RCCL New Smoking Policy Discussion (merged)

[Lizzydri]

Oh, please. This decision no more devalues your money or devalues you as a customer than having an adults only solarium devalues families cruising with children. I would have more sympathy with your perspective had the smoking changes been more severe or smoking was banned altogether. But there are still plenty of places that smoking is allowed on board. If smoking in your own cabin is such a priority or necessity, then you can cruise in a balcony cabin or select another cruise line. If you feel that strongly, there are plenty of businesses that do offer smoking cabins.

 

As you said, it is everyone's vacation to do as they choose with. This gives non-smokers the option to have a non-smoking cabin. There are still well over 70% of the cabins available on cruise lines that offer smoking. This does give everyone the choice of cruising in a cabin that allows smoking or cruising in one that doesn't.

 

Just like the non-smokers don't want to switch cruise lines to go on the non-smoking cruise lines, why should I be forced to switch cruise lines either?

I do cruise in balcony staterooms, so yes, I will comply and smoke on the balcony, however earlier posts indicated that the non-smokers group didn't want us smoking there either for fear that they would have the smoke bothering them in the cabin next door or above us or below us. That's why I was implying that there should be designated cabins for smokers and non-smokers so that the smoking people would be contained amongst themselves and less bothersome to those who don't like it and the cruiseline would be catering to both groups equally. I don't understand why that is not understandable. I happen to enjoy a cigarette while inside my cabin as well - I admit that I do smoke mostly on the balcony, but sometimes if I am doing things inside, I like the option of lighting up when I feel like it, in my cabin that is supposed to be my home away from home.

[sk8man]

I think we've now come full circle with discussion...:)

 

Full circle a couple of times. But it is an enjoyable thread to read.:cool:

[Lynn the Cruiser]

It's really funny because my best friend's DH smokes and since they've been cruising with us, she had told him that the cabins were non-smoking. He never checked into it because I guess he felt that because I've cruised before, I must know the rules. He's never had a problem with that!!! Now if he happens to read the new rule somewhere....we're going to be in BIG trouble!!!!!:eek: :D

[Chris3679]

I swore I was going to stay out of this, but now I have to add my two cents...my father-in-law died of lung cancer about 8 years ago. He never smoked a day in his life. However his wife and 4 of his 5 kids were all smokers (the exception being my husband). No, they didn't list second-hand smoke as the cause of death on his death certificate, they listed LUNG CANCER, because that was the disease that he died of. If I was a betting person, I would bet that he got lung cancer because of all of the smoke that he had to inhale. Before you say I don't have any proof, no I don't, but I don't need any proof. I know in my heart why he died.

 

 

Well I hope someday you will have the decency to apologize to this unfortunate person for making her feel guilty about causing the death of her husband when she was not responsible. What a horrible thing to accuse someone of before reading the facts or researching the subject. Have you examined the data yourself? Have you even looked at the WHO study or the EPA report that was voided by a Federal Judge?

You don't believe a Federal judge......(William Osteen), the very same judge who had earlier ruled that the FDA should control tobacco, who overturned the EPA's fraudulent report? You don't believe a Congressional Research Service.......(a 741 person, $62 million per year think tank that works exclusively for Congress) who rejected the EPA and 3 other studies as not statistically significant and tainted by poor research and analysis. After 20 months and several million dollars, the CRS stated: "It is very possible that no deaths have ever been caused by environmental tobacco smoke."

In 1998, the World Health Organization study on environmental tobacco smoke, purportedly the largest such ever undertaken, comprising 20 years in 38 centers in 21 countries was denounced by anti-smoking activists because it minimized the allegedly detrimental effects of environmental tobacco smoke. It actually showed no statistically significant increase in lung cancer in non-smokers who had lived and worked with smokers for 40-50 years. WHO didn't release the study at all until it was leaked to a newspaper, and when they did release the study, it was accompanied by a press release whose headline screamed: "Passive Smoke Does Cause Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You," which was published verbatim by the popular press here and abroad. Apparently not one of the journalists took the trouble to read the actual study.

