RCCL New Smoking Policy Discussion (merged)

[realtreebar]

who's right who's wrong anyone know whats what?

[massfriends]

who's right who's wrong anyone know whats what?

 

No one's wrong and everyone is right!!! It's what you believe and think, not what other's believe and think.....again

 

COMPROMISE, it's not against the law!

[alcheme]

For the exact same reason you shouldn't have any special right NOT to smoke there I guess.....touche'

Apparently, the opinions on this topic only belong to those who do not smoke, because those of us that DO smoke are the ones being told we don't have rights, we set fires, we are just BAD, BAD, ROTTEN, people....and by golly all those who don't smoke are just perfect angels who don't do anything ever that could be construed as offensive to others...so I'll leave this thread to all of you who's poo doesn't stink, but I'll still smoke on my balcony as long as the rules allow, and if you don't like it, well then I would suggest staying in forward, or inside cabins....because, by God, it's YOUR RIGHT!:rolleyes:

 

:rolleyes: Not exactly a "touche'", because I was not claiming to have any right not to smoke. (Actually that's an absurd thing, because surely I do have a right to NOT smoke; it's not as if they can force me to smoke, but I have no right to say where others can and can't smoke.) But they do have the right to set the rules, either to allow or not allow smoking. They have chosen to allow it in some places and not in others. I was responding to you claiming you should have the "right" to smoke in a restaurant, hotel or cruise ship. Not so. If you're on a ship, and they say you can smoke on the balcony, then you can. If they want to make the rule no smoking anywhere on the ship, they can do that. There is no inherent "right to smoke."

[vjmatty]

Smokers would like people to believe second hand smoke is not dangerous to non-smokers. It is dangerous to non-smokers. 3,400 lung cancer deaths per year to non-smokers from second hand smoke. mHere are some articles about it:

 

Second-hand smoke

 

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet - American Lung Association site

 

ACS :: Secondhand Smoke

 

And I suppose if you lived on a cruise ship casino 365 days per year you would be one of the 3400... but spending a week or two per year?

 

As for those working on ships, I wonder if this is why on our Enchantment cruise they had a televised blackjack dealer :confused:

[DON M.]

:rolleyes: Not exactly a "touche'", because I was not claiming to have any right not to smoke. (Actually that's an absurd thing, because surely I do have a right to NOT smoke; it's not as if they can force me to smoke, but I have no right to say where others can and can't smoke.) But they do have the right to set the rules, either to allow or not allow smoking. They have chosen to allow it in some places and not in others. I was responding to you claiming you should have the "right" to smoke in a restaurant, hotel or cruise ship. Not so. If you're on a ship, and they say you can smoke on the balcony, then you can. If they want to make the rule no smoking anywhere on the ship, they can do that. There is no inherent "right to smoke."

 

People do have the inherent "right to smoke" and have had for about 50,000 years. Its just , that right is now dictated by rules and laws as to where you can and cant do it.

You may be familiar with the strictest non-smoking ordinance in the U.S. Last year Calabasas Ca. (15 min from my house) created an ordinance, that makes it a misdomeaner and fine up to $500 or 6 months in jail for smoking in any indoor or OUTDOOR place ( they have a few designated areas). It is also a crime to smoke in your car with the window down AND if you see anyone violating the law and dont report it you can be accused of aiding and abeiting and be subject to the same fines- report your neighbor, sound familiar. So any of you looking for Utopia, move to The REPUBLIK OF CALABASAS. Iam sure you would live to be 100 and have nothing but fresh air in the state that is one of the tops in smog and emissions.

[SDN]

And I suppose if you lived on a cruise ship casino 365 days per year you would be one of the 3400... but spending a week or two per year?

 

I hope you are not missing the point about secondhand smoke. Non smokers know they are not going to instantly get cancer from it. This may happen over time.

 

There are many things that happen a lot quicker.

 

Second-hand smoke causes sore eyes and throat, nasal irritation, headaches, coughing and wheezing, nausea and dizziness. You are also more likely to get colds and the flu. Breathing in second-hand smoke can also trigger asthma attacks and increase your chances of getting bronchitis and pneumonia.

[DON M.]

Read this in case you missed it in your research of finding articles other than what support your view. http://www.davewitt.com/facts/index.html

Also, if you believe the EPA, 25,000 lung cancer deaths are caused by Radon Gas. Have you had your house tested?

A mistype- http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.htlm. sorry

[dc-snoopy]

People do have the inherent "right to smoke" and have had for about 50,000 years. Its just , that right is now dictated by rules and laws as to where you can and cant do it.

