Smoking on cruiseships

[Shipyard Cruiser]

[quote name='tenpin'][FONT=Arial]Gee, I must be one of the luckiest non-smokers ever,[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I have never been left gasping for air, sat across the ship and had smoke drifting 30 metres into my face sat on my balcony and had to move because of the stink from next door.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Could this be that perhaps, just perhaps I keep away from smoking areas? I figure that most non-smokers on this thread are being so melodramatic they should be on stage.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Come on live and let live. In this country we collect 6 billion in tax from smoking and pay out 1.7 billion in smoke related illness, reckon that’s a good deal for us taxpayers. [/FONT][/quote]

Here in California smoking is not allowed in just about all public areas of the state including many parks and beaches.

The result has been a major drop in the number of smokers.

And you know business is just fine.

No smoking cruise ships are coming soon:) It's just business, nothing aganist any one who smokes.

[Lotsmorecruises]

[quote name='Shipyard Cruiser']Here in California smoking is not allowed in just about all public areas of the state including many parks and beaches.

The result has been a major drop in the number of smokers.

And you know business is just fine.

No smoking cruise ships are coming soon:) It's just business, nothing aganist any one who smokes.[/quote]

The end of the world is coming as well but I'm not expecting to see that either anytime soon!:rolleyes:

I don't know how you survived for 22 years in the Navy....there wasn't a smokier place around than the military during those years...espescially on ships....not the case now but back then it was smoke em if ya got em....the more the merrier!:eek:

[Shipyard Cruiser]

[quote name='Lotsmorecruises']The end of the world is coming as well but I'm not expecting to see that either anytime soon!:rolleyes:[/quote]

A non-smoking cruise ship is far from the end of the world:)

[Smartcookie]

[quote name='Shipyard Cruiser']A non-smoking cruise ship is far from the end of the world:)[/quote]

I'll say, sounds like progress to me! ;)

[Tannersgramp]

[quote name='tenpin'][FONT=Arial]Gee, I must be one of the luckiest non-smokers ever,[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]I have never been left gasping for air, sat across the ship and had smoke drifting 30 metres into my face sat on my balcony and had to move because of the stink from next door.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Could this be that perhaps, just perhaps I keep away from smoking areas? I figure that most non-smokers on this thread are being so melodramatic they should be on stage.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial]Come on live and let live. In this country we collect 6 billion in tax from smoking and pay out 1.7 billion in smoke related illness, reckon that’s a good deal for us taxpayers. [/FONT][/quote]


And in this country, according to the U. S. Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) [URL="http://www.cdc.gov"]www.cdc.gov[/URL] the tabacco caused health expenditures are close to $55 billion and the tax revenue is around $19 billion. Does not look like we are taxing nearly enough

[Shipyard Cruiser]

[quote name='Tannersgramp']And in this country, according to the U. S. Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) [URL="http://www.cdc.gov"]www.cdc.gov[/URL] the tabacco caused health expenditures are close to $55 billion and the tax revenue is around $19 billion. Does not look like we are taxing nearly enough[/quote]

Thanks for the info.

But folks will never let facts stand in the way of a good rant:D

[PTC]

Given how much this subject keeps coming up at LEAST once each week, I'd be interested in knowing just how many folks who keep writing about this issue here on the forum have written to Princess to voice their objection to the smoking on the ships? Probably not many of you.

Also, how many of you have sailed the cruiselines more than once? I'll bet you'll keep on cruising even if people do smoke on the ship so what is all the back and forth for?

PTC

[tenpin]

[quote name='Tannersgramp']And in this country, according to the U. S. Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) [URL="http://www.cdc.gov"]www.cdc.gov[/URL] the tabacco caused health expenditures are close to $55 billion and the tax revenue is around $19 billion. Does not look like we are taxing nearly enough[/quote]

Had to wait for reply to e-mail. cigaretes in the uk are nearly $10 per packet with about $8.40 of that is tax while in the states I 'm told they are under $3. guess that explains the difference.
I for one will welcome smoke free cruise ships, but untill that day comes, I choose to cruise even though I know I might encounter some tobaco smoke.

[Shipyard Cruiser]

[quote name='PTC']Given how much this subject keeps coming up at LEAST once each week, I'd be interested in knowing just how many folks who keep writing about this issue here on the forum have written to Princess to voice their objection to the smoking on the ships? Probably not many of you.

