Smoking on QM2 after UK ban

[HAMBURGCruiser]

as smoking is discussed again it might be worthwhile to discuss whether to stop cruising and flying in general as well.

 

Ships are fast becoming the biggest source of air pollution in the EU. Unless more action is taken they are set to emit more than all land sources combined by 2020 Source: Clean Air for Europe impact assessment, p31 (2005).

 

In 2000 EU-flagged ships also emitted almost 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. This is significantly more than emissions from EU aviation. Source: Ship emissions assignment report, p160 (2005).

 

In November 2002, the European Commission adopted a European Union strategy to reduce atmospheric emissions from seagoing ships. The strategy reports on the magnitude and impact of ship emissions in the EU and sets out a number of actions to reduce the contribution of shipping to acidification, ground-level ozone, eutrophication, health, climate change and ozone depletion. See the right hand side of this page for links to all related policy documents. Click on Background information for links to the studies and consultations which have informed policy development in this field.

Air pollutant emissions from ships are also covered by Annex VI of the Marine Pollution Convention, MARPOL 73/78, of the International Maritime Organization. This contains provisions on Sulphur Oxide Emission Control Areas (Baltic Sea, North Sea & English Channel) and nitrogen oxide emissions standards for ships' engines. The EU strategy seeks to implement the SOx Emission Control Areas set out in Annex VI, and to press for tighter NOx standards. The Commission also urges Member States to bring forward ratification of this important international instrument.

[guernseyguy]

When the French concede that smoking can harm health, you'd might as well face it...the games up!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/01/wsmoke01.xml

 

Peter

[guernseyguy]

I'm worried about a country that will adopt an attitude that allows a vociferous minority to dictate to the majority.

 

That would be the 26.5% of the UK population who smoke then?:

 

http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas40.pdf

 

Peter;)

[pnhmrk]

That would be the 26.5% of the UK population who smoke then?:

 

That plus people like Karie or me - who don't smoke but have friends who do.

 

How many people never went certain places because they could not breathe there. I am now used to going to bars, I could not step foot in one for years, but when they banned smoking in bars, I could feel free to walk in one.

 

BTW, I have friends who smoke. They understand my needs, and I try to be cognizant of theirs. It is possible, you know!

 

Karie - how many people don't go into a bar because they can't smoke there? How many people don't go because their smoking friends aren't there? I agree - it is possible for both camps to get on without needing legislation.

 

as smoking is discussed again it might be worthwhile to discuss whether to stop cruising and flying in general as well.

 

Good idea:)

[paulista1950]

Matthew,

 

"I'm a non-smoker, dislike the smell, and four years ago lost my father to lung cancer."

 

I quit in 79, dislike the smell and my father died from ephisema 10 years ago

 

" But then lots of things are bad for you, and quite frankly I'm of the view that life isn't longer if you avoid all the bad things - it just feels as if it is as a result of the boredom"

 

Totally agreed, but the problem here is the second-hand smoking. If you drink, which I do, there is no consequences to others.

 

"But there is always a middle ground."

 

And that would be?

 

Just to clarify, I'm a radical when it comes to anyone being free to do whatever he wants with his life as long it doesn't interfere with mine.

[pnhmrk]

If you drink, which I do, there is no consequences to others.

 

Isn't there? Your drinking in Brazil does not directly affect me, however that alcohol is sold means that some people will abuse it. Their drinking means that the streets end up with puddles of vomit, urine, etc each weekend night; the bill for the health service goes up because it's treating alcohol related diseases; violent crime (and the fear of it) goes up.

 

Like you I drink. I don't want it banned in the same way smoking shouldn't be banned.

[paulista1950]

"Like you I drink. I don't want it banned in the same way smoking shouldn't be banned."

 

I'm not in favor of banning anything and I favor a company being allowed to have cruises/flights/parties/plays for smokers.

My point is, assuming second-hand smoking is harmful which I think it is, smoking should be prohibit in places I compulsorily have to go like government offices, schools,etc.

[clydecruiser]

Panic not; in Scotland (where the ban has been in force for some time) smoking in hotel bedrooms is still permitted. The legislation in England is similar. However, some hotels in the UK have complete bans (as is their right) but these have nothing to do with the new law.

 

Prisons are exempt; if you get desperate, the brig may be likewise

 

 

Hate to say this to any smokers going to Scotland but we have stayed in The Hilton in Glasgow and also another couple of 4* hotels in Scotland in the last 6 months and they are now completely non smoking including bedrooms.

[KarenR_UK]

Personally, I would rather they banned (or restricted) smoking on deck :eek: than in more of the public rooms - I am used to having to go into a smoky atmosphere if I am out with friends (many of them smoke anyway), and found the public rooms on the QE2 acceptable (to me) with regard to smoke levels.