You may be familiar with the strictest non-smoking ordinance in the U.S. Last year Calabasas Ca. (15 min from my house) created an ordinance, that makes it a misdomeaner and fine up to $500 or 6 months in jail for smoking in any indoor or OUTDOOR place ( they have a few designated areas). It is also a crime to smoke in your car with the window down AND if you see anyone violating the law and dont report it you can be accused of aiding and abeiting and be subject to the same fines- report your neighbor, sound familiar. So any of you looking for Utopia, move to The REPUBLIK OF CALABASAS. Iam sure you would live to be 100 and have nothing but fresh air in the state that is one of the tops in smog and emissions.

 

Interestingly, while doing a little bit of Googling, I found this on an anti-smoking web-site. Their contention is that prior court rulings have decided that there is no inherent "right to smoke" based on the footnoted court cases. There are quite a few sites that come up with you search for "right to smoke." I wasn't able to find a web-site that argues the counter perspective (although there was a site on about.com about the infringement of smokers' rights, but it was just opinion...no legal backup). Anyone have any sources for the countpoint that the legal judgements are infringing on smokers' rights? I would be curious to read the counterpoint arguments.

 

=====

 

It's the Law: There's NO RIGHT TO SMOKE Courts have repeatedly held in a wide variety of circumstances that there is no constitutional or other legal right to smoke, especially when others may be present. Here is a sample of the judicial opinions.

STADIUM — "The City of New Orleans in the exercise of its police power could prohibit smoking in public stadiums." {1}

AIRPLANE — Passengers have no right to be in a smoking section. {2}

WORKPLACE — Court upheld workplace smoking ban despite smoking worker's argument that his "private rights and interests" are affected. {3}

JAIL — Persons awaiting trial have no right to smoke in jail. {4}

HOME — A municipality may refuse to hire persons who smoke, even in their own homes: "Clearly the 'right to smoke' is not included within the penumbra of fundamental rights [constitutionally] protected" . . . "the act of smoking a cigarette does not rise to the level of a fundamental right." {5}

OFF-THE-JOB — A governmental employer may fire an employee from smoking only one cigarette, even off the job. {6}

SCHOOL — "The right to smoke in public places is not a protected right, even for adults." {7}

RESTAURANT — "Whether tobacco smoke is toxic may be arguable, but that question is one for the legislature and not the court. And it is clearly within the police power of the legislature to abuse what it finds to be injurious to the public health." {8}

 

 

{1} Gasper v. Louisiana Stadium, 577 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1978); {2} Diefenthal v. CAB, 681 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1982);

{3} Rossie v. State, 395 N.W. 2d 801 (Ct. of Appeals Wisc. 1986);

 

{4} Washington v. Tinsley, 809 F. Supp 504 (S. Dis. TX 1992); {5} City of North Miami, v. Kurtz, 653 So.2d 1025 (Supreme Ct. Fla 1995);

 

{6} Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1987);

 

{7} Craig v. Buncombe County Board of Education, 343 S.E.2d 222 (Ct. of Appeals NC 1986);

 

{8} Alford v. City of Newport News, 260 S.E. 2d 241 (Supreme Ct. Va 1979).

[Merion_Mom]

A mistype- http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.htlm. sorry

 

Another mistyping. It's html

 

Don, this is nothing but "some guy's" website. Hardly an authority.

 

Any Tom, Dick, Harry or Dave can put up a website and say anything that he or she wants.

 

It doesn't make it so.

 

"Hey, I saw it on the internet. It *must* be true!"

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[DON M.]

Interestingly, while doing a little bit of Googling, I found this on an anti-smoking web-site. Their contention is that prior court rulings have decided that there is no inherent "right to smoke" based on the footnoted court cases. There are quite a few sites that come up with you search for "right to smoke." I wasn't able to find a web-site that argues the counter perspective (although there was a site on about.com about the infringement of smokers' rights, but it was just opinion...no legal backup). Anyone have any sources for the countpoint that the legal judgements are infringing on smokers' rights? I would be curious to read the counterpoint arguments.

 

=====

 

It's the Law: There's NO RIGHT TO SMOKE Courts have repeatedly held in a wide variety of circumstances that there is no constitutional or other legal right to smoke, especially when others may be present. Here is a sample of the judicial opinions.

