RCCL New Smoking Policy Discussion (merged)

[Goofyisme]

Geez,you lose again.Along with the spoilage smokers leave..................................SMOKE STENCH....................Now who was sleeping in science class or should I say skipped since if you where there you might have picked it up in your sleep:cool: I didn't miss the back of the ship part,I kinda ignored it ,My DW and I find ithe AFT kinda romantic and I'm not willing to give it up.And as far as being EASY I quit being EASY when I met my DW

 

Yup noticed you do tend to ignore what you don't wan't to hear

[Mahya]

If Royal Cribbean Was So Interested In Health They Would Take Waiters And Waitresses Out Of Service Who Are Sniffling And Coughing Instead Of Their Continuing To Serve Food And Spread Colds, Noro, And Strep Throats.....having Been The Recipient Of A Nasty Cold On Majesty Of The Seas And A Strep Throat On The Brilliance, I Know Whereof I Speak.

 

Furthermore If They Were Really Interested In "healthy" Lifestyles They Would Stop Serving Alcohol.......just As Unhealthy And Annoying As Cigarettes.

 

My Opinion Of Their New "Healthy Lifestyle" Rules: Bull

[cruisinMike]

Suppose that because of the promised increased smoking on balconies RCCL receives increased complaints from non-smokers on their balconies which only accelerates a RCCL ban on smoking on the balconies.

 

hmmmm-things that make you go ouhhhh, ouhhh.... ;)

[Bakincakes]

Suppose that because of the promised increased smoking on balconies RCCL receives increased complaints from non-smokers on their balconies which only accelerates a RCCL ban on smoking on the balconies.

 

hmmmm-things that make you go ouhhhh, ouhhh.... ;)

 

Or maybe RCCL will ban non-smokers from booking balconies??:p

[Captain Jake]

Yup noticed you do tend to ignore what you don't wan't to hear

 

Yup we got somethin' in common:D....................You see I learned to ignore the kids when they made silly request.

[DC2OC]

RCL needs both smokers and non-smokers.Smokers say on average smokers drink/gamble more.Notice I said on average.The new Celebrity ships have the entire top deck with Spa Cabins.This shows RCL believes there is a market for the healthy lifestyle.Cruiselines don't need just cruisers who gamble and drink only.There is also a market for those will instead buy massages,ect,ect,ect.Ever notice the new ships have much larger gyms and spas.Sure the ships are 50% larger but the gyms and spas are over twice the size.The market is changing and there are other ways to raise revenue than simply the casino.The Paradase that some posters like to refer to is ancient history.Give me a couple hundred dollars in spa treatments over losing a hundred bucks in the casino anyday.

[Chris3679]

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.

 

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:

 

More opinion on the Osteen ruling

 

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

 

 

[/size]

 

Is the character assassination of a Federal Judge the best you can come up with?

 

Judge Osteen was not the first or only objective source to scathe the EPA

The US Congressional Research Service, after analyzing the EPA's report concluded that:

 

"The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.... Even at the greatest exposure levels....very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS."

-Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer Risk," CRS, Nov. 14, 1995

 

In 1994, a Congressional inquiry into the EPA and its methods, specifically as these related to the Agency's dealings with secondhand smoke, concluded:

 

"The process at every turn has been characterized by both scientific and procedural irregularities. Those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in the preparation of the risk assessment and members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document."

 

A US Department of Energy Report, not only found serious and telling flaws in EPA's methodology, but went on to demolish the underlying studies, additionally quoting EPA's prior critiques (prior to the EPA's finding them useful) of these very same studies! According to this report, the vast majority of the studies EPA later used as part of "proof" that ETS was carcinogenic had been earlier dismissed, by the same EPA, as being either statistically or methodolog-ically flawed.

- "Choices In Risk Assessment," US DOE, Sundia Nat'l Labs, 1994

 

The Australian Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, officially rejecting the EPA report because:

 

"The [study] results set out in tabular and statistical form did not support the claim of risk."

- Federal Focus, Vol VIII, NO. 11, 1993

 

There are (literally) volumes of material offered that would minutely dissect and contradict EPAs findings and put their stats into perspective.

 

It should be pointed out here (as it will again later) that among what Osteen called "the important (opposing) findings" that EPA "failed to disclose" were the findings of the largest extant study ever done up to that point (Brownson et al, 1992) funded by the National Cancer Institute. Had these findings been included in their final analysis, EPA's entire premise would have sunk.

