No smoking Fleetwide

[seahorse]

double

[seahorse]

Thank you for agreeing with me in part. I am not a Libertarian although I, at least, respect your right to be one.

 

 

 

It is the same thing. it is the imposition of a majority view on the minority and I totally agree about the dangers of second hand smoke but I do not allow that reasonable concern to obscure the fact that there are circumstances when it could be allowed and not affect other's health. If it were a health discussion I would agree, but it isn't...it is discussion about how one larger group does not like the act of a smaller group.

 

 

 

But it would be very hard to argue that this movement is not part of an overall movement that continues to restrict individual freedom. You may couch it as a corporation acting within its' own right if you wish, and I agree that it has that right, but the fact remains that it is acting out of pressure to do so.

 

 

 

And, finally, yes, people will adapt and it will not appear to be the end of the world. Smoking is not a birthright, neither is drinking and neither are a good many other things that we choose to do. But we have a right to choose to do them because if we do not, what is left on the list of things that we have a right to do?

 

I do not see where the pressure was put on Regent:confused: I could be wrong but I believe that it was a purely a business decision based on market research.

 

You do have a right to chose and the choice would be to not go on any line that does not let you smoke where you want to.

 

For the person that said that the pubs are doing just fine in the UK and Ireland, I know from first hand info that many, many small pubs have gone out of business because of the ban. The local people gathered in their own homes to socialize.

 

I was in Scotland last year when the ban went effect and the pubs were empty:eek: even when there was a big sports event going on. Revenue was lost and that is not a good thing.

[seahorse]

triple

[chefpa]

Blackbird,

good for you...we just returned from a cruise that cost a good deal more than this and had booked another. I cancelled it last night and not because I smoke but rather, because I will not spend time around people with attitudes like this.

 

Newyorker just proves my point about the attitude that exists out there.

not one person, me especially, is justifying my right to smoke (and for the record..I don't) at the expense of other's health. And I very much doubt that there was a group of non-smokers out there that would not book on Regent because of the fact that smoking was permitted. If they were out there....you are welcome to them.

[chefpa]

I do not see where the pressure was put on Regent:confused: I could be wrong but I believe that it was a purely a business decision based on market research.

 

You do have a right to chose and the choice would be to not go on any line that does not let you smoke where you want to.

 

.

 

Pressure takes many forms and perhaps the use of the expression in this case is not the best term. People do have a right to choose and go elsewhere but what happens when there is no elsewhere to go? What happened to their rights then? This is not the same thing as a pub or a plane that is distinctly an enclosed space. Onboard a ship there are ways to manage separation of smokers and non-smokers with ventilation and such. But I am arguing a moot point, the decision is made. It was said earlier, the loss of passenger revenue will not exceed the gain...and that is, after all, what it is all about....oh wait, it is about health right?

[seahorse]

Pressure takes many forms and perhaps the use of the expression in this case is not the best term. People do have a right to choose and go elsewhere but what happens when there is no elsewhere to go? What happened to their rights then? This is not the same thing as a pub or a plane that is distinctly an enclosed space. Onboard a ship there are ways to manage separation of smokers and non-smokers with ventilation and such. But I am arguing a moot point, the decision is made. It was said earlier, the loss of passenger revenue will not exceed the gain...and that is, after all, what it is all about....oh wait, it is about health right?

 

I believe that there are places to smoke on Regent. Your choice to cancel is limiting your options. Regent is not.

 

The statement of "selfish" smokers gets me too.

 

For the record, I do not smoke tho I used to. I have a non-smoking home for 25 years. My choice. Did I lose friends? Yes, their choice. Smoking was more important than friendship.

 

Will my cruise on Regent be enhanced by this policy? Yes. Would I not sail on Regent if they did not have this policy? No, my choice. I would avoid the heavy smoking venues as I do on other cruise lines.

[chefpa]

Seahorse,

 

I do want to say that your statements are well expressed and quite reasonable and, in my opinion, correct.

 

Like you, in a manner, I choose not to drink...odd I realize for someone in my avocation..but it dulls the senses and taste. Contrary to my statements before, I do not care if others drink although I leave when it becomes excessive and the tone loud. We permit smoking on our balconies at our homes and permit others to drink in limited amounts as I will not allow people to drink and drive. It is my home, people coming here know this and accept this but it is a welcoming place for all, despite their vice.