STADIUM — "The City of New Orleans in the exercise of its police power could prohibit smoking in public stadiums." {1}

AIRPLANE — Passengers have no right to be in a smoking section. {2}

WORKPLACE — Court upheld workplace smoking ban despite smoking worker's argument that his "private rights and interests" are affected. {3}

JAIL — Persons awaiting trial have no right to smoke in jail. {4}

HOME — A municipality may refuse to hire persons who smoke, even in their own homes: "Clearly the 'right to smoke' is not included within the penumbra of fundamental rights [constitutionally] protected" . . . "the act of smoking a cigarette does not rise to the level of a fundamental right." {5}

OFF-THE-JOB — A governmental employer may fire an employee from smoking only one cigarette, even off the job. {6}

SCHOOL — "The right to smoke in public places is not a protected right, even for adults." {7}

RESTAURANT — "Whether tobacco smoke is toxic may be arguable, but that question is one for the legislature and not the court. And it is clearly within the police power of the legislature to abuse what it finds to be injurious to the public health." {8}

 

 

{1} Gasper v. Louisiana Stadium, 577 F.2d 897 (5th Cir. 1978); {2} Diefenthal v. CAB, 681 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1982);

{3} Rossie v. State, 395 N.W. 2d 801 (Ct. of Appeals Wisc. 1986);

 

{4} Washington v. Tinsley, 809 F. Supp 504 (S. Dis. TX 1992); {5} City of North Miami, v. Kurtz, 653 So.2d 1025 (Supreme Ct. Fla 1995);

 

{6} Grusendorf v. City of Oklahoma City, 816 F.2d 539 (10th Cir. 1987);

 

{7} Craig v. Buncombe County Board of Education, 343 S.E.2d 222 (Ct. of Appeals NC 1986);

 

{8} Alford v. City of Newport News, 260 S.E. 2d 241 (Supreme Ct. Va 1979).

I believe snoopy and you will probably concur, that individuals have the right to smoke ( its not illegal) until rules and laws make that no longer a right.

[DON M.]

Someone, previously, had me read an article published by the American Cancer society stating second-hand smoke causes 3,500 deaths per year. I just read an article from the Ill. legislators who state " In Illinois 8 people die every day from second-hand smoke". Now that would be about 2,900 per year, I guess not very many people in the rest of the country should worry.

Thats why smokers get so defensive, studies, statistics, brainwashing, proproganda, just thrown out there in hopes that the sheep will follow.

[DON M.]

Another mistyping. It's html

 

Don, this is nothing but "some guy's" website. Hardly an authority.

 

Any Tom, Dick, Harry or Dave can put up a website and say anything that he or she wants.

 

It doesn't make it so.

 

"Hey, I saw it on the internet. It *must* be true!"

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Very true Marion, all of the docmentation he mentions could all be lies and made-up especially since it does not conform to what the government agencies are telling us, thats all the truth, or what that congressman from Ill. said.

[buchie614]

I wouldn't mind going on the cruise. I think I would have fun throwing up on each of them. I hope they make themselves sick by putting on that much perfume because while others can move away from them they will be stuck with themselves. I agree that this is pretty childish. Besides why punish everyone when not everyone has complained about smoke. I am not a smoker and I do not like the smell of it but I can put up with it if I have to. I have never been bothered by cigarette smoke on any of my cruises. Although on my last cruise I wondered into the smoking area and stopped for a few minutes at the railing. I didn't stay long because the evil looks I got from the smokers for envading their area. It's not like I went there complaining about smoking, coughing, or waving my hand in front of my face. I could have cared less. But the looks were unbelievable.

 

? how did they know you were a non smoker?

[dc-snoopy]

I believe snoopy and you will probably concur, that individuals have the right to smoke ( its not illegal) until rules and laws make that no longer a right.

 

Yes, I agree that there is a personal right to smoke. However, the contention of the "no right to smoke" position is that you don't necessarily have the right to smoke in all places or all times.

 

There are many other situations where something that you can do and have the right to do is abrogated by circumstances. For example, why yelling "Fire" in a crowded public facility is not protected by the freedom of speech article. Or why carrying a concealed firearm is not covered by your right to bear arms. There are many other situations where certain rights are waived due to location or circumstance. The contention here by these court rulings is that smoking is one of those rights that can be limited in certain situations.

 

That said, none of these truly apply in this case since the smoking policy in a facility like a cruise ship is solely governed by the cruise line. They are the sole arbiter of the "rules" on-board.

 

However, my question was if anyone had a source for the counter position that argues the side of a legal right to protect the freedom to smoke. I'd like to see information about the flip side to the issue to see the legal arguments to protect that freedom.

[DON M.]

The foundation of this country is the protection of the minority. Its not a perfect system. In practicality, this is one of those issues like many, where ones rights effects the others rights, you have a right not to breathe smoke just as much as I have the right to smoke. We live ( or should) under a social agreement that protects a smokers right to pursue that happiness ( as long as no rules or laws are broken).

[buchie614]

To the OP:

 

I too emailed C&A last night about cancelling both the cruise and C&A membership.

 

I'm livid because I booked on-board just two weeks ago on th AOS. Had I known that in 2008 these regulations would have been in place, I surely wouldn't have booked.

