RCCL New Smoking Policy Discussion (merged)

[vjmatty]

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.

 

No offense but at 21 your son should be washing his own clothes ;)

[Charles4515]

[color=#008080

 

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.

 

[/color]

 

Non-smokers don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke in any public room or on any balcony. Smokers made a choice when they started their addiction, one that emits a foul pollutant and oder. So I don't see any problem with making them keep it private, restricting it. And not exposing the workers to the smoke either. Unfortunately the cabins are used by all. So they are not really private. And probably the ventilation system is all tied in to so that air gets circulated in common. And there is the fire hazard. So there are good reasons to ban it inside cabins. However there should be some designated ventilated smoking lounges that keep the pollutant and odor contained in for smokers. I would not be for a total ban on ships until the number of smokers in society drops more, say below 10%.

[Captain Jake]

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.

 

It would be nice if it worked out this way,but to some working in the smoking zone may be a condition of employment.Sure they have a choice,but sometimes we all know,that they may really have no choice.

[shipknotshore]

You know this is a topic where there are no winners or losers...so let's all just take a deep breath and....

 

oops, sorry smokers, I forgot you cannot take deep breaths.

 

I know, I used to smoke years ago and still remember. Now try to convince me again how smoking doesn't cause lung damage.....

if the cancer didn't scare me enough the emphysema sure did.

[KAJOKG]

[quote name='brigittetom;

 

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.

 

What do we want....well' date=' for starters, maybe to see to it that folks live longer for both humanitarian reasons and to cut health costs. Many companies will not give health benefits to smokers, for good reason. My Mom and Dad both died from smoking -- Mom from lung cancer and Dad from a heart attack at age 63 and with no history of heart problems in his family. BTW, I think the non smoking in cabins rule is not a good one, nor fair. I would rather see a designated amount of smoking cabins on each deck. [/b']

[bluejeans]

You know this is a topic where there are no winners or losers...so let's all just take a deep breath and....

 

oops, sorry smokers, I forgot you cannot take deep breaths.

 

I know, I used to smoke years ago and still remember. Now try to convince me again how smoking doesn't cause lung damage.....

if the cancer didn't scare me enough the emphysema sure did.

 

Who cannot take deep breaths? I have smoked for 30 some years, and my lungs, per my doctor, are in as good of shape as a non smoker. Not my diagnosis, but my doctors. So speak for yourself. :rolleyes:

[Captain Jake]

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!

 

If some smokers would clean up after themselves maybe the ban would not be needed.It's not possible for children to play in the sand in Ocean City,MD without having cigarette butts in their sand castles.The beach sweeper machines don't pick these up and they last for years.It's becoming such a problem the town is likely to ban smoking on the beach soon.

[bluejeans]

If some smokers would clean up after themselves maybe the ban would not be needed.It's not possible for children to play in the sand in Ocean City,MD without having cigarette butts in their sand castles.The beach sweeper machines don't pick these up and they last for years.It's becoming such a problem the town is likely to ban smoking on the beach soon.

 

I hate seeing cigarettes being deposited on the beach, it is disgusting. I always take a cigarette container when at the beach. I wish people would be mindful of this as well.

[Lynn the Cruiser]

No offense but at 21 your son should be washing his own clothes ;)

Well, he would but he was still sleeping and I didn't want them to stink up his room.:rolleyes:

[DC2OC]

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!

 

 

I think this is a case of keeping the beach clean of cigarette butts.Sometimes smokers need to blame their own for some of the bans.I personally find second hand smoke a very minor-inconvinence at most on the beach ,but nowadays its next to impossible to run your feet thru the sand while lounging without kicking up a butt or two

[ancldaca]

Come to think of it, the $250 "fine" is still cheaper than booking a balcony. Maybe I won't cancel after all....

[standby 06.30]

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.

My wife worked in the cruise industry for about 8yrs at sea, she said it was hard enough plannig rotas without asking do you smoke, also we were on the Nav in Jan and I was amazed at the number of areas inside the ship that you could smoke, I repeat we are smokers but the lack of regard for the crew members who have to work in the areas from both the smokers and non smokers offends us,it is all about your own selfish point scoreing, this is not directed to you vjmatty but to both sides of this debate, regards

[vjmatty]

it is all about your own selfish point scoreing, this is not directed to you vjmatty but to both sides of this debate, regards

 

I didn't take it as directed at me :) in fact I am not really on either side of this debate, just making observations as I see them. I am primarily a non-smoker but I do enjoy an occasional cigarette with my Baileys or glass of wine, sometimes on the balcony :o However I have noticed if you sit with your chair against the wall rather than hang over the rail while you smoke, no one in the other balconies even knows you are smoking. This was true at least on Deck 8 Aft with no balconies above me. Not sure if that method would work for everyone.

 

Now if someone could just tell me how to keep cigarettes from getting stale when they sit in the drawer for a month :confused:

[EMTgoneNUTZ]

:rolleyes: But that's a part of the reason it's a red herring, because it has nothing to do with whether or not smoking should be allowed in the staterooms. I still say that I've never been gassed by the ship's fumes, while hanging out on the pool deck, either, but I will concede that it is not impossible. So you win, OK?

 

 

I cannot believe how many pages this thread has gotten to! I backed out the other day because I got tired of being flamed for lighting up in my cabin once an evening-but came back to see if the discussion had turned more adult in nature...seems with some it has and with others it hasn't. This point however I did want to touch on...the smoke stack issue, because my parents had an aft balcony on the Carnival Legend last year, and had to contiuously wipe down their balcony furniture and sit on towels in order to keep the soot off them. My mother had an outfit ruined because of it. I would imagine if it's that thick on the furniture, and you spend any time at all out there, there's a chance you could inhale it. They did state that the did NOT have the same problem on the RCCL Jewel last Feb. with their aft balcony, so maybe it's just a CCL thing:confused:

The problem here is....the non-smokers feel they have the right to tell smokers where, when and how they can or cannot smoke, and the smokers are tired of being bullied by the non-smoking lobbyists and non/reformed smokers...period. I offered up a solution, as have others I see, that the back portion (1/3 perhaps?) be completely smoking, and from there forward it be non...that way the only people getting smoke on their balcony while the ship is in motion is most likely to be a fellow smoker anyway. But the nons would never be happy with that solution either because then they wouldn't be able to get their coveted aft cabins. Some of you have suggesed smoking on one side and not the other...again, what do you do about the coveted aft cabins, split them down the middle? I think eventually you will see smoking and non rooms because all that's going to happen now, as is already evident, is the stock is going to drop, and there will be stampede's of smokers booking the minute bookings open up in order to ensure they can have their smoking balcony, and the nons that wanted that balcony are going to be ticked because they can't get one because they're all full with smokers. Now THAT's not rocet science, that's pure logic. There are more of us smokers than you nons seem to believe by the numbers you're putting out here. Every cruise I've been on I've NEVER seen a smoking area not occupied by multiple smokers, some even crowded. The smokers and nons alike will voice their opinion on this move by either A)Hurrying to be the first to book the balcony cabins, especially the aft ones, or B)Vowing to take their business elsewhere, cancelling current bookings, or finding another vaycay altogether.

And one last thing....for all of you nons that keep telling us smokers over and over and over that if WE don't like this new policy WE can find a different line or vaycay....well when I'm sitting on my balcony smoking MUCH more than I normally would, just because it's "my little smoking area", and you're on the other side of the divider with your rude comments and fake coughs, just remember, YOU TOO can find a different cruise line or vaycay. The road goes both ways. And while you're at it, keep your rudeness and profanity to yourself...it's harmful to my children:rolleyes:

[EMTgoneNUTZ]

Where I work they cleverly put the air intake vent for the building right next to the loading dock where all the trucks sit and idle.

