Smokers and common courtesy dont go together ! Hence the ban :eek:

[paulista1950]

"I'm a non-drinker...I have no problem with others who drink but I do remind paulista that there are consequences to others from people who drink. I believe there are many stastistics that point to the number of deaths caused by drunk drivers. And that's only the beginning...."

 

Isn't DUI a crime? See? Threre are rules and laws about drinking! Why shouldn't it be for smoking? Btw, could the British here tell if they would support the government ruling what time of the day one could smoke in public? Would this be fair?

 

pnhmrk, according to you, "if you don't like it then you don't need to go into a smoking area, in exactly the same way that if someone wants to smoke they won't go into a non-smoking area."

 

So I assume you agree with me when I say: smoking should be prohibit in places I compulsorily have to go like government offices, schools,etc. Right?

[GAV BOY]

I don't understand. Why "out of touch"?:confused: (oh - Malcolm has a second "l" at the end. Malcolms are generally very touchy about their name!)

 

Out of touch as in your views may of been acceptable in the 1940s, 50,s and maybe 60,s when they realy didn,t realise how bad smoking was, not only for the smokers but also the non-smokers !

 

But now we do know !

 

Your out of touch with the medical proof against smoking and also the public opinion, because all the Politicians would not of banned it unless there was pressure from the Public !

 

 

regards,

 

Gavin :cool:

[Kindlychap]

Your out of touch with the medical proof against smoking and also the public opinion, because all the Politicians would not of banned it unless there was pressure from the Public !

 

 

The idea that Government only do what is popular is a new one.

 

Fuel tax?

Council Tax?

Capital Punishment?

European Convention on Human Rights?

Iraq?

MP's pay?

 

I could go on, but you get the drift......

 

Matthew

[GAV BOY]

The idea that Government only do what is popular is a new one.

 

Fuel tax?

Council Tax?

Capital Punishment?

European Convention on Human Rights?

Iraq?

MP's pay?

 

I could go on, but you get the drift......

 

Matthew

 

Off Topic !

[travel-to-go]

Interesting. So, by the same logic once upon a time White Europeans shipped Black Africans to the Americas to be slaves; Slavery is wrong so to make amends should we allow White Americans to ship White Europeans to Africa to be their slaves?

 

Hey! That works for me!

<VEG>

Gee, wasn't it mainly the Brits (and other Europeans) who started the slave trade? They would pick up slaves (usually captured by raiding parties from rival tribes) and take them in great numbers to the Caribbean colonies, where they would pick up the rum, generally made of cane raised by the slaves and distilled by their hard labors, which enriched the large plantation owners, then hit the colonies (that would be the US) sometimes, other times, they would complete the triangle to England (or Holland) with the rum, collecting more money for the next trip to Africa.

 

BTW, we have had a lot of discoveries and looking into historical documents and such here in CT in recent years. Friends of mine owned a home, built by a ship owner, (The Champion House here in Colchester) that may have been used in the underground railroad. We also had a learned gent who discovered the "black" cemetery of unmarked graves to the rear of the "white" cemetery, and has done much to identify the graves and teach people about it. We've also dug up documents that proved that there were some well-known wealthy shipping owners who became rich in the lucrative slave trading business. They studied ship's logs and "cargo" manifests and other documents. Chests of such documents ledgers and letters were recently discovered from the estate of a sailing captain which had been shipped and stored in the attic of a house in San Francisco by the heirs, untouched, for decades. The North, in some cases , is coming to grips with its not so pristine past. It was so easy to believe the Civil War was just about slavery, and that northerners were all abolitionists, but the truth is, they profited tremendously from both the slave trade and the cheap goods made with that labor, which were imported to the north, and often did NOT profit the south, but the financiers of the north. None of us, as they say. without some sort of sin. Aetna has been one to admit its culpability in insuring both slaves, and slave ships. It doesn't excuse things or make them all healed, but it is good to bring such things to light, to understand how otherwise good men and women could do such things which are now known to be despicable. Look how far (but not far enough in some cases) animal rights have come. What other subjects and practices, in years and decades to come may we come to realize are barbaric? It makes one think.

 

Karie,

stirring up more trouble. You may now return to your original squabble.

[GAV BOY]

Hey! That works for me!

<VEG>

Gee, wasn't it mainly the Brits (and other Europeans) who started the slave trade? They would pick up slaves (usually captured by raiding parties from rival tribes) and take them in great numbers to the Caribbean colonies, where they would pick up the rum, generally made of cane raised by the slaves and distilled by their hard labors, which enriched the large plantation owners, then hit the colonies (that would be the US) sometimes, other times, they would complete the triangle to England (or Holland) with the rum, collecting more money for the next trip to Africa.