 

I too avoid the more pungent areas of the ship...I find the casino a bit overwhelming. I do not like to gamble in any event but I just walk by quickly. I make no judgement for either those that gamble nor those that smoke. The same is true of the lounges, we tend to avoid these...in sum, it is not our way but it is the way of others.

 

I wish others felt as you do but when I read what I have read above, I do not feel the spirit of inclusion nor do I feel like this is a group, excluding those that feel as you do,that I would want to be around. And you are totally and 100% correct, it is my right to limit myself to those that I am exposed to...I would prefer to limit it to a bunch of smokers that felt as I did rather than a group that felt as the others that I have alluded to do.

 

Too bad too. But thanks for voicing the voice of reason.

[Bakincakes]

I remember cruising with a woman who complained about fellow cruisers smoking. She was a nice woman but her face was rather disfigured and scarred.

 

We got friendly and she finally told me she had had multiple surgeries for skin cancer. Too much sunbathing on her cruises.

 

I would suggest that, those who mentioned that while smokers will abandon this cruise line the non-smokers will be "frolicking" in the sun ,fate may catch up with you too.;)

[chefpa]

Touchee

[seahorse]

Don`t smoke.............don`t do sun........but I do drink:D

 

Thanks Chef for your compliments. I too was a chef in my "former" life:) Taught culinary arts in a tech school....had my own school and worked in many restaurants. My opinion is that wine enhances food and a good Martini before dinner is heaven:D

[TedC]

Does anyone here know of any travelers who stopped flying after the no-smoking ban took effect several years ago?

 

I think most smokers will also be able to adjust to the new restrictions, which I predict will be followed by all cruise lines - and probably sooner rather than later.

[chefpa]

Interesting, Seahorse...this is my third career after a life in Int'l Investment banking....and after the life in some restaurants and resorts, I too turned to a career in teaching culinary arts and was, until recently Asst Director and then Culinary Director of a private program here in Chicago...then I decided teaching was better than managing insanity...

 

In any event, don't misconstrue my remark about drinking, I too believe it enhances food and we teach as much, I just don't drink as a matter or choice as I do not smoke as a matter or choice, because I think it makes it harder for ME to taste what I am doing....age and taste buds, don't you know.

 

Interesting how similar backgrounds can be...

[jaguarprincess]

I am a tolerant, sympathetic, non-critical, former smoker, who finds something a bit smug and self-righteous about many of the restrictions imposed on smokers, not to mention the ease with which many people are willing to erode the rights of others (and endanger their own rights) if their cause is just. (Read Sir Thomas Moore's speech in "A Man for All Seasons" for a more eloquent expression of the latter). I also work at an institution that banned smoking a few years ago, and I found it chilling to watch the self-appointed "smoke police" lingering outside the closed doors of private offices, attempting -- literally -- to sniff out violaters. That attitude, all too pervasive in this country, scares me more than any health issue.

 

On the practical side, Wendy had a good point. I now find it difficult to be in smoke-filled rooms, and I've always hated the smell of cigar smoke. Ergo, I've found it unpleasant to pass through casinos, for example, on some ships. I am also sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke, in that I can easily detect it, fresh or stale. As a veteran of 8 cruises, I have yet to be in a cabin where this was a problem. It seems obvious to me that cabins can be sufficiently cleaned to eliminate traces of smoke. If not, maybe cruise lines should consider offering both smoking and non-smoking cabins, as hotels do. The point is: your cabin, you personal, private space, should be the one area on the ship where you CAN smoke (or use offensive language, or run around nude, or whatever). Even though I no longer smoke, I resent the fact that I could not have a cigarette, if I wanted one, in my own cabin, for which I've paid dearly. As to the balconiy issue, if the smoke (or children, or drunken behavior, or loud music, or just plain obnoxiousness) of other passengers is a disturbance, this should be dealt with, by the ship, on a case by case basis. Most smokers I know have adjusted to restrictions imposed on them in public areas. I'm sure they see their cabin as their last bastion, and I don't blame them.

 

Mary Sue

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Mary Sue, hear hear, I could not have said it better!

[seahorse]

As far as smoking in your cabin and on your balcony, has anyone considered that possibly the insurance company for Regent is giving them a reduced rate for the new restrictions?

 

I also had another thought......there has been a rumor about an acquisition or merger........maybe with Oceania:eek: ;)

[chefpa]

Mary Sue,

 

Thank you for saying in your two paragraphs, what I have been trying to say in my many postings. It was both eloquent and succinct.

 

Unfotunately, I fear that the point is still lost on those that self righteous ones that some day will find their own rights also gone but do not have the sense to notice that they were part of the process.

 

Thank you again.

[chefpa]

As far as smoking in your cabin and on your balcony, has anyone considered that possibly the insurance company for Regent is giving them a reduced rate for the new restrictions?

 

I also had another thought......there has been a rumor about an acquisition or merger........maybe with Oceania:eek: ;)

 

Having been in the facet of the business that does both hostile and friendly acquisitions (there really is no such animal as a merger) the only time that one would take this kind of action is when you are grooming yourself to be acquired. If this is the case then Regent's underlying financials or business model must be pretty weak by their own estimation. But I doubt that this is the sort of action you would contemplate...it is too minor of an operational issue to make or break a deal.

 

As to whether it is an insurance matter, perhaps the balcony restriction would be a matter that would excite the insurance company but I have not heard of any cruise ship fires that began inside cabins.

 

Anything is possible however.

[JMARINER]

I do not see where the pressure was put on Regent:confused: I could be wrong but I believe that it was a purely a business decision based on market research.

 

Regents decision based is more on the upcoming SOLA rules for 2008 and 2010, changes in the balcony furniture, decking, dividers, etc., not on marketing. No, it is not in the SOLA regs yet, but IMO it will be. Smoking bans such as now on Regent and Oceana will be industry wide within 3 years. The Princess fire and the fear of future fires is a bigger factor than the health issues.

 

BTW the below is a quote from this weeks WHO meeting in Bangkok;

 

"World Health Organization (WHO) anti-tobacco meeting adopted stringent definitions of what it means to have a smoke-free....environment. The guidelines, which are not legally binding, stipulate that "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke," adding explicitly that half-way measures such as designated smoking areas, air filtration or ventilation do not work."

 

Sorry to those who think that canceling your Regent Voyage will have any effect other than to deprive you of a great cruise. At least Regent still has its cigar bar where you can sit and enjoy that glass of port or sherry, undisturbed.

 

j

[howndder]

I just love reading these boards. However, this topic has produced the rudest and vitriolic posters. Please don't any of you lovely non=smokers lower yourselves any further on our account. For a fact, Regent was under no pressure to go this route. There might be pending legislation, but the tobacco lobbyists will not allow passage, as of this time. For a break in insurance premiums, the cruiseline would have to ban smoking entirely. They would also have to serve cold food only. Mark Conroy promised just 2 months ago that smoking would still be allowed in the Compass Rose dining room and they would build a glass enclosed section with better ventilation. There was never any discussion about the cabins but there was some about the balcomies.

As long as there are other cruise lines out there that still allow smoking, then that's where we will be. I'm amazed at how quickly you are willing to let your "friends" be dumped. How loyal! Another thing that was discussed is how hard smokers now go out of there way not to offend other passengers. This is why many of us stay in our cabins, so as not to offend. Thanks for sticking up for us.

In conclusion, as I think enough said, as long as government does not consider smoking illegal, and they can't because they collect over 1 trillion in taxes, I am going to smoke. I hope it is on cruises because I love cruising, and the wonderful "friends" I've met, but if not, else-where I will go.

Did you know that in the last 12 months, 8 people either jumped or fell off a cruise ship. I don't hear any one wanting tp ban balconies.

howndder

[Island Cruiser]

On our second Regent (Radisson) cruise, we stepped into our cabin to discover the previous occupants were smokers. The smell wasn't too bad but it could have been. It didn't ruin our cruise for us but it did annoy. Since then, we find ourselves walking to our new cabin thinking "I do so hope we aren't following another pair of smokers." We'll be doing that when we sail the Voyager for 16 days this November. Then freedom!!!! Bravo, Regent.

 

P.S. Since Regent will get grief from the smokers, I think it is important that those of us who are delighted about this policy change ring in here too. To me, this is another selling point for booking my next Regent cruise.

[seahorse]

I just love reading these boards. However, this topic has produced the rudest and vitriolic posters. Please don't any of you lovely non=smokers lower yourselves any further on our account. For a fact, Regent was under no pressure to go this route. There might be pending legislation, but the tobacco lobbyists will not allow passage, as of this time. For a break in insurance premiums, the cruiseline would have to ban smoking entirely. They would also have to serve cold food only. Mark Conroy promised just 2 months ago that smoking would still be allowed in the Compass Rose dining room and they would build a glass enclosed section with better ventilation. There was never any discussion about the cabins but there was some about the balcomies.

 

As long as there are other cruise lines out there that still allow smoking, then that's where we will be. I'm amazed at how quickly you are willing to let your "friends" be dumped. How loyal! Another thing that was discussed is how hard smokers now go out of there way not to offend other passengers. This is why many of us stay in our cabins, so as not to offend. Thanks for sticking up for us.

 

In conclusion, as I think enough said, as long as government does not consider smoking illegal, and they can't because they collect over 1 trillion in taxes, I am going to smoke. I hope it is on cruises because I love cruising, and the wonderful "friends" I've met, but if not, else-where I will go.

 

Did you know that in the last 12 months, 8 people either jumped or fell off a cruise ship. I don't hear any one wanting tp ban balconies.

 

howndder

 

Strange, I thought we were all being very adult in this discussion:confused:

 

Nothing vitriolic so far, until now.

 

If the friends crack was directed toward me, it was their choice not mine.

 

As I said before, I am not in favor of govt. banning. If people chose to smoke (anything, BTW;) ) that should be their decision.

[cruizergal]

Regent is having problems with getting enough people on their ships already.

 

Have you not noticed (or maybe not looking, which is ok, too), but Regent is completely sold out for many of its sailings this summer, including both crossings (Navigator and Voyager) back to Fort Lauderdale in November.

[Travelcat2]

I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but, haven't U.S. citizens in individual states voted prior to banning smoking? I know this is true of California and Washington and am assuming this is true of all states. Smoking limitations are pretty much the voice of the people rather than the government. Perhaps one of Regent's considerations was the desire of the majority of their customers to have less smoking in places where smoke cannot be contained.

 

Other considerations may be the upcoming legislation, the recent fire on a Princess cruise and the fact that they spend millions of dollars refurbishing carpeting, furniture, etc. Smoking in a cabin (as in your house or automobile) causes windows and mirrors to to get a film on them -- burns can accidentally occur.....

 

There are many reasons why people do not smoke in their homes (even spouses and children force the smoker outside). IMO, Regent is doing what it feels it right for themselves and their customers.

[chefpa]

I am not too sure about the posters being vitriolic but there has been a few rather gleeful postings which is a bit rude..perhaps this is what was meant.

 

In any event I agree with the poster that mentioned that a good many smokers go out of their way to avoid non-smokers. It now appears that this has not been enough for the more extremist among the non-smokers....

 

But I think we have covered alot of ground here...people are angry and rightfully so. If I were on the side of those that want there to be less smoking I would be a bit more gracious about it.

[chefpa]

I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but, haven't U.S. citizens in individual states voted prior to banning smoking? I know this is true of California and Washington and am assuming this is true of all states. Smoking limitations are pretty much the voice of the people rather than the government. Perhaps one of Regent's considerations was the desire of the majority of their customers to have less smoking in places where smoke cannot be contained.

 

Other considerations may be the upcoming legislation, the recent fire on a Princess cruise and the fact that they spend millions of dollars refurbishing carpeting, furniture, etc. Smoking in a cabin (as in your house or automobile) causes windows and mirrors to to get a film on them -- burns can accidentally occur.....

 

There are many reasons why people do not smoke in their homes (even spouses and children force the smoker outside). IMO, Regent is doing what it feels it right for themselves and their customers.

 

Who cares why they made the decision...the impact on those affected remains the same. You can attempt to explain and justify it as many ways as possible but the fact that it continues the process of eroding personal liberties remains. Plain and simple. Agree or disagree. It is quite lovely that you agree with it so wholeheartedly.