 

You don't believe this.................but you believe in your heart that his death was caused by a loved one, making smokers feel liable for the health of others?

 

In our lifetime, more than 75,000 synthetic chemicals and metals have been put to use in America most of which have never been tested for their toxic effects. It is impossible to get through the day without consuming a chemical soup from the air we breathe to the cars we drive to the foods we ingest.

 

 

From a NY Times article:

 

"But in a far more damning finding, Judge Osteen held that agency researchers, rather than rigorously proving their case, frequently shifted theories and selected the data they wanted in order to reach a preordained conclusion."

[Davey Interweb]

From a NY Times article:

 

"But in a far more damning finding, Judge Osteen held that agency researchers, rather than rigorously proving their case, frequently shifted theories and selected the data they wanted in order to reach a preordained conclusion."

 

Haha, yeah. It's kinda like the White House's current war against legitimate science. Simply cherry-pick the statistics that look good on paper to support your case, and at the same time silence the more conclusive evidence.

 

Anyway, I don't think RCI's decision was a bad one. Having visited the (inside) cabin of a pair of heavy smokers, I felt bad for the cabin attendants seeing that I couldn't stay in the cabin for more than a couple of minutes. I'm fairly confident that demand for balcony cabins will increase, though; I know some smokers who are already willing to pay $11 or more for a package of cigarettes, so it's apparent to me that having to spend additional cash to support their habit isn't an issue for many of them. On the flip side, I believe we'll be seeing more of the "I COULDN'T USE MY BALCONY BECAUSE OF SOME HORRIBLE, NASTY SMOKER" threads once this policy takes effect.

 

A question, though, how many of the more militant non-smokers who have contributed to this thread will admit to using a cellular phone while driving on a regular basis?

[dc-snoopy]

A question, though, how many of the more militant non-smokers who have contributed to this thread will admit to using a cellular phone while driving on a regular basis?

 

As per law in Maryland and DC, I do so with a headset. Next month when we replace my wife's car, I won't even need that in her car as it will be bluetooth enabled as is my phone.

[SDN]

Well I hope someday you will have the decency to apologize to this unfortunate person for making her feel guilty about causing the death of her husband when she was not responsible. What a horrible thing to accuse someone of before reading the facts or researching the subject. Have you examined the data yourself? Have you even looked at the WHO study or the EPA report that was voided by a Federal Judge?

You don't believe a Federal judge......(William Osteen), the very same judge who had earlier ruled that the FDA should control tobacco, who overturned the EPA's fraudulent report? You don't believe a Congressional Research Service.......(a 741 person, $62 million per year think tank that works exclusively for Congress) who rejected the EPA and 3 other studies as not statistically significant and tainted by poor research and analysis. After 20 months and several million dollars, the CRS stated: "It is very possible that no deaths have ever been caused by environmental tobacco smoke."

In 1998, the World Health Organization study on environmental tobacco smoke, purportedly the largest such ever undertaken, comprising 20 years in 38 centers in 21 countries was denounced by anti-smoking activists because it minimized the allegedly detrimental effects of environmental tobacco smoke. It actually showed no statistically significant increase in lung cancer in non-smokers who had lived and worked with smokers for 40-50 years. WHO didn't release the study at all until it was leaked to a newspaper, and when they did release the study, it was accompanied by a press release whose headline screamed: "Passive Smoke Does Cause Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You," which was published verbatim by the popular press here and abroad. Apparently not one of the journalists took the trouble to read the actual study.

 

You don't believe this.................but you believe in your heart that his death was caused by a loved one, making smokers feel liable for the health of others?

 

In our lifetime, more than 75,000 synthetic chemicals and metals have been put to use in America most of which have never been tested for their toxic effects. It is impossible to get through the day without consuming a chemical soup from the air we breathe to the cars we drive to the foods we ingest.