 

When I was still working as a medic, there was one hospital in particular that we had to take our major trauma cases to that also did this...brilliant...so after our diesels were run hard to get there, we were required to turn them off while unloading the patient and taking them to their respective locations in the hospital...not exactly good on diesel engines and blatently ignorant design on the behalf of the contractors/hospital:rolleyes:

[corona5657]

No offense but at 21 your son should be washing his own clothes (quote)

 

This statement is ridiculous. Like all of us haven't helped our kids out from time to time. My son was in college at 21 but when he came home he worked long hours, so throwing a load of wash in for him was no big deal. What a stupid statement.

[TEXASMUNK]

yes, you continue to beat a dead horse. If it makes you feel good, post on!

 

Otherwise, enough!

[EMTgoneNUTZ]

This and every other thread about smoking should be locked. I fail to see the reason for letting adults (presumably) bash each other senseless over a subject that they have limited control over. There will be a change in the smoking policy by the cruise line and thats that. Spare all the statistics,studies, and personal tragedies. They are to some extent, irrelevant. The relevant thing is, we all will have to adjust to the new rules or go somewhere else. This subject has become so hostile that I alomost feel that abortion, religion, and politics are safer topics on these boards.. Its like both sides are waiting to read the next post to see if its for their side, or should they attack it. I think this is a reasonable compromise to the situation and both sides should cool off a bit.

 

Vator, you get the prize for the most adult, respectable and sensable post on this thread! (I left the thread for a couple days because I had had enough of the prepubescent infantile egomaniacs on BOTH sides of this issue....never DREAMED it would gain THIS many posts since then! Now I'm sorry I came back...at least until I read your post);) :)

[EMTgoneNUTZ]

Ever think that some of the people wearing too much perfume are smokers trying to cover up that nasty smell in their clothes?

 

Actually, as a general rule, I, myself, don't wear "a lot" of perfume...and it's certainly not done because I'm stupid enough to believe it will cover up the scent of my beloved Marlboro's!:p In fact, the ONLY time I "drench myself" in perfume is when I'm surrounded by people who have their noses stuck high in the air and need something else to whine about:rolleyes:

[EMTgoneNUTZ]

I found this article

 

 

Smoking is to be banned on boats and ships in British waters, the Government said.

 

Douglas Alexander, the Transport Secretary, said that he plans to extend the ban on smoking in public places to the nation’s waterways.

 

In a written statement to MPs, Mr Alexander said: “I now intend to introduce similar provisions to provide protection from secondhand smoke for people on vessels operating in UK waters, at sea and on inland waterways.”

 

Sailors and passengers will still be allowed to smoke in their cabins. Mr Alexander said that the ban would be enforced by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Flouting it would carry similar penalties to those for smoking on dry land.

 

 

 

 

About time !!

 

 

 

jj......

 

Well I, for one, hope they also ban your beloved Guiness, and all other alcohol, because honestly, the stench of it lingering on you and your breath, and the idiocy displayed by those who over-consume REALLY bothers me, not to mention when the ship has to go in circles in an attempt to rescue a drunks sorry bum!:rolleyes: :p

[DON M.]

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![/quote

You are absolutely correct, you are winning. We are moving in the direction of a National Prohibtion of smoking and you will have the Utopia you desire. We will see bootleging, smoking speakeasies, smoke police, raids on establishments and homes where tobacco is belived to be stored or use. We will see the ultimate corruption of public officials and law enforcment officers, bribed to allow illegal smoking establishments to continue. Sounds like another time in history. Be careful what you wish for.

[EMTgoneNUTZ]

Why? It is because of the extra cleaning and effort required to remove the filthy and disgusting stench left behind by smokers.