Also, how many of you have sailed the cruiselines more than once? I'll bet you'll keep on cruising even if people do smoke on the ship so what is all the back and forth for?

PTC[/quote]

And most smokers would still sail if ships were non-smoking.

Just like they still go out to bars and nightclubs out here in California.

[yarlenna]

[quote name='tequilasunrise']SURE I believe you are a nonsmoker. Just as I would believe the sky is falling chicken little :p

Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's of course...the problem that I think keeps this issue alive is that it is impossible for both sides to "win" and people's health, lives and comfort are at stake (on both sides). Tobacco is one of the most addictive substances people use and withdrawal is very difficult for many people. Or they don't want to stop; some people enjoy it. It's not the only habit people indulge in despite likely premature health failure; but it's the only one I know of where they take innocent bystanders with them. Unless of course they are very considerate and don't expose others. I am very grateful to every smoker who falls into this category. I know you are out there and your kindness is appreciated.

BTW smoking costs are almost impossible to estimate because it has now been linked to everything vascular, which since your whole body is fed by blood, pretty much covers all body systems. Subsequently many varied health problems are caused by it; even if they may not be obvious. I'm not sure where you got those stats and that would be great but they seem unlikely.

I still think there should be ENCLOSED smoking areas on ships, one lounge that is 100% smoking and at least one that is 100% non-smoking so non-smokers can enjoy music, drinks and dancing too. Also areas of smoking cabins aft from areas of non-smoking cabins (or one side and one side). A pretty, fun, outside smoking area aft and high from the other areas so the smoke has the best chance of blowing up and back off the ship. The only true compromise is areas where smokers can indulge without glares or complaints, SEPARATE from areas where non-smokers can enjoy activities in smoke free air. Enforcement is key and they must make sure the smoking areas stay closed off from non-smoking areas. JMO.[/QUOTE]

Wow -that would be wonderful. I hope that Princess reads this.

[LARGIN]

[quote name='Shipyard Cruiser']And most smokers would still sail if ships were non-smoking.

Just like they still go out to bars and nightclubs out here in California.[/quote]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Black]Agree.. This is the best thing that California has done in a long while... [/COLOR][/FONT]

[happyscot]

Now look, it's very simple.

1/ I smoke.

2/ Smoking is disgusting and dangerous to all.

3/ Anyone with even a single ersatz brain cell knows that. Ignore the "I've got a right to kill you" loonies.

4/ Practical ideas for separating smokeless Amurikans from smokey ones are.........?

Go.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Hic.

[nomars_girl]

[quote name='LARGIN'][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=black]Agree.. This is the best thing that California has done in a long while... [/COLOR][/FONT][/quote]

[quote name='Shipyard Cruiser']And most smokers would still sail if ships were non-smoking.

Just like they still go out to bars and nightclubs out here in California.[/quote]

The difference is that they spend a matter of hours in a bar or nightclub (and can step outside if they really need a smoke). We have the same law here in Massachusetts, and it is rather pathetic to see the smokers gathered outside in the freezing cold puffing away. I don't know if someone who has an addiction to cigarettes could really go on a 7-day cruise (or longer) if there was nowhere on board where they could go to get their fix.

I'm a non-smoker and like being able to go out at night without my clothes smelling like an ashtray when I get home. But I think some of the restrictions on smoking have gotten to be a little too much.

[LARGIN]

[quote name='nomars_girl']

I'm a non-smoker and like being able to go out at night without my clothes smelling like an ashtray when I get home. But I think some of the restrictions on smoking have gotten to be a little too much.[/quote]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Black]Check this out. Belmont, a city near San Francisco is ready to pass an ordinance to eliminate smoking except for two places; a single family home or your car. If you live in an apartment or condo, you will not be allowed to light up.. :eek:

[url]http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_072153715.html[/url][/COLOR][/FONT]

[from the desert]

[quote name='LARGIN'][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=black]Check this out. Belmont, a city near San Francisco is ready to pass an ordinance to eliminate smoking except for two places; a single family home or your car. If you live in an apartment or condo, you will not be allowed to light up.. :eek:[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=black][URL="http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_072153715.html"]http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_072153715.html[/COLOR][/FONT][/URL][/quote]

And drunk driving is a crime...doesn't seem to stop the thousands who do it.

What someone does in the privacy of their own home, whether it be house, condo or apartment is nobodys business but theirs (as shallow as that sounds). The ordinance could be passed, couldn't be supervised or regulated because it would be impossible to enforce.