 

 

From a NY Times article:

 

"But in a far more damning finding, Judge Osteen held that agency researchers, rather than rigorously proving their case, frequently shifted theories and selected the data they wanted in order to reach a preordained conclusion."

 

 

Why is it that everytime you reference this Federal Judge's decision of 1998, that you fail to mention that the decision was successfully overturned in 2002? Why do you think that there are so many smoking bans today?

 

Why hasn't there been another decision like it since? Why are efforts to overturn smoking bans failing all over the world?

 

The EPA knew it was a sham decision:

 

CAROL BROWNER (From PBS): More importantly, what you have here is a judge. A judge in Winston-Salem, North Carolina essentially trumping the scientific opinion of 18 independent scientists. Trumping the opinion of the Surgeon General, the National Academy of Sciences. You know, there's nothing else like this in EPA's history. We did what we're supposed to do. We looked at all of the science, we reached conclusions, we presented those to independent scientists, we asked the tobacco industry what they thought about those in a draft form. They gave us thousands of pages. They appeared for hours before the scientists reviewing these findings and at the end of the day, the conclusion was unanimous. Secondhand smoke is bad.

 

The Osteen decision

 

In 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the U.S. were caused by passive smoking annually.[15] Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and groups representing growers, distributors and marketers of tobacco took legal action, claiming that the EPA had manipulated this study and ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices.

United States District Court Judge William Osteen vacated this study in 1998, finding that the EPA had: 1) Publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun 2) Violated procedural requirements 3) Adjusted scientific norms to validate their conclusions 4) Engaged in a scheme to influence public opinion 5) Disregarded information and made findings based on selected information 6) Not disseminated significant information 7) Deviated from its own Risk Assessment Guidelines 8) Failed to disclose important findings and reasoning, and 9) Left significant questions unanswered.[85]

 

 

In 2002, the EPA successfully appealed Judge Osteen's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal was based on five arguments: 1) The District Court incorrectly held that the Report was final agency action under the Administrative Procedures Act, 2) The plaintiffs did not have proper standing to challenge the EPA report 3) The EPA had followed certain protocols 4) Any violation of protocols were not grounds for vacating the Report, and 5) The District Court exceeded its scope of judicial review. [86]

 

 

Chris3679,

 

I have asked this of you this before when you post this garbage and you didn't answer, so I will ask it again.

 

Post a study from a respected body (not in the pocket of big tobacco) which was conducted within in the past two years that says that secondhand smoke is not harmful.

 

If you do not want to answer that one, answer this:

 

Do you think that firsthand tobacco smoke is harmful?

[Davey Interweb]

As per law in Maryland and DC, I do so with a headset. Next month when we replace my wife's car, I won't even need that in her car as it will be bluetooth enabled as is my phone.

 

A fairly recent Australian study cited evidence that drivers using cell phones - whether hands-free or not - were four times as likely to be involved in a serious accident. You know, accidents where people are killed.

 

Don't get me wrong; I'm not attempting to call people out as hypocritical. There's value to both sides of the smoking debate, I think. I just can't get over the gnawing feeling I have that the same people lambasting smokers for "ruining their health" are, in many instances, the very same people who wouldn't think twice about engaging in a phone conversation while driving in traffic, risking the safety of others around them.

 

Then again I'm sure many smokers do the same, which makes them doubly evil.

[sludger]

We are a family of Aussies booked on the new years eve Legend of the seas asia cruise in 2008/2009 and for us this is fantastic news.

It is only a matter of time before smoking is banned in all public places and it can't come soon enough for me.

We have booked two cruises there back to back, 9 days in all we can't wait!

Our boys will be 12 & 8 then I just hope there will be enough for them to do!

 

Paul

[Chris3679]

Why is it that everytime you reference this Federal Judge's decision of 1998, that you fail to mention that the decision was successfully overturned in 2002? Why do you think that there are so many smoking bans today?