 

Now they have my $250 deposit hostage... I'm fairly certain they will refund, but it's now a matter of how long they will take to do that so that I can turn that deposit around and give my business to another cruise line...

 

?for all smokers, if all the cruise lines follow, will you not cruise anymore? No, we do not smoke, and I always book a balcony, and sometimes when out, we will get smoke from next door cabins, luckily we do not have any health problems that prevents us from staying out, but some people do. I do wish they would ban smoking in the casino, not all smokers are rude, but some are, on our AOS cruise last week, a lady look to be in her 60's was playing a machine, a lady that was smoking sat next to her and the smoke was going directly into her face, and she started to wave the smoke away, and the young woman told her, this is a casino, if you don't like the smoke, move, or leave the casino. That to me was totally rude, the little lady cashed out her quarters and left, what a shame, she was there first. I do not have the answer, but this will not keep us from cruising. Perhaps smoking balconies on one side of the ship, but if they sell out on that side, will they move over to the other side and not smoke? Should balcony smoking be banned, I would be happy with that, but if I were a smoker, I would not.

[Grumm]

I blame us Brits and our love of cruising to new and exciting places.My wife and I are both smokers and we feel that if the Pilgrim Fathers had only gone as far as Greenland, then smoked haddock would be our addiction. But no. They had to go the whole nine yards and end up in a once-peaceful and tranquil "New World" inhabited by people who respected their environment and lived at one with nature...."But what's this?" the new arrivals cried after observing some peaceful natives inhaling a fragrant smoke, "Give us a blow, or I'll shoot you with my gun!"

 

Many moons later, the settlers of that Brave New World are now complaining about the inhalation of the aforementioned smoke, especially in Casinos. Vegas apart, the casinos of this great land are now owned and run by....well, I suppose you can guess where this ramble is going!;)

 

Alan

[Captain Jake]

I have wondered about this too.... what is the rate of lung cancer from second hand smoke for those who do NOT either live or work in a smoke-filled environment, i.e. cruisers walking through a casino over a 5-7 day period three or four times per year?

 

Higher than I'm willing to take.But what risk to YOU deem I should take so you can enjoy your filthy habit?

[Captain Jake]

There aren't enough smokers to do a side and their goal is to sell out the ship.

 

But those who believe an occasional whiff of second hand smoke is harmless wouldn't mind booking that cabin or they could make it certain decks there is a way to work it out

[Captain Jake]

Someone, previously, had me read an article published by the American Cancer society stating second-hand smoke causes 3,500 deaths per year. I just read an article from the Ill. legislators who state " In Illinois 8 people die every day from second-hand smoke". Now that would be about 2,900 per year, I guess not very many people in the rest of the country should worry.

Thats why smokers get so defensive, studies, statistics, brainwashing, proproganda, just thrown out there in hopes that the sheep will follow.

 

Smoking causes more deaths than lung cancer.The 3400 deaths a year from lung cancer are just the tip of the iceberg

[Philly Steve]

As a smoker, I applaud RCI's effort, but we will likely take a closer look at NCL for our next cruise.

[vjmatty]

Higher than I'm willing to take.But what risk to YOU deem I should take so you can enjoy your filthy habit?

 

:eek: Mee-YOW! I am not even a smoker other than with an occaional drink a few times per year, hardly what I would call a habit. Just because I support logic and ask questions about studies doesn't mean I engage in "filthy habits", unless you consider the act of dialogue to be filthy? :rolleyes: Lighten up Frances. :p

[Captain Jake]

As a smoker, I applaud RCI's effort, but we will likely take a closer look at NCL for our next cruise.

 

Sadly,They are the only cruiseline sailing out of Philly next year

[Scoobs9]

Well done RCCL!!!! It's about time a major cruise line implemented a consistent no-smoking policy across it's entire fleet. Many of us who bring our young children aboard agree with the decision not only because it sets a better role model, but also for everyone's safety (Star Princess fire) and health! Well done RCCL.

Scoobs9

Liberty of the Seas - March 08

[vjmatty]

Well done RCCL!!!! It's about time a major cruise line implemented a consistent no-smoking policy across it's entire fleet. Many of us who bring our young children aboard agree with the decision not only because it sets a better role model, but also for everyone's safety (Star Princess fire) and health! Well done RCCL.

Scoobs9

Liberty of the Seas - March 08

 

I haven't found this to be an issue, as I generally don't bring our young children into bars and casinos... and on the pool deck we stick to the NS section which is pretty far removed from smokers.

 

I agree with the stateroom policy simply because the quarters IMO are just too confined for smoking, but I have never noticed a smoke smell in any cabin.