 

The questions may arise as to why the Osteen decision had so little public influence. The answers may lie in two (perhaps not unrelated) things.

 

It got little publicity. (The NY TIMES buried it on page 23. Bottom.)

 

By 1998, when the decision came down, the "influence on public opinion" was a fait accompli. Everyone already "assumed" that ETS killed. Already-on-the-books laws had been based on it. Careers had been built on it. Mortgages were paid with it. Money was rolling in to scientists and many others via taxpayer grants. And the media, as well as the pundits of every stripe, were already out on the limb.

 

And nobody, ever, likes to have to say "Ooops!"

 

Another little-publicized study was conducted by the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) part of the World Health Organization (WHO). The research ran for 10 years and covered 7 European countries. No matter how it's spun (and it has been) the study concluded there was no statistically significant risk for non-smokers who either lived with or worked with smokers. In fact, the only numbers it arrived at that had actual statistical significance, showed a slightly decreased lung cancer risk in later life among the children of smokers.

-"Multicenter Case-Control Study Of Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer In Europe," Bofetta Et Al, Journal Of The NCI, Vol 90, NO.19, October 7, 1998

 

The Wall Street Journal covered the release of the WHO report thus: (3/19/98)

 

SMOKING OUT BAD SCIENCE:

 

"For the past 15 years the antismoking lobby has pushed the view that secondhand cigarette smoke is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For, having failed to persuade most committed smokers to save themselves, they could use proof that passive smoking harms wives, children and co-workers to make the case for criminalizing smoking.

 

But the science fell off the campaign wagon two weeks ago when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. Don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. The anti-smoking movement, after all, has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one.

 

It is now obvious that antismoking activists have knowingly overstated the risks of secondhand smoke."

 

 

And now comes the capper.

 

A new (2003) study with an impeccable provenance-- the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study (CPS1)-- shows the same results as the WHO study, and with no room for wiggle, spin or ambiguity.

 

Focusing on 35,561 never-smoking Californians married to smokers, who were followed by the Cancer Society for 39 years (1959 to 1998), the tabular results not only--and absolutely -- showed no lung cancer risk whatsoever but actually showed a slightly lower risk than expected among the general never-smoker population.

 

These results held for both men (0.75 @ 95% confidence) and women (0.99 @ 95%), held both before and after the results were mathematically adjusted for seven relevant confounders, and further, showed no dose response trend (the risks did not grow with the amount of exposure.) (*)

-"Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Tobacco-Related Mortality In A Prospective Study Of Californians, 1960-98," Enstrom & Kabat, BMJ 5/17/03

 

This ought to, definitively, put the matter to rest.

 

Except among those who are hopelessly committed to a social agenda.

[Captain Jake]

Is the character assassination of a Federal Judge the best you can come up with?

 

Judge Osteen was not the first or only objective source to scathe the EPA

The US Congressional Research Service, after analyzing the EPA's report concluded that:

 

"The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.... Even at the greatest exposure levels....very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS."

-Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer Risk," CRS, Nov. 14, 1995

 

In 1994, a Congressional inquiry into the EPA and its methods, specifically as these related to the Agency's dealings with secondhand smoke, concluded:

 

"The process at every turn has been characterized by both scientific and procedural irregularities. Those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in the preparation of the risk assessment and members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document."

 

A US Department of Energy Report, not only found serious and telling flaws in EPA's methodology, but went on to demolish the underlying studies, additionally quoting EPA's prior critiques (prior to the EPA's finding them useful) of these very same studies! According to this report, the vast majority of the studies EPA later used as part of "proof" that ETS was carcinogenic had been earlier dismissed, by the same EPA, as being either statistically or methodolog-ically flawed.

- "Choices In Risk Assessment," US DOE, Sundia Nat'l Labs, 1994

 

The Australian Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, officially rejecting the EPA report because:

 

"The [study] results set out in tabular and statistical form did not support the claim of risk."

- Federal Focus, Vol VIII, NO. 11, 1993

 

There are (literally) volumes of material offered that would minutely dissect and contradict EPAs findings and put their stats into perspective.

 

It should be pointed out here (as it will again later) that among what Osteen called "the important (opposing) findings" that EPA "failed to disclose" were the findings of the largest extant study ever done up to that point (Brownson et al, 1992) funded by the National Cancer Institute. Had these findings been included in their final analysis, EPA's entire premise would have sunk.

 

The questions may arise as to why the Osteen decision had so little public influence. The answers may lie in two (perhaps not unrelated) things.

 

It got little publicity. (The NY TIMES buried it on page 23. Bottom.)

 

By 1998, when the decision came down, the "influence on public opinion" was a fait accompli. Everyone already "assumed" that ETS killed. Already-on-the-books laws had been based on it. Careers had been built on it. Mortgages were paid with it. Money was rolling in to scientists and many others via taxpayer grants. And the media, as well as the pundits of every stripe, were already out on the limb.

 

And nobody, ever, likes to have to say "Ooops!"

 

Another little-publicized study was conducted by the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) part of the World Health Organization (WHO). The research ran for 10 years and covered 7 European countries. No matter how it's spun (and it has been) the study concluded there was no statistically significant risk for non-smokers who either lived with or worked with smokers. In fact, the only numbers it arrived at that had actual statistical significance, showed a slightly decreased lung cancer risk in later life among the children of smokers.

-"Multicenter Case-Control Study Of Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer In Europe," Bofetta Et Al, Journal Of The NCI, Vol 90, NO.19, October 7, 1998

 

The Wall Street Journal covered the release of the WHO report thus: (3/19/98)

 

SMOKING OUT BAD SCIENCE:

 

"For the past 15 years the antismoking lobby has pushed the view that secondhand cigarette smoke is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For, having failed to persuade most committed smokers to save themselves, they could use proof that passive smoking harms wives, children and co-workers to make the case for criminalizing smoking.

 

But the science fell off the campaign wagon two weeks ago when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. Don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. The anti-smoking movement, after all, has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one.

 

It is now obvious that antismoking activists have knowingly overstated the risks of secondhand smoke."

 

 

And now comes the capper.

 

A new (2003) study with an impeccable provenance-- the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study (CPS1)-- shows the same results as the WHO study, and with no room for wiggle, spin or ambiguity.

 

Focusing on 35,561 never-smoking Californians married to smokers, who were followed by the Cancer Society for 39 years (1959 to 1998), the tabular results not only--and absolutely -- showed no lung cancer risk whatsoever but actually showed a slightly lower risk than expected among the general never-smoker population.

 

These results held for both men (0.75 @ 95% confidence) and women (0.99 @ 95%), held both before and after the results were mathematically adjusted for seven relevant confounders, and further, showed no dose response trend (the risks did not grow with the amount of exposure.) (*)

-"Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Tobacco-Related Mortality In A Prospective Study Of Californians, 1960-98," Enstrom & Kabat, BMJ 5/17/03

 

This ought to, definitively, put the matter to rest.

 

Except among those who are hopelessly committed to a social agenda.

 

We agree that the facts should have put this matter to rest and I believe the CDC and American Cancer Society over the crap you post.Its reminds me of the movie "thank You for smoking'.

[romancing_the_sea]

Do you realize that the new smoking policy will probably have the effect of increasing the amount of smoke you will be exposed to in the outside areas?

 

No smoking in cabins = more smoking not in cabins

 

Oh dear, that does sound like a problem. Maybe they should have smokers smoking in the cabin - not on the balcony and public areas. I wonder what other cruise lines will be doing.

[Obaybee..tryingthisagain]

Wow this thread is turning into a series!

I am a non smoker. In Alabama you have smoking and non smoking restaurants. Makes a lot more sense to me then having non-smoking sections.

What RCCL does about smoking obviously won't concern me as much as it will you smokers.

I do have a beef about more people smoking on balconies though.

On a cruise year before last I was enjoying the full moon with my husband on our balcony. Then from the deck above us, a careless smoker threw his/her still lit cigarette over the railing and it landed in on my very expensive formal gown and ruined it with a burn the size of a penny. I was livid.:mad:

Smoker or non smoker be mindful of throwing waste overboard!

[SDN]

Is the character assassination of a Federal Judge the best you can come up with?

 

Judge Osteen was not the first or only objective source to scathe the EPA

The US Congressional Research Service, after analyzing the EPA's report concluded that:

 

"The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.... Even at the greatest exposure levels....very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS."

-Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer Risk," CRS, Nov. 14, 1995

 

In 1994, a Congressional inquiry into the EPA and its methods, specifically as these related to the Agency's dealings with secondhand smoke, concluded:

 

"The process at every turn has been characterized by both scientific and procedural irregularities. Those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in the preparation of the risk assessment and members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document."

 

A US Department of Energy Report, not only found serious and telling flaws in EPA's methodology, but went on to demolish the underlying studies, additionally quoting EPA's prior critiques (prior to the EPA's finding them useful) of these very same studies! According to this report, the vast majority of the studies EPA later used as part of "proof" that ETS was carcinogenic had been earlier dismissed, by the same EPA, as being either statistically or methodolog-ically flawed.

- "Choices In Risk Assessment," US DOE, Sundia Nat'l Labs, 1994

 

The Australian Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, officially rejecting the EPA report because:

 

"The [study] results set out in tabular and statistical form did not support the claim of risk."

- Federal Focus, Vol VIII, NO. 11, 1993

 

There are (literally) volumes of material offered that would minutely dissect and contradict EPAs findings and put their stats into perspective.

 

It should be pointed out here (as it will again later) that among what Osteen called "the important (opposing) findings" that EPA "failed to disclose" were the findings of the largest extant study ever done up to that point (Brownson et al, 1992) funded by the National Cancer Institute. Had these findings been included in their final analysis, EPA's entire premise would have sunk.

 

The questions may arise as to why the Osteen decision had so little public influence. The answers may lie in two (perhaps not unrelated) things.

 

It got little publicity. (The NY TIMES buried it on page 23. Bottom.)

 

By 1998, when the decision came down, the "influence on public opinion" was a fait accompli. Everyone already "assumed" that ETS killed. Already-on-the-books laws had been based on it. Careers had been built on it. Mortgages were paid with it. Money was rolling in to scientists and many others via taxpayer grants. And the media, as well as the pundits of every stripe, were already out on the limb.

 

And nobody, ever, likes to have to say "Ooops!"

 

Another little-publicized study was conducted by the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) part of the World Health Organization (WHO). The research ran for 10 years and covered 7 European countries. No matter how it's spun (and it has been) the study concluded there was no statistically significant risk for non-smokers who either lived with or worked with smokers. In fact, the only numbers it arrived at that had actual statistical significance, showed a slightly decreased lung cancer risk in later life among the children of smokers.

-"Multicenter Case-Control Study Of Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer In Europe," Bofetta Et Al, Journal Of The NCI, Vol 90, NO.19, October 7, 1998

 

The Wall Street Journal covered the release of the WHO report thus: (3/19/98)

 

SMOKING OUT BAD SCIENCE:

 

"For the past 15 years the antismoking lobby has pushed the view that secondhand cigarette smoke is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For, having failed to persuade most committed smokers to save themselves, they could use proof that passive smoking harms wives, children and co-workers to make the case for criminalizing smoking.

 

But the science fell off the campaign wagon two weeks ago when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. Don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. The anti-smoking movement, after all, has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one.

 

It is now obvious that antismoking activists have knowingly overstated the risks of secondhand smoke."

 

 

And now comes the capper.

 

A new (2003) study with an impeccable provenance-- the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study (CPS1)-- shows the same results as the WHO study, and with no room for wiggle, spin or ambiguity.

 

Focusing on 35,561 never-smoking Californians married to smokers, who were followed by the Cancer Society for 39 years (1959 to 1998), the tabular results not only--and absolutely -- showed no lung cancer risk whatsoever but actually showed a slightly lower risk than expected among the general never-smoker population.

 

These results held for both men (0.75 @ 95% confidence) and women (0.99 @ 95%), held both before and after the results were mathematically adjusted for seven relevant confounders, and further, showed no dose response trend (the risks did not grow with the amount of exposure.) (*)

-"Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Tobacco-Related Mortality In A Prospective Study Of Californians, 1960-98," Enstrom & Kabat, BMJ 5/17/03

 

This ought to, definitively, put the matter to rest.

 

Except among those who are hopelessly committed to a social agenda.

 

 

Capper??? HAHA you ripped this word for word from someone else's forum post but you left out the next post. You have no credibility on this subject. All you do is post without verifying what you are trying to pass off.

 

There is no provenance on your assertion from the American Cancer Society.

 

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

 

This mentions the 2006 Surgeon General report which is newer than anything you can come up with.

 

Excerpt from report:

 

1. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.Supporting Evidence
   
   • Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
     
   • Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
     
   • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
     
   • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.

Full report

 

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

 

You are stuck on Lung Cancer, but you keep ignoring the many other immediate health risks.

 

No one has any reason to provide any inaccurate information on this. Any non smoker can spend a few hours in a smoky bar or casino and know what it does. There is no conspiracy here.

[EMTgoneNUTZ]

I do have a beef about more people smoking on balconies though.

On a cruise year before last I was enjoying the full moon with my husband on our balcony. Then from the deck above us, a careless smoker threw his/her still lit cigarette over the railing and it landed in on my very expensive formal gown and ruined it with a burn the size of a penny. I was livid.:mad:

Smoker or non smoker be mindful of throwing waste overboard!

 

Oh my! I'm so sorry Ob! That is awful and I would have been livid as well!!!!! I do not throw my butts in my yard, driveway, sidewalks, etc., and have never thrown a smoke off a ship. I rarely throw them out the car window but NEVER if it's dry (fire hazard)...I try not to do it but sometimes I'm just not thinking when I do it...but NEVER on a ship would I do that, for fear of what happened to you, or starting a fire, let alone how many millions of butts are already in the ocean w/o adding my own??? Again, sorry about your dress:(

[aqhacruiser]

Oh dear, that does sound like a problem. Maybe they should have smokers smoking in the cabin - not on the balcony and public areas. I wonder what other cruise lines will be doing.

 

Non smokers have been asking for non smoking cabins forever! Now they have them. Instead of being happy, they are not. That's too bad. This is what they wanted, this is what RCCL gave them. Maybe some non smokers are regretting it now but it's the old saying......be careful what you wish for. I'm sure RCCL thinks this is the perfect fair compromise and I agree with them. Non smokers can no longer complain as they have non smoking cabins and smokers have all the balconys so they can't complain. The new policy in Jan. has very little effect on smokers that book into balconys/suites so if they want to smoke they will continue to book balconys/suites and non smokers have all the interiors and OV's if they really want to avoid smoke altogether near their cabin. Look at it this way, most smokers are willing to pay more money for the privilage of smoking on our balconys;) and I guess as long as the balconys sell out it will prove to RCCL everyone is happy! Of course non smokers will still have to contend with smoke in the limited designated smoking sections on the decks, pool, bars and casino but RCCL needs both smoking and non smoking guests to fill the ships so non smokers will just have to compromise like the smokers are doing that accept the fact that the majority of all public areas are non smoking. PLUS non smokers have the non smoking cabins they wanted so I'm not sure why they are still complaining unless they want completely non smoking ships which is obviously not happening on the RCCL ships. If they want a non smoking ship, RCCL offers their new cruiseline Azamara which has non smoking cabins AND balconys so non smokers DO have another choice if they really want to be away from smoke altogether. If RCCL does not fill the Azamara ships, they will allow smoking in cabins and/or balconys on those too. This topic always gets way out of hand and there are people that will never be happy with any smoking policy so it's just not worth discussing it with them. This IS the new RCCL smoking policy and if people want to continue sailing with RCCL they will either have to accept it or book on another line. Happy sails! :)

[dc-snoopy]

I do have a beef about more people smoking on balconies though.

On a cruise year before last I was enjoying the full moon with my husband on our balcony. Then from the deck above us, a careless smoker threw his/her still lit cigarette over the railing and it landed in on my very expensive formal gown and ruined it with a burn the size of a penny. I was livid.:mad:

Smoker or non smoker be mindful of throwing waste overboard!

 

Okay, I'm an avid non-smoker who argues many of the non-smoker points of view, but even I think that smokers should not be singled out here. I have found that all people, whether they smoke or not have a fairly equal tendency to be litterers. I have routinely seen vehicles where people open their windows and throw trash out. I've seen lots of cigarettes, fast food waste, candy wrappers, etc. My old home was about 100 yards from the school bus stop and most of the kids in our neighbor hood walked past my house to get to and from the bus stop. I picked up trash in my yard daily. I live on a corner in my new neighborhood and although it isn't daily, I still pick up trash in my yard weekly.

 

As bad as the cigarette butts are on the beaches, I've also found tons of candy wrappers and assorted trash. I make it a point to keep a couple of extra supermarket plastic bags in my backpack when going hiking or to the beach and end up picking up trash along the hike or around my area of the beach.