Non-smokers just be careful what you wish for. The way things are going none of us will have any individual freedoms left.

[PTC]

[quote name='Shipyard Cruiser']And most smokers would still sail if ships were non-smoking.

Just like they still go out to bars and nightclubs out here in California.[/quote]

I disagree with your statement. 7, 10, 12, 14, etc day cruises are alot longer to go without that "smoke" than when you go out to the bars for the evening and most smokers step outside of the bar .

I do believe that if cruiselines went to totally no smoking on the ship, many would do land vacations where they can smoke.

PTC

[NthernLgts]

Remember that we're talking about an addiction here. To think that people with that addiction will simply be able to turn it off for a 7 day cruise (or longer) is absurd. Most smokers simply will not cruise, and that is why IMHO you not see a ban at any point in the forseeable future. In my case, my wife is a cigarette smoker. I am not. In our instance, cruising would be totally eliminated for vacations until she made a decision to quit and was successful in seeing it through. Again, I'm not commenting on whether or not she should quit, or the virtues of tobacco use, i'm just stating reality. And dont think for one minute that the lack of a cruise would serve as a motivator for her to to quit. It simply doesnt work that way.

[Tannersgramp]

My town ( Calabasas , CA. ) has already made smoking in public against the law. The only smoking allowed is in the home or car, and you know what? It's wonderful, we can go to a restaurant and even sit outside on the patio and eat a nice dinner without having to eat smoke also. Outside...no smoke.....what a nice concept.

[NthernLgts]

[quote name='LARGIN'][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=black]Check this out. Belmont, a city near San Francisco is ready to pass an ordinance to eliminate smoking except for two places; a single family home or your car. If you live in an apartment or condo, you will not be allowed to light up.. :eek:[/COLOR][/FONT]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=black][URL="http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_072153715.html"]http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_072153715.html[/COLOR][/FONT][/URL][/quote]

Largin.....in my state our democrat-controlled legislature is considering an outright ban of public smoking statewide (not just in government buildings, all public places). Our republican governor has indicated he would likely sign such a bill.

[readytogo2]

Isn't it nice, living in a Democracy?:rolleyes:

[BeachBumMama]

Most states are trying to ban it, yet raise the taxes on it. Just saw on the news that my state said the raised cigarette tax will go to pay for 'health care' for those that don't have it. Yeah right.:rolleyes: So if that's the case, then why should I pay a few thousand a month (yes, it's a few thousand) for my own health care when I can just smoke away and let the cigarette taxes I pay, pay for my health care? Would I have to 'qualify' to get the state to pay for it? Why? I'm already paying for it with my cigarette tax. Is it going to be health care for smokers? Yeah right.:rolleyes:

As I and others have stated, there are many things that are killing us all, and I think cigarette smoke is the least of it. When it comes to second hand smoke, anyway.

Illegal drugs are more 'acceptable' in our society than smokers these days. And many of the states are failing in other areas and want to pass the buck and blame the smokers to make everyone happy and healthy. Yeah right.:rolleyes: Like without smokers we're all going to be a better, healthier nation.

The cruise lines have tried to accomodate everyone, and there are more non-smoking areas than smoking, but sometimes it just isn't enough for people. And they aren't governed by the rules of the U.S., so it will be a long time, if ever, they would refuse money from smokers. But again, all of them have made it very accomodating for everyone, but not everyone is always pleased with that. It's selfish to want a perfect little world for yourself at the cost of someone else's rendition of their perfect little world.

And it isn't only a matter of 'public concern and health', it's a matter of a persons rights when it is being dictated what a business can and can not do or what you personally can and can not do in your home (as in the case of trying to ban it in apartments and condo's) and your car. Yes, if there are children in the car and non-smoker's, most smokers are considerate of that. But if it's law that you can't smoke with a child in the car because it endangers their health, well, skin cancer is also deadly and on the rise. Will they make it law to force you to put SPF on a child? On yourself? Arrest people with tans? Stop children from playing outdoors in the middle of the day? Make recess against the law?

I think society has worse problems than smoking, but the smoking issue is a way for a politician to say he did something good, a notch on his legal pad. Meanwhile, there is what they call a cancer cell in my area that children are coming down with a rare form of cancer for some unknown reason. And it certainly isn't second hand smoke. And it certainly isn't only in my state. Is it the toxins that have seeped into the ground? The water? But that would entail too much, so ban smoking everywhere and that makes everything better.:rolleyes:

[Smartcookie]

[quote name='NthernLgts']Remember that we're talking about an addiction here. To think that people with that addiction will simply be able to turn it off for a 7 day cruise (or longer) is absurd. [/quote]

But it isn't absurd or unreasonable to ban smoking IN CABINS is it?