 

 

Because the EPA 1993 report and WHO study are the basis for most of the SHS legislation and restrictions in the US.

 

The EPA fought to have Osteen's decision overturned on technical grounds. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen's court did not have jurisdiction.

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit confirmed important issues remained about the EPA report and its methodologies when it overturned Judge Osteen’s July 1998 order on December 11, 2002, based on procedural grounds that our federal courts did not have authority to review the EPA report on secondhand smoke. The federal 4th circuit Court of Appeals did not criticize or vacate Judge Osteen’s conclusions as set forth in his Memorandum Opinion. That Memorandum Opinion, including the above quotes about the 1992 EPA report on secondhand smoke, stand as authoritative results of judicial review if the 1992 EPA report.

 

You can find the judge's entire decision:

 

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm

 

The CRS report is available here.

 

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

 

The EPA report over six hundred pages long, and I recommend you order a hard copy. It is available to US citizens at no charge. Call (800) 438-4318 and ask for document EPA/600/6-90/006F. The title of the report is "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders." It is also available as on line as a pdf file. Note: this is a four megabyte file.

 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793

[pmshirl]

This is like a Soap Opera. we have to give it a name........................

WILL IT BE............

AS THE WORLD TURNS

ONE LIFE TO LIVE

ANOTHER WORLD

GUIDING LIGHT

PASSIONS

THE BOLD AND THE BEAUTIFUL

OR

ALL MY CHILDREN

[FPP777]

I used to smoke, I dont anymore, but I think I will start again to annoy a few people.:D

[CAL7]

After reading all this thread, I can't find - or missed it - what current 2007 policy is regarding cigars. Are they prohibited in areas permitted for cigarette smoking? Where are cigars allowed? Thanks!

[pmshirl]

Ummmm Cigars ...only in the dining rooms............................

[DON M.]

Why is it that everytime you reference this Federal Judge's decision of 1998, that you fail to mention that the decision was successfully overturned in 2002? Why do you think that there are so many smoking bans today?

 

Why hasn't there been another decision like it since? Why are efforts to overturn smoking bans failing all over the world?

 

The EPA knew it was a sham decision:

 

CAROL BROWNER (From PBS): More importantly, what you have here is a judge. A judge in Winston-Salem, North Carolina essentially trumping the scientific opinion of 18 independent scientists. Trumping the opinion of the Surgeon General, the National Academy of Sciences. You know, there's nothing else like this in EPA's history. We did what we're supposed to do. We looked at all of the science, we reached conclusions, we presented those to independent scientists, we asked the tobacco industry what they thought about those in a draft form. They gave us thousands of pages. They appeared for hours before the scientists reviewing these findings and at the end of the day, the conclusion was unanimous. Secondhand smoke is bad.

 

The Osteen decision

 

In 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report estimating that 3,000 lung cancer related deaths in the U.S. were caused by passive smoking annually.[15] Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and groups representing growers, distributors and marketers of tobacco took legal action, claiming that the EPA had manipulated this study and ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices.

United States District Court Judge William Osteen vacated this study in 1998, finding that the EPA had: 1) Publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun 2) Violated procedural requirements 3) Adjusted scientific norms to validate their conclusions 4) Engaged in a scheme to influence public opinion 5) Disregarded information and made findings based on selected information 6) Not disseminated significant information 7) Deviated from its own Risk Assessment Guidelines 8) Failed to disclose important findings and reasoning, and 9) Left significant questions unanswered.[85]

 

 

In 2002, the EPA successfully appealed Judge Osteen's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal was based on five arguments: 1) The District Court incorrectly held that the Report was final agency action under the Administrative Procedures Act, 2) The plaintiffs did not have proper standing to challenge the EPA report 3) The EPA had followed certain protocols 4) Any violation of protocols were not grounds for vacating the Report, and 5) The District Court exceeded its scope of judicial review. [86]

 

 

Chris3679,

 

I have asked this of you this before when you post this garbage and you didn't answer, so I will ask it again.

