A poll about smoking on Celebrity

[greeneg]

This whole argument about "Individual Freedom" is about to get under my skin. As I pointed out above, the problem isn't you or your "Freedom to do whatever", but the by-product of that excercise of "Individual Freedom" which is impinging on my equally important "Individual Freedom"; in other words, not to be exposed to the stench and toxins which you are producing. Your rights are valid only in your space: the moment they are out of your space, they cease to be your rights alone.

 

You are creating the problem, you are responsible for it, and unless you can totally keep it away from my space, 100% of it, then you have no rights here.

 

In this Society, rights are equal and no one's rights supercede any others. This is not Animal Farm, where "some animals are more equal than others."

[cruising with marti]

This whole argument about "Individual Freedom" is about to get under my skin. As I pointed out above, the problem isn't you or your "Freedom to do whatever", but the by-product of that excercise of "Individual Freedom" which is impinging on my equally important "Individual Freedom"; in other words, not to be exposed to the stench and toxins which you are producing. Your rights are valid only in your space: the moment they are out of your space, they cease to be your rights alone.

 

You are creating the problem, you are responsible for it, and unless you can totally keep it away from my space, 100% of it, then you have no rights here.

 

In this Society, rights are equal and no one's rights supercede any others. This is not Animal Farm, where "some animals are more equal than others."

 

 

Sorry Ed, your argument just does not hold water with me.

Do you live in a metro area, do you drive an auto, do you burn wood for heat or other fossil fuels? If so, you are invading my space if I visit your area.

 

I am sure you realize that that there are more carcinogens

in the air that we breath on a daily basis in all of our metro areasthat many times more harmful that a whiff of second hand smoke from me smoking on my balcony in the middle of the ocean.

so yes I do have rights, just as you do, so please stop beating the proverbial dead horse.

 

Phil

[Cruisenouvelle]

"Do you live in a metro area, do you drive an auto, do you burn wood for heat or other fossil fuels? If so, you are invading my space if I visit your area.

 

I am sure you realize that that there are more carcinogens

in the air that we breath on a daily basis in all of our metro areasthat many times more harmful that a whiff of second hand smoke from me smoking on my balcony in the middle of the ocean."

Have you ever noticed how smokers always dredge up that old tired argument to justify their weakness?

Just an observation....

 

[Dave&Robin]

You would think that with all the revenue generated from tobacco sales they could use some of it to invent something that a smoker could exhale into which would contain/filter the smoke/odour. Wouldn't that be great? They already have smokeless ashtrays. Smokers could sit on their balconies, or anywhere else for that matter, enjoying themselves and not bothering anyone.

[cruising with marti]

Crousen

Your post is just one more name calling "weakness" and I bet you have more than your fair share:)

As far as my argument being tired, that may be, but it is also true

and by the way I choose to smoke because I can.

Phil

[greeneg]

It's not me, Phil, that's beating the horse. We are discussing one particular issue ( carcinogen, if you like) here not a general critique of pollution in general.

 

You are not required to use tobacco; it's your option to do so. Pollution via fossile fuels etc are facts of life in today's industrialized societies; they are not options if people are to go to work, produce products and services, earn money, and go cruising. Your smoking is your affair, I could care less unless you cannot contain the smoke to your space. At the point that your smoke invades my space and makes it unusable for me, then I do have a serious problem with it.

 

And yes, I will still report you if it does.

 

( But I'll still buy you the drink first.)

 

Ed

[gillianrose]

But if you restict smoking, smokers will go to other lines.

 

And if a cruise line does NOT restrict smoking, then the far larger majority of NON-smokers who have many smokefree options nowadays will go to other cruise lines or they will stay at land-based resorts such as Westin and Marriott which are 100% smokefree. You can even be assured of smokefree beaches in some places in California.

 

The main reason I haven't spent any money in casinos is that they are smoky.

 

I will not spend one cent in a smoky environment. Sometimes it is possible to segregate smokers and non-smokers more efficiently than at other times.

As long as I do not smell smoke, I will buy a drink and stay at a location.

 

If I smell smoke, I'm outta there.

[Drew B]

Also the "patriotic" argument doesn't wash anymore either. If this is the "land of the Free" etc, then I have as equal a right to be smoke free as you do to indulge your addiction.

 

Well, no. Simply from a legal standpoint, this doesn't hold water. Any right we have to behave a certain way is not curtailed by another person's "right" not to be exposed to it. As Americans, we have the right to free speech. I cannot claim a "right" to not have to hear your speech. That is not an argument why you can't say whatever you like.

[Drew B]

Sorry folks (that includes obnoxious cigars) I am anti-smoking and proud of it!!!! If I can give up smoking anyone can. I was one of those rude people too, but I had to come to terms with it hurting not only myself but especially those I love as well as on the public where I inflicted my smoking habit. California has had a ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places for a number of years...hasn't hurt any of those entities. It's time for the cruise industry to take a hard look at smoking policies.

 

Yes, but people don't spend days on end in bars or restaurants. Most smokers can go a period of time without smoking (whether it be minutes or hours). They can continue to patronize these establishments and enjoy them for as long as they wish to go without smoking. They can then step outside a few feet and have a cigarette before returning to the establishment! Therefore, the business doesn't have to lose the smokers' business.

 

On a cruise ship, if they banned smoking completely, smokers literally COULD NOT cruise with them. Their addiction wouldn't allow it. The cruise line would lose the business.

 

That's why I think the answer is to limit smoking to outdoor areas (designated as the line sees fit) plus one indoor area (the casino, most likely) so that smokers can smoke if the weather doesn't make it conducive to go outside.

 

I have little patience for smokers who would be unwilling to accept this solution. Likewise, I have little patience for anti-smokers who wouldn't be satisfied by it!

[cruising with marti]

You guys are to funny.....All you do gooders and your better then thou attitudes crack me up.....

 

First of all, that should be "too funny", not "to funny".

 

I hope personally that I never have the pleasure of sharing a wonderful cruise with some of you and if I do please let me know so that I make sure to light up even more then a I already do.

 

I'll be happy to let you know and to wave bye-bye to you as they make you walk the plank, take you to the brig, or leave you at one of the intermediate ports.....won't buy you a drink, though....

 

But Ed, you seem to forget, I don't smoke around non smokers, only in the designated smoking areas on the ship, which includes my balcony.

Phil

[greeneg]

And Phil, as long as you keep the smoke with you, we'll be fine....

 

Cheers!

Ed