 

BTW, we have had a lot of discoveries and looking into historical documents and such here in CT in recent years. Friends of mine owned a home, built by a ship owner, (The Champion House here in Colchester) that may have been used in the underground railroad. We also had a learned gent who discovered the "black" cemetery of unmarked graves to the rear of the "white" cemetery, and has done much to identify the graves and teach people about it. We've also dug up documents that proved that there were some well-known wealthy shipping owners who became rich in the lucrative slave trading business. They studied ship's logs and "cargo" manifests and other documents. Chests of such documents ledgers and letters were recently discovered from the estate of a sailing captain which had been shipped and stored in the attic of a house in San Francisco by the heirs, untouched, for decades. The North, in some cases , is coming to grips with its not so pristine past. It was so easy to believe the Civil War was just about slavery, and that northerners were all abolitionists, but the truth is, they profited tremendously from both the slave trade and the cheap goods made with that labor, which were imported to the north, and often did NOT profit the south, but the financiers of the north. None of us, as they say. without some sort of sin. Aetna has been one to admit its culpability in insuring both slaves, and slave ships. It doesn't excuse things or make them all healed, but it is good to bring such things to light, to understand how otherwise good men and women could do such things which are now known to be despicable. Look how far (but not far enough in some cases) animal rights have come. What other subjects and practices, in years and decades to come may we come to realize are barbaric? It makes one think.

 

Karie,

stirring up more trouble. You may now return to your original squabble.

 

Hey Karie ,

Theres no squabble, the others just dont realise that their fighting a losing battle ! Yet. :D

[Norfolk Brit]

Hey Karie ,

Theres no squabble, the others just dont realise that their fighting a losing battle ! Yet. :D

 

Sorry Gavboy, but I've been counting again and reckon the score is now 9 against banning the dreaded weed in public enclosed places on Cunard, and 8 in favour of it.

 

Mary

[TJL]

OK all. I'm a non smoker now, having been a smoker for nearly 30 years on and off. My partner is a smoker. I don't mind smoke. There's a lot of choice for non smokers. I don't think it's right that those who don't smoke should dictate to those who do.

 

For what it's worth, I'm not sure when the English law change takes effect. In Liverpool, it's 1 July 2007. Rest of the UK certainly isn't earlier, so prior to that, no problem ?

 

But I have the answer. It's a brilliant solution and highly topical in the UK (which has now run out of prison space so murderers and paedophiles will be running amok even as we speak!). Turn QE2 (and QM if you insist) into a prison ship. All those who are guilty of smoking on board shall be incarcerated thereon for an indeterminate period. They shall be destined to sail international waters for an indeterminate time, stopping only to refuel and restock on liquor and victuals.

 

*Slides of quietly to find a quiet corner to maybe light up and start smoking in the hope of becoming one of the early prisoners*

 

Anybody got a light?

[GAV BOY]

Smoking is anti social behaviour !

 

In a Pub for example, by not smoking a person is not offending anyone ;)

 

Someone who is smoking maybe offending or upsetting a non -smoker :mad:

 

In my view all anti-social behaviour is wrong !

 

 

Does that make sense ? ;)

[carlmm]

Smoking is anti social behaviour !

 

Anti social ?

Smoking has been part of social life in many cultures all around the world for hundreds of years.

The smoking rooms of the great liners were THE place to socialise.

....

 

In my view all anti-social behaviour is wrong !

 

You are absolutely right.

Smoking in a non-smoking sector (or on a dedicated non-smoking ship) is wrong.

Smoking in close proximity of small children, people eating or somebody asmathic etc. is wrong.

Blowing your smoke into somebodies face is wrong.

Forbidding adults to go voluntarily to a pub, restaurant, ship, what ever, where smoking is allowed, is wrong.

To discriminate against smokers and not leaving them any room is wrong.

[GAV BOY]

Anti social ?

Smoking has been part of social life in many cultures all around the world for hundreds of years.

The smoking rooms of the great liners were THE place to socialise.

....

 

 

 

You are absolutely right.

Smoking in a non-smoking sector (or on a dedicated non-smoking ship) is wrong.

Smoking in close proximity of small children, people eating or somebody asmathic etc. is wrong.

Blowing your smoke into somebodies face is wrong.

Forbidding adults to go voluntarily to a pub, restaurant, ship, what ever, where smoking is allowed, is wrong.

To discriminate against smokers and not leaving them any room is wrong.

 

Of course smokers are free to smoke in their own houses,other peoples houses (if they allow it) in their own car and out in the open :)

 

Lots of Freedom ! :D

 

Regards,

 

Gavin :cool: