Ncl Is Going Smoke Free!

[Welove2cruise2]

This will be another rule that NCL has that will be partially impossible to enforce (how are they gonna stop someone from smoking a cigar on their own PRIVATE balcony??).

 

Now, when NCL will enforce the NO SAVING LOUNGERS rule and the NO BABIES WITH DIAPERS IN THE POOLS AND HOT TUBS I'll tell my husband not to smoke his cigar on the balcony...:cool: :rolleyes:

[meagent]

The problem is that even tho a restaurant is privately owned, it is open to the public. If you're talking about a private club (e.g., a smoking club) that has members who all sign up for the privilege of smoking together, that's different. That doesn't apply to private businesses that are open as public accommodations. When a business is open to the public, it can and is governed by local laws.

 

But being open to the public does not make it a public place. It is still a privately owned estbalishment that makes a choice to allow in the public. This is why some restaurants make dress codes, say that you cannot use the bathrooms unless you are a customer, etc. They have the power. Personally, I want smoke free restaurants. I smoke a pipe, but that is not a dinner activity. Cig smoke makes me sick and I much prefer non-smoking restaurants. But I also want those to be smoke-free because the owner wants it that way, I don't want the gov't telling private citizens (i.e., restaurant owners) what they can and cannot do with their restaurant. It's a slippery slope. History shows that the government will take what you offer and anything else they can when you aren't looking. :)

[Cruise_More_Often]

. . . I'm sorry some feel that they will not be using the bars because of the policy but I, for one, will be taking their place.

We have alway avoided the bars and their immediate areas during the evening due to the smoke. awfw

Yes! Me, too. One of my favorite bars on the Sun is the Champagne Bar, which is on the Port side (formerly smoking side), and most of the time we couldn't stand to be in the vicinity of it, much less sit and have a glass of champagne.

 

Hooray for NCL!

[johnql]

But being open to the public does not make it a public place. It is still a privately owned estbalishment that makes a choice to allow in the public. This is why some restaurants make dress codes, say that you cannot use the bathrooms unless you are a customer, etc. They have the power. Personally, I want smoke free restaurants. I smoke a pipe, but that is not a dinner activity. Cig smoke makes me sick and I much prefer non-smoking restaurants. But I also want those to be smoke-free because the owner wants it that way, I don't want the gov't telling private citizens (i.e., restaurant owners) what they can and cannot do with their restaurant. It's a slippery slope. History shows that the government will take what you offer and anything else they can when you aren't looking. :)

The debate goes beyond the public/private issue. All of the laws that are being passed are based on an employee's right to a healthy, safe work environment. The laws are not actually based on customer rights. The argument is that employers do not have the right to subject their employees to second-hand smoking for 8 hours a day. And an employer cannot claim that breathing the second-hand smoke is part of the job description.

[meagent]

Our point is that NCL didn't notify passengers of this change and now being less than 60 days out if we "don't get on the ship" we lose all of what we paid for the cruise. Is that fair to paying passengers? What we are saying is that NCL should have put the new rule out to the public well in advance of putting it in place so that people could make an informed choice. We would have opted for a different cruise line. As my husband told the guy at NCL, we won't cruise NCL with these rules, we will go to another cruise line and when and if all the other lines impose these rules then we will take air/land vacations instead and go where there are not smoking bans in place. The smoking bans in our area have lead us to go to the next town where the bans are not in place. Alot of bars and restaurants are closing down around here because of these bans. They are now trying to get a statewide band because businesses are saying it is unfair because the smokers go to the the town. If and when that happens I imagine a lot more will go under because smokers will stay away. Which I imagine is what most people who don't smoke want anyway.

 

No I agree it is not fair to those already booked. I was only making that statement with regards to the whole private/government regulation of things. I think it is very unfortunate that NCL is doing this to people who booked on these cruises under one condition but it is now different. And as I have said in my other posts, I am against all government imposed bans that are directed at private establishments. NCL is obviously private and can do what they will, but I do agree terribly inconsiderate to those alreadybooked.

[Cruise_More_Often]

The smoking bans in our area have lead us to go to the next town where the bans are not in place. Alot of bars and restaurants are closing down around here because of these bans. They are now trying to get a statewide ban because businesses are saying it is unfair because the smokers go to the next town. If and when that happens I imagine a lot more will go under because smokers will stay away. Which I imagine is what most people who don't smoke want anyway.

When San Francisco passed its first non-smoking in bars ordinance, the bar owners were sure that would happen here, too, especially with other cities so close. Didn't happen!

[newmexicoNita]

This is a common misperception. Carnival Paradise did very well for a while. Unfortunately it never changed itineraries and it was the only ship in the fleet that was non-smoking. Eventually people wanted to try different ships and itineraries so its number of customers decreased.

 

The trend worldwide has been that within a year of instututing a smoking ban, businesses have been back at their prior revenues or even gone up in revenues with few exceptions.

 

NCL appears to be going in the right direction. Hopefully they will ban smoking in the casino, staterooms, and balconies in the coming months.

you are only partially correct. A lot of the failing after a few years was due to the non smoking ban. It is hard to get groups together where there are absolutly no smokers. Cruise lines love group bookings. If the itinerary was the only reason the Paradise wasn't successful they would have kept the non smoking policy when they moved to Los Angeles. Leaving out of Los Angeles would be the perfect place to introduce non smoking.

 

Obviously you are a non smoker, hoping for a total ban on smoking is one thing, to expect it to happen in the next few years is a totally different thing.

 

Nita

[meagent]

The debate goes beyond the public/private issue. All of the laws that are being passed are based on an employee's right to a healthy, safe work environment. The laws are not actually based on customer rights. The argument is that employers do not have the right to subject their employees to second-hand smoking for 8 hours a day. And an employer cannot claim that breathing the second-hand smoke is part of the job description.

 

 

I agree that this is why these laws are being made. But, I think that again, this should not be regulated by the gov't. If you don't want to work in the smokey bar, go work in the smoke-free restaurant down the street. It is the same thing as I was saying before, the government intervening to right some perceived wrong in the private sphere.

 

I personally do not think that an employee has the right to change the entire culture of where they work b/c they are uncomfortable. Get another job. Everyone gets a new job for some reason or another, I just got one because I disliked the senior partner. Should have asked the government to come in and make her leave? It is different, but yet it is the same. I think the stress she caused me was just abotu as damaging as any smoke would be :)

[johnql]

I agree that this is why these laws are being made. But, I think that again, this should not be regulated by the gov't. If you don't want to work in the smokey bar, go work in the smoke-free restaurant down the street. It is the same thing as I was saying before, the government intervening to right some perceived wrong in the private sphere.

 

I personally do not think that an employee has the right to change the entire culture of where they work b/c they are uncomfortable. Get another job. Everyone gets a new job for some reason or another, I just got one because I disliked the senior partner. Should have asked the government to come in and make her leave? It is different, but yet it is the same. I think the stress she caused me was just abotu as damaging as any smoke would be :)

Sorry, I don't buy it. Not getting along with someone is a totally different story. However, if the senior partner were guilty of sexual harassment, don't you think the government has a right to intervene?

[Stillfloatin']

But being open to the public does not make it a public place. It is still a privately owned estbalishment that makes a choice to allow in the public. This is why some restaurants make dress codes, say that you cannot use the bathrooms unless you are a customer, etc. They have the power. Personally, I want smoke free restaurants. I smoke a pipe, but that is not a dinner activity. Cig smoke makes me sick and I much prefer non-smoking restaurants. But I also want those to be smoke-free because the owner wants it that way, I don't want the gov't telling private citizens (i.e., restaurant owners) what they can and cannot do with their restaurant. It's a slippery slope. History shows that the government will take what you offer and anything else they can when you aren't looking. :)

 

Well stated. No one minds someone else's freedom being infringed upon if they agree with the government, but they fail to see that one day it will be THEIR freedom that is taken away because someone else doesn't like what they are doing. Public property is public. Private is not. The government often fails to distinguish between them and far exceeds the bounds of its constitutional authority. And the government rarely fails to abuse those powers also, as we've all seen with towns taking property away from private owners in the name of "emminent domain" because they can get more taxes from a Walmart than a bunch of low-income homes. Be careful when you cheer for government interference because someday it may be biting your backside.

[meagent]

Sorry, I don't buy it. Not getting along with someone is a totally different story. However, if the senior partner were guilty of sexual harassment, don't you think the government has a right to intervene?

 

No, I don't. I think it is a private matter and I settle it by civil suit. I don't need the gov't to protect me (other than from foreign armies and terrorists). I need the government to ensure that I have the freedom to protect myself and make choices for myself. If I don't like smoke, I will go to a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking.

[meagent]

Well stated. No one minds someone else's freedom being infringed upon if they agree with the government' date=' but they fail to see that one day it will be THEIR freedom that is taken away because someone else doesn't like what [i']they [/i]are doing. Public property is public. Private is not. The government often fails to distinguish between them and far exceeds the bounds of its constitutional authority. And the government rarely fails to abuse those powers also, as we've all seen with towns taking property away from private owners in the name of "emminent domain" because they can get more taxes from a Walmart than a bunch of low-income homes. Be careful when you cheer for government interference because someday it may be biting your backside.

 

AMEN :D

[Gonzo70]

Smoking in places where the public gathers (i.e. restaurants) is a health issue (also employees, i.e. waitresses, hostesses, bus-boys etc. are impacted). The governemnt banning smoking in restaurants and bars is no different than the governemnt doing health inspections and closing restaurants infested by rats and what not. The smoking bans are due to health related issues.

 

I do agree that NCL should have provided more notice and left enough window for people to cancel without penalty.

[RachieLnnn]

Well I agree that the government regulates many things, but that doesn't mean they should :) But for most of those, they are regulating behavior in a public place: roads are generally public, neighborhood streets are public, and noise from your house can be a nuisance to others if it travels to them. Your house is private but the air around it and the streets, other houses are not yours. My point with smoking is, if you don't like it, don't get on the ship. It's a private company, so like i said, I am fine with them doing it from a private standpoint. What I think it is a problem when the gov't says that PRIVATELY owned restaurants, bars, etc must do things a certain way. If you dont like smoke, dont go to X restaurant that has lots of smokers. If enough people feel that way, the restaurant will cave. Cigarette smoking in the PRIVATE restaurant will not affect people in the PUBLIC streets. That's the difference, but unfortunately, too many people just say oooo I like the result and forget about the fact that someone's freedoms are being infringed upon, not theirs.

 

Again, just to point out again, I am only speaking of Government making the bans, private companies can do whatever they want, as NCL is doing.

 

I can say the same thing...if you don't like non-smoking ships, don't get on. And we go around in circles...:rolleyes:

 

If you don't like non-smoking restaurants, don't go in.

 

If you don't like non-smoking bars, don't go in.

 

This argument gets us nowhere.

 

I do feel that when "private" companies don't protect their employees from harmful secondhand smoke, the government should step in. And I'm glad it has in my community.

 

(I do, however, agree that NCL should have informed customers as soon as they made the decision and then "grandfathered" in these new rules.)

[johnql]

Well stated. No one minds someone else's freedom being infringed upon if they agree with the government' date=' but they fail to see that one day it will be THEIR freedom that is taken away because someone else doesn't like what [i']they [/i]are doing.

Here's the problem - there is no such thing as an unfettered freedom. You do not have the constitutional right to do anything you like. It always boils down to a balancing act when one person's right (smoking) is infringing upon another's (breathing clean air). Again, if a privately owned entity is opening its doors as a public accommodation, it can and should be regulated by the government. The question is where to draw the line. It's not always black and white. Following the "privacy" logic, a restaurant shouldn't need a liquor license (government interference) and should be allowed to ban minorities from its premises (racism). But we all know that's not the case because the government can and should intervene when it's in the public's interest.

 

I do agree, however, that we all need to be watchful because even I recognize that too much government could be bad. The problem is we all have different opinions on how "too much government" is defined.

[meagent]

I can say the same thing...if you don't like non-smoking ships, don't get on. And we go around in circles...:rolleyes:

 

If you don't like non-smoking restaurants, don't go in.

 

If you don't like non-smoking bars, don't go in.

 

This argument gets us nowhere.

 

I do feel that when "private" companies don't protect their employees from harmful secondhand smoke, the government should step in. And I'm glad it has in my community.

 

(I do, however, agree that NCL should have informed customers as soon as they made the decision and then "grandfathered" in these new rules.)

 

Who is forcing the employee to work at said private company? Since when do we have a right to a specific job? It's only recently in our countries history that the government has come up with all these different ways to regular private business. Deciding who they can fire and why, what they have to change to placate their employees.

[johnql]

No, I don't. I think it is a private matter and I settle it by civil suit. I don't need the gov't to protect me (other than from foreign armies and terrorists). I need the government to ensure that I have the freedom to protect myself and make choices for myself. If I don't like smoke, I will go to a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking.

But that's what I'm talking about. The government sets the legal guidelines for whether or not your civil suit has merit. That's what I meant as government intervention in a case of sexual harassment. The judicial system is part of the government and it's there to protect you in such situations.

[Rumncoke]

meagent, I LIKE YOU!

 

But, as you can see, common sense just doesn't sink in with some people.

[meagent]

Here's the problem - there is no such thing as an unfettered freedom. You do not have the constitutional right to do anything you like. It always boils down to a balancing act when one person's right (smoking) is infringing upon another's (breathing clean air). Again, if a privately owned entity is opening its doors as a public accommodation, it can and should be regulated by the government. The question is where to draw the line. It's not always black and white. Following the "privacy" logic, a restaurant shouldn't need a liquor license (government interference) and should be allowed to ban minorities from its premises (racism). But we all know that's not the case because the government can and should intervene when it's in the public's interest.

 

I do agree, however, that we all need to be watchful because even I recognize that too much government could be bad. The problem is we all have different opinions on how "too much government" is defined.

 

I think the bolded language illustrates a point I am trying to make. If you had said to someone 100 years ago that this was obviously something the government should interfere with, you would have been run out of town on a rail. It's only now that the government has been doing this for most of our lives, that we think they should be doing it....that's the point, after awhile they are doing things never should have done, and before long everyong thinks it's OK. That's not to say racism is right, b/c it isn't. But my point is, a bar that was racist and was known to be racist and not allow any white/black/hispanics, whatever in, would in all probability fail. that's the point of a free market. The more the government steps in, the less free it is. The level of government we have now would piss off 95% of the Founding Fathers. Evidently the anti-federalists won anyway.

[johnql]

Who is forcing the employee to work at said private company? Since when do we have a right to a specific job? It's only recently in our countries history that the government has come up with all these different ways to regular private business. Deciding who they can fire and why, what they have to change to placate their employees.

It may be recent but it's the right thing to do. The Civil Rights Act was passed fairly recently, historically speaking. Recent doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means it took a while for people to see the light.

[johnql]

But my point is, a bar that was racist and was known to be racist and not allow any white/black/hispanics, whatever in, would in all probability fail. that's the point of a free market.

 

You really believe that? I don't.

[meagent]

But that's what I'm talking about. The government sets the legal guidelines for whether or not your civil suit has merit. That's what I meant as government intervention in a case of sexual harassment. The judicial system is part of the government and it's there to protect you in such situations.

 

Well I see your point, though i was thinking of it more in a scenario of inappropriate contact, in which case it would be covered under pre-existing assault/battery laws. I do not think that I should be able to sue b/c someone SAID something that offended me.

[meagent]

You really believe that? I don't.

 

And if it didn't fail? How does that make life worse? The people who are there in that bar that is known to be racist and proud of it would harbor thouse same feelings in the shadows. Now you just know who they are.

[monicajay]

I hope they will soon also designate non-smoking decks so you could be sure to choose a cabin that had not been smoked in. You would be less likely to get it blown in on a balcony also. Many hotels have non-smoking floors, it would be great for my husband who suffers from asthma. As smoking rules become increasing stricter in our society I would think there will be fewer smokers.

 

I remember when we used to smoke on airplanes :eek: and in movie theaters, boy times have changed. Now you can't even board a plane with matches or a lighter.

[meagent]

meagent, I LIKE YOU!

 

But, as you can see, common sense just doesn't sink in with some people.

 

Thanks ;)

 

We all have different opinions, and I think generally everyone wants what is best for everyone else, just alot of people don't agree on the appropriate method. I happen to think my opinion is better, of course :)