 

And although I particularly hate cigarette butts, I have to say that there are a significant number of clueless Americans that are litterbugs whether they smoke or not. The only extra danger from smokers is that they frequently do not tamp out their cigarette butts before throwing them away and I have seen many fire hazards. Nothing annoys me more than driving along and watching someone pitch a lit cigarette out of their car window and watching the embers blowing around.

[Captain Jake]

Non smokers have been asking for non smoking cabins forever! Now they have them. Instead of being happy, they are not. That's too bad. This is what they wanted, this is what RCCL gave them. Maybe some non smokers are regretting it now but it's the old saying......be careful what you wish for. I'm sure RCCL thinks this is the perfect fair compromise and I agree with them. Non smokers can no longer complain as they have non smoking cabins and smokers have all the balconys so they can't complain. The new policy in Jan. has very little effect on smokers that book into balconys/suites so if they want to smoke they will continue to book balconys/suites and non smokers have all the interiors and OV's if they really want to avoid smoke altogether near their cabin. Look at it this way, most smokers are willing to pay more money for the privilage of smoking on our balconys;) and I guess as long as the balconys sell out it will prove to RCCL everyone is happy! Of course non smokers will still have to contend with smoke in the limited designated smoking sections on the decks, pool, bars and casino but RCCL needs both smoking and non smoking guests to fill the ships so non smokers will just have to compromise like the smokers are doing that accept the fact that the majority of all public areas are non smoking. PLUS non smokers have the non smoking cabins they wanted so I'm not sure why they are still complaining unless they want completely non smoking ships which is obviously not happening on the RCCL ships. If they want a non smoking ship, RCCL offers their new cruiseline Azamara which has non smoking cabins AND balconys so non smokers DO have another choice if they really want to be away from smoke altogether. If RCCL does not fill the Azamara ships, they will allow smoking in cabins and/or balconys on those too. This topic always gets way out of hand and there are people that will never be happy with any smoking policy so it's just not worth discussing it with them. This IS the new RCCL smoking policy and if people want to continue sailing with RCCL they will either have to accept it or book on another line. Happy sails! :)

 

Actually the Azamara ships are booking well and those who waited are stuck with higher prices.As poster earlier pointed out the new Celebrity ships have a spa section.Healthier lifestyles are a wave of the future.Spa revenue is the wave a the future and the profits off a good massage and a Martini pales the profits of nickel slots and a bucket of Buds(I like the nickel slots and beer).The overwhelming success of Azamara was part of the reason of this change .I believe the smokers who are upset with this policy see as the first step of things to come.There's no question they are right.I don't think the balcony experience will change much for the non-smoker.Most smokers who booked inside/outsides didn't smoke in their cabin anyway.Besides the newer ships are mostly balconies anyway.You are right smokers/non-smokers who don't like it can book another line.Heck why be loyal to one line.They all have some good to offer

[qorc]

are there people here really stupid enough to try and pretend that smoking isn't unhealthy???

 

well, since they choose to be smokers themselves, it's hardly surprising given the level of idiot that would knowingly do this as a hobby. A large dose of self-delusion and a lack of basic smarts? I think so.

[qorc]

My grandfather lived to be 90 and as near as we can figure he smoked around 1,000,000 unfiltered Camels in his life. I'm guessing he would made it to 150 easy had he laid off the smokes.

 

I love how people drag out the exceptions and then try and prove that the rule doesn't exist.

 

Yeah, everyone knows someone like that.

 

But add up those stories against the 400,000 who die every year, and mostly die EARLY from smoking-related illness.

 

I'm glad you're not a scientist. Because the way you draw conclusions is beyond flawed.

[Captain Jake]

One of my biggest chuckles on this silly thread is that belief that smokers will take over the balconies.I expect to see little or no change in my cruise experience.Get Real!Nearly everyone is on a budget.The extra dollars a balcony would cost cannot be spent in the casino,excursions,bar,ect,ect,ect.We are nearly all on a budget and there is a limit on what most of us are willing to pay for a cruise and the thought that many smokers will flock to and overtake the balconies is a bunch of hogwash

[vjmatty]

Better hurry gorc... you are way behind in your usual smoking-thread insults and have a lot of catching up to do. Sucks to have to gather that much venom all at once doesn't it? :p

[GAV BOY]

I love how people drag out the exceptions and then try and