 

 

I think I'm going to write a letter to RCCL too....requiring that they steam clean the mattress and comforter, etc. prior to my arrival in my cabin, because I want the filthy, disgusting "stuff" left behind by the couple that was in there ahead of me gone:rolleyes:

[GAV BOY]

Well I, for one, hope they also ban your beloved Guiness, and all other alcohol, because honestly, the stench of it lingering on you and your breath, and the idiocy displayed by those who over-consume REALLY bothers me, not to mention when the ship has to go in circles in an attempt to rescue a drunks sorry bum!:rolleyes: :p

 

Oh dear a smoker with attitude ! :eek:

[EMTgoneNUTZ]

So now you don't believe the studies on global warming, either? It's interesting what's up for debate these days. Can Darwinism/intelligent design be far behind in this debate? Where babies come from?

 

I have yet to read on this thread one smoker say they think it is a healthy thing to do, and yet they try to cast in doubt any study that says it isn't.

 

I say we serve folks who doubt the smoking studies their food on aluminum plates in asbestos coated rooms, since they likely don't believe those studies, either.

 

 

Well....since you brought it up...my lead based paint covered crib apparently didn't hurt me...:rolleyes:

And I don't think any of us that smoke are trying to convince you that it's "healthy",we're just saying that we enjoy our smoking just as you enjoy whatever things you enjoy, whether it's drinking, gambling, promiscuity, etc. We're all smart enough to know it's bad for us, but we also are paying for the same cruise you are and if we're out on our balcony smoking when we'd normally be in our cabin, and it's offending you, well just remember, YOU wanted it. As my folks told me growing up, be careful what you wish for, ya just might get it!;)

[SDN]

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

 

 

 

In all of your posts about your beloved Judge Osteen, you fail to mention that he was a lobbyist for tobacco growers as a private attorney in 1974.

 

Judge Osteen

The presiding judge was William Osteen, of the North Carolina Middle District Court. In 1974 Judge Osteen worked as an industry lobbyist for tobacco growers while a private attorney. He was hired by a tobacco grower organization in Guilford, Alamance and Rockingham counties, within the state of North Carolina, to lobby former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, not to go ahead with a plan to eliminate the federal tobacco production quota program (AP press report, August 20, 1995). Many judicial ethicists criticized Judge Osteen for not recusing himself from the EPA case.

 

You seem to believe that this decision that you keep posting somehow claims that secondhand smoke is not harmful.

 

In that decision (which you posted the link to) it states:

 

Judge Osteen vacated the EPA's classification of secondhand smoke as a Known Human (Group A) Carcinogen. He did not, however, invalidate the EPA's extensive findings regarding secondhand smoke and respiratory disorders other than lung cancer. The EPA's findings, thus, remain intact regarding secondhand smoke and its effects on

· Acute respiratory illnesses in children;

· Acute and chronic middle ear diseases;

· Cough, phlegm and wheezing;

· Asthma;

· Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS);

· Lung function in children; and

· Respiratory symptoms and lung function in adults

In your other earlier post, you claim "How can you not believe a federal Judge", so here is one for you to believe from the same time as Osteen's decision:

 

On August 3, 1998, another United States Federal District Court recognized the dangers of secondhand smoke. In Sayville Inn v. County of Suffolk, Judge Jacob Mishler of the United States Federal District Court for Eastern District of New York denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against a county ordinance prohibiting smoking in bar areas of restaurants while allowing it in "stand-alone" bars. Plaintiffs - the owners and operators of restaurants in Suffolk County, New York - claimed that their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection was being violated by the ordinance because it discriminated against them by allowing smoking in bars while forbidding it in the bar areas of their restaurants. In denying plaintiffs' motion, Judge Mishler stated, "It is beyond dispute that second-hand smoke is a carcinogen.... The risk to the health of non-smoking patrons of restaurants and its employees, when exposed to second-hand smoke, is obvious.

 

More opinion on the Osteen ruling

 

http://www.tobaccocontrol.neu.edu/tcu/tcu03.1/Features/epa_article.htm