 

Post a study from a respected body (not in the pocket of big tobacco) which was conducted within in the past two years that says that secondhand smoke is not harmful.

 

If you do not want to answer that one, answer this:

 

Do you think that firsthand tobacco smoke is harmful?

 

I am not Chris, but I will give you my answer. There is no study that I have found that does not say second-hand smoke is not harmful but many say, can CONTRIBUTE ,NOT CAUSE disease- big difference. It can contribute along with many, many, other factors of which I am not going to list again. Anyone who believes every study they read pro or con is naive. There is something wrong when a "respected" congressman in Ill. says 8 people die every day from second-hand smoke and they get away with it ( when the American Cancer inst. says 3000 per year nationwide. No study I have every read as ever said there is only ONE cause for any particular cancer except Lung Cancer. I am sure as smoking continues to decrease and not allowed in most indoor places, that figure of 3000 will continue to increase.

[dc-snoopy]

There is something wrong when a "respected" congressman in Ill. says 8 people die every day from second-hand smoke and they get away with it ( when the American Cancer inst. says 3000 per year nationwide. No study I have every read as ever said there is only ONE cause for any particular cancer except Lung Cancer. I am sure as smoking continues to decrease and not allowed in most indoor places, that figure of 3000 will continue to increase.

 

Ummm...8 per day = 2920 per year. 3000 per year = 8.22 per day. The numbers are pretty close there.

[DON M.]

Ummm...8 per day = 2920 per year. 3000 per year = 8.22 per day. The numbers are pretty close there.[/quote

8 per day in ILLINOIS. is what he said in trying to pass stricter smoking laws. Now do the math. From the May 1 2007 CBS article "Ill. is about to become a smoke free state". Half way into the article, "experts have said 2,800 people in Ill. will die of second-hand smoke this year. The propaganda beat goes on.

[Merion_Mom]

Doctors refer to "risk factors" when discussing the likelihood that you will get a certain disease or condition or why you have that disease or condition.

 

Smoking, and inhaling smoke from someone else who is smoking, are risk factors in causing various cancers.

 

If you want to increase your risk, go ahead. I prefer that you not increase mine.

 

By the way, I am fine with the Royal Caribbean smoking policy as it is now. I can avoid the areas where smokers are all by myself.

[DON M.]

Doctors refer to "risk factors" when discussing the likelihood that you will get a certain disease or condition or why you have that disease or condition.

 

Smoking, and inhaling smoke from someone else who is smoking, are risk factors in causing various cancers.

 

If you want to increase your risk, go ahead. I prefer that you not increase mine.

 

By the way, I am fine with the Royal Caribbean smoking policy as it is now. I can avoid the areas where smokers are all by myself.

You are absolutely correct. About 2.5 million people will die this year and according to the American Cancer Society ( which I will concede to), 3000 will die of second-hand smoke. I did not do well in Math but with that risk factor, I do know I have alot of other things to worry about, and so do you.

[standby 06.30]

My wife and I are both smokers and we believe that smoking should only be allowed on outside decks at sea, why because all of you selfish people on both sides, with there apparatchik comments, not one has taken into consideration the staff who have to work in a smoke filled enviroment, they do not have a choice, as they have no form of employment protection anyway,its me me me, and if because of fatigue, I have missed someone who has made the same comments I am sorry, we are smokers, we are trying to stop, it will probably be the cause of our deaths, but we do not want to inflict this onto anyone, especially those who are not allowed our choices. regards

[Trainman-2]

I said much earlier in this thread that eventually, the anti-smoking zealots would win the "fight" because they are more active than the smokers. Banning smoking is a "feel good" activity.

 

State by State, County by County, City by City, smoking bans are going into effect! I saw this in my local paper yesterday.

 

 

It is just a matter of time!