What's wrong with only allowing smoking on outside decks in certain areas of the ship? That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

[NthernLgts]

[quote name='BeachBumMama']Most states are trying to ban it, yet raise the taxes on it. Just saw on the news that my state said the raised cigarette tax will go to pay for 'health care' for those that don't have it. Yeah right.:rolleyes: So if that's the case, then why should I pay a few thousand a month (yes, it's a few thousand) for my own health care when I can just smoke away and let the cigarette taxes I pay, pay for my health care? Would I have to 'qualify' to get the state to pay for it? Why? I'm already paying for it with my cigarette tax. Is it going to be health care for smokers? Yeah right.:rolleyes:

As I and others have stated, there are many things that are killing us all, and I think cigarette smoke is the least of it. When it comes to second hand smoke, anyway.

Illegal drugs are more 'acceptable' in our society than smokers these days. And many of the states are failing in other areas and want to pass the buck and blame the smokers to make everyone happy and healthy. Yeah right.:rolleyes: Like without smokers we're all going to be a better, healthier nation.

The cruise lines have tried to accomodate everyone, and there are more non-smoking areas than smoking, but sometimes it just isn't enough for people. And they aren't governed by the rules of the U.S., so it will be a long time, if ever, they would refuse money from smokers. But again, all of them have made it very accomodating for everyone, but not everyone is always pleased with that. It's selfish to want a perfect little world for yourself at the cost of someone else's rendition of their perfect little world.

And it isn't only a matter of 'public concern and health', it's a matter of a persons rights when it is being dictated what a business can and can not do or what you personally can and can not do in your home (as in the case of trying to ban it in apartments and condo's) and your car. Yes, if there are children in the car and non-smoker's, most smokers are considerate of that. But if it's law that you can't smoke with a child in the car because it endangers their health, well, skin cancer is also deadly and on the rise. Will they make it law to force you to put SPF on a child? On yourself? Arrest people with tans? Stop children from playing outdoors in the middle of the day? Make recess against the law?

I think society has worse problems than smoking, but the smoking issue is a way for a politician to say he did something good, a notch on his legal pad. Meanwhile, there is what they call a cancer cell in my area that children are coming down with a rare form of cancer for some unknown reason. And it certainly isn't second hand smoke. And it certainly isn't only in my state. Is it the toxins that have seeped into the ground? The water? But that would entail too much, so ban smoking everywhere and that makes everything better.:rolleyes:[/quote]

A very well thought out post that makes some excellent points. In Minnesota we were one of the first states to sue "big tobacco" and gain a significant settlement to specifically recover the lost revenue from health care costs due to smoking related illness. When the lawyers from the tobacco industry pointed out to the courts that the state revenues raised from cigarette taxes exceeded the amount of health care costs claimed by the state it was quickly disallowed as evidence in the lawsuit :rolleyes: . If politicians wanted to get serious on this topic they could go the route of prohibition. However, they want to play it both ways in villifying big tobacco all while being thoroughly dependent on its revenues.

[mikesxwife]

IMHO, I don't think that the smoke is all of the problem. One must consider the allergy of pax, the damage to interiors, and fire.
I imagine that money is the generator all round. (It's common knowledge that smokers gamble and drink, sometimes all at once:) :) ). Gambling and drinking are huge revenue generators, but I would think cruise insurance is also. I couldn't imagine anything worse at sea than a fire. Oh, ok maybe jeans in the dining room.

[BeachBumMama]

[quote name='Smartcookie']But it isn't absurd or unreasonable to ban smoking IN CABINS is it?

What's wrong with only allowing smoking on outside decks in certain areas of the ship? That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.[/quote]
There are already limited areas for smokers, why is it reasonable to have it only on outside decks? People don't want them smoking on the inside cabins, or the balcony cabins. Reasonable would actually be offering smoking and non-smoking cabins. I posted before that if that were the main argument, it would seem to make sense that balcony cabins would be better for smokers because inside and oceanview don't have ventilation. It would make sense, and yet no one would want that either and as much as they complain about it, I guarantee they would still book a balcony whether they smoked or not.:)