But what I really hate is sitting on deck, relaxing and someone comes and stands or sits next to you for a cigarrette. (And yes bad BO is as bad, but I don't seem to come across that as much:D )

 

I would be happier if the QE2 restricted smoking on one side of the ship like other lines (and if they do already, can someone point me to the 'documentation' which says this, because in my experience it was allowed anywhere on deck - and the 'ashtray' boxes are all around the deck -admittedly I can't remember any up at the bow - but I was always scared I was going to get blown off from up there:D )

 

Karen

(who has sat and looked at this post for 5 minutes trying to decide if she really wants to get into this discussion:D )

[colwill]

Hate to say this to any smokers going to Scotland but we have stayed in The Hilton in Glasgow and also another couple of 4* hotels in Scotland in the last 6 months and they are now completely non smoking including bedrooms.

 

I booked an hotel in Scotland 30 minutes ago, and was asked if I wanted a smoking or non-smoking room, so it's up to the individual hotel and not our esteemed government.

 

As I inadvertently started this, may I say that I'm not a smoker but defend the right of others to smoke provided everyone is considerate (and that includes non-smokers who go into one of the few restaurants that now permit it and wave their arms like around like gyroscopes the second anyone lights up). Gavboy is out of date - 25 years ago, when it was permitted in cinemas, theatres, all workplaces, trains and everywhere else, smokers did have it all their own way. This gradually evolved, by consent, into the current situation with most places having separate areas or rooms, or the owner of a premises banning it completely. It is not an area where government should have become involved, unless they wish to completely forego the revenue generated and avoid charges of hypocracy by making it illegal.

 

Our city centres have not been turned into no-go areas by gangs of smokers, but by hordes of binge-drinkers, aided and abetted by our government encouraging 24 hour a day drinking. I will not start on their plans for casinos and permitting TV advertising for gambling.

 

Colwill (who LOATHES the smell of garlic, but will defend to the death the right of others to cook with it, and whose daughter is dangerously allergic to nuts, but is not campaigning to get them banned)

[patwell]

Hi Colwill...Don't think you realized the hornet's nest this topic can be. As a smoker I appreciate the understanding attitude of you and some of the other non-smokers who have posted on this.

 

Like you, I don't believe this is an area that government should have entered. Here in the US the governments are still quite happy to take the taxes generated and continue to increase them.

 

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....

 

However, as we all share this little planet, I think it behooves us to make the effort to be more tolerant of each other's rights.

 

Cheers, penny

[venicecruiser]

Colwill - As another smoker, your sense of "fairness" is greatly appreciated! Loved your comment about arms waving like gyroscopes!

 

 

Claudia

[Norfolk Brit]

When the French concede that smoking can harm health, you'd might as well face it...the games up!

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/01/wsmoke01.xml

 

Peter

 

Peter, I have huge respect for your views and the help you generously give, but I can't let this one go. Unlike us, it is one thing telling the French they can't do something, and quite another assuming they will accept it. I imagine they have speed limits and parking laws, but have seen no evidence that they even remotely adhere to them. As for the dreaded 'elf 'n' safety' I recently saw a dog being pushed around a large supermarket IN the shopping trolley.

 

They will simply ignore the law and carry on cheerily puffing away on their Gitanes.

 

Mary (who is with Penny, Claudia, Malcolm, Colwill and Matthew on this one)

[guernseyguy]

I imagine they have speed limits and parking laws, but have seen no evidence that they even remotely adhere to them.

 

True enough! But living in a 'smoke-free' island - Guernsey (for once ahead of the mainland), I have found evenings out much more pleasant since the smoking ban was introduced. Smokers are of course still free to smoke - the difference is that now I am free not to.

 

Peter

[jonmar]

This should end the discussion. We all know about the negative effects of smoking. The problem here is no one ever talks about the upsides.

 

1. It goes great with a beer

2. You look cool

3. Chicks dig it

 

Let's face it, if smoking doesn't take you out, something else will.

[jonmar]

This should end the discussion. We all know about the negative effects of smoking. The problem here is no one ever talks about the upsides.

 

1. It goes great with a beer

2. You look cool

3. Chicks dig it

 

Let's face it, if smoking doesn't take you out, something else will.

[SeaFlint]

Well, I'm not being too original here. More of a "vote with your (fat) fingers" I suppose.

 

First off, I've seen too many conflicting "scientific" reports on the subject to accept any of them as Gospel. Not to mention the multitude of those with first-hand experience who believe their own personal experience constitutes a "law" rather than a "theory".

 

For example, my mother smoked for over fifty years. ALL THE TIME. When she finally stopped, she went through a battery of tests that showed she had NONE of the problems associated with smoking. Her lungs are clear as glass. Her heart rate is wonderful. Her ciculation is wonderful. Etc. As the "victim" of her second-hand smoke, I have the same clear lungs, etc., etc., etc. Does THIS constitute "law"? NO? But it does mean that second-hand smoke does not always cause these problems.