[brigittetom]

My wife and I are both smokers and we believe that smoking should only be allowed on outside decks at sea, why because all of you selfish people on both sides, with there apparatchik comments, not one has taken into consideration the staff who have to work in a smoke filled enviroment, they do not have a choice, as they have no form of employment protection anyway,its me me me, and if because of fatigue, I have missed someone who has made the same comments I am sorry, we are smokers, we are trying to stop, it will probably be the cause of our deaths, but we do not want to inflict this onto anyone, especially those who are not allowed our choices. regards

In all fairness, smoking has been pretty much banned thru out the ship. The nicest lounges don't allow smoking including the Schooner bar. There were 3 tables on the smoking side on the pool deck in the rear to the right on our last Radiance cruise that actually had ashtrays. There was no smoking in the Viking lounge except at three tables also and you had to ask the bartender for the ashtray.

We do get the advantage of the Concierege Lounge. No smoking. If you are lucky enough to be on the Radiance class you can walk to the next lounge which is huge, to the small smoking side. If you are on the other class, you either have to go to your cabin a few decks up or down or find an open deck a few decks up or down and stand in the wind.

 

What more do you people want. We smokers have been pretty much banished from every room.. In the old days they allowed smoking in the showrooms. Now we can't smoke in most bars.

 

We now can't smoke in the cabins so we will be smoking on our balconys more. Personally, I've been smoking in our cabin because it's the one place I wouldn't bother anyone else. Now we are banished to our balcony because of all the complaints that there might be a smell of smoke in the cabin, which 98% of the non smokers say isn't there to begin with. Now the big complaint is that people will be smoking more on their balcony. Thanks to all of the complaint cards that said they wouldn't possibly want to be in a cabin that would have had a previous smoker even though it was cleaned to a point where they never would have known.

Possibly the non smokers won't be happy until everything is smoke free. Not a problem, but at least wait until the time comes but it's not quite here yet. It wlll be:>) We also deal with TA flights that will be uncomfortible.

[Captain Jake]

You are absolutely correct. About 2.5 million people will die this year and according to the American Cancer Society ( which I will concede to), 3000 will die of second-hand smoke. I did not do well in Math but with that risk factor, I do know I have alot of other things to worry about, and so do you.

 

 

3000 is the number due to lung cancer.Add other lung,heart disorders and the numbers skyrocket.Yead dismiss the IL numbers by using lung cancer only.Yeah dismiss the fact that the 1998 ruling was overturned.Watch the movie "Thanks For Not Smoking"and it shows how the Pro-Smoking Lobbyist

distract from the facts by sidetracking attention to other things,like you're more likely to die from this or that.The rebuttles in this thread remind me of the movie.I sometimes wonder if some of the rebutters are playing like the lobbyist in this entertaining flick

[Lynn the Cruiser]

You are absolutely correct. About 2.5 million people will die this year and according to the American Cancer Society ( which I will concede to), 3000 will die of second-hand smoke. I did not do well in Math but with that risk factor, I do know I have alot of other things to worry about, and so do you.

Minute by minute, I await your words of wisdom. But right now, on a Sunday morning, I am washing my son's clothes after his night at the bars celebrating his friend's 21st birthday...and YES, they had a designated driver.

[vjmatty]

My wife and I are both smokers and we believe that smoking should only be allowed on outside decks at sea, why because all of you selfish people on both sides, with there apparatchik comments, not one has taken into consideration the staff who have to work in a smoke filled enviroment, they do not have a choice, as they have no form of employment protection anyway,its me me me, and if because of fatigue, I have missed someone who has made the same comments I am sorry, we are smokers, we are trying to stop, it will probably be the cause of our deaths, but we do not want to inflict this onto anyone, especially those who are not allowed our choices. regards

 

On a topic where most people would clearly rather fight than win, you bring up an excellent point, however it is my understanding that smoking employees are generally assigned to smoking areas, and vice versa.