 

As another thing to consider, I have read a study comparing lung-disease in different countries. In those countries where the cigarettes use sugar in the recipe, the rates of lung disease match. In those countries where the cigarettes use no sugar, the numbers are not what "true" scientists consider valid for drawing conclusions. So, is it smoke? Or is it sugar? Or are the citizens of one country just less likely to get lung disease?

 

The bottom line seems to be that it is POSSIBLE that smoking is bad and it is POSSIBLE that smoking is not bad. Our OPINIONS, alone, (even if they are shared by lots of us) do not constitute facts.

 

Personally, I find it disgusting. On the QM2 I make sure to avoid the casino when it is smoky (though the air system keeps things pretty good) and I'll even walk away from a "hot" table if someone is smoking next to me. I am glad to have places to eat where I do not smell smoke while trying to enjoy my food. But I'm also willing to "endure" the smell of smoke in bars or outside where it seems possible to find a happy middle-ground between what offends me and what pleases others.

 

Besides, ;) , we already treat "those smokers" like second-class citizens. I think we can "allow" them a few pleasures. Here and there. Every now and then. :D

[pnhmrk]

Where have you been?

 

I could ask the same as you. The last time this was discussed on the Cunard board I spent some time flagging reports that said the effects of passive smoking were zero. In the end it was agreed that both sets of reports could be wrong. I'm not going to bother digging the reports out again - if you search this board you'll find them. Because your reports say that passive smoking is bad does not mean that it is.

[Kindlychap]

This should end the discussion. We all know about the negative effects of smoking. The problem here is no one ever talks about the upsides.

 

1. It goes great with a beer

2. You look cool

3. Chicks dig it

 

Let's face it, if smoking doesn't take you out, something else will.

 

 

Are you lost in the 50's? ;)

 

Had I been a smoker, I would not have met my lovely wife.

 

QED.

 

Matthew

[jonmar]

Actually I am a non smoker 90% of the time. I do indulge when I drink however. My original post was really just a joke. I can't stand the smell of it when I am not partaking. Those yellow fingers and brown teeth you see are disgusting. I do enjoy a nice table in the corner of the Golden Lion Pub to have a few drinks and a nice Marlboro Light. I don't enjoy people who hang out in the smoking section and complain about the smoke.

[pnhmrk]

Had I been a smoker, I would not have met my lovely wife.

 

Had I been a non-smoker I'd never have met my hunky partner:)

[SamanthasDad]

Why are people comparing smokers to drinkers.

 

As a responsible drinker I will sit at my table and drink and I do not effect the enjoyment of other people.

 

A smoker effects my enjoyment whether they are being responsible or not.

If the smoke and carcinogenic fumes did not make it's way into the air that I breath, then I would be happy for smokers to kill themselves anywhere they want.

 

Also the by-product of smoking is the smoke that is forced onto everyone else. the by-product of drinking is urine. I guess that smokers would be in an uproar if I covered them in that without their permission.

 

About time the UK Government cam into the 21st century and bans this disgusting habit.

 

Had my wife been a smoker then I probably would not have wanted to ever give her a first kiss. let alone get married.

[GAV BOY]

Why are people comparing smokers to drinkers.

 

As a responsible drinker I will sit at my table and drink and I do not effect the enjoyment of other people.

 

A smoker effects my enjoyment whether they are being responsible or not.

If the smoke and carcinogenic fumes did not make it's way into the air that I breath, then I would be happy for smokers to kill themselves anywhere they want.

 

Also the by-product of smoking is the smoke that is forced onto everyone else. the by-product of drinking is urine. I guess that smokers would be in an uproar if I covered them in that without their permission.

 

About time the UK Government cam into the 21st century and bans this disgusting habit.

 

Had my wife been a smoker then I probably would not have wanted to ever give her a first kiss. let alone get married.

 

;) :D

[colwill]

<Sir Richard Doll reconfirmed his view that the risk is small.

"It does appear that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to justify a total smoking ban in public places. But action should still be taken to ensure non smokers' needs are catered for by designated non-smoking and smoking areas, together with good ventilation.">quote from the BBC website.

 

For the uninitiated, this quote comes from the eminent scientist who first discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer. I know who I prefer to believe.

 

Colwill

[GAV BOY]

<Sir Richard Doll reconfirmed his view that the risk is small.

"It does appear that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to justify a total smoking ban in public places. But action should still be taken to ensure non smokers' needs are catered for by designated non-smoking and smoking areas, together with good ventilation.">quote from the BBC website.

 

For the uninitiated, this quote comes from the eminent scientist who first discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer. I know who I prefer to believe.

 

Colwill

 

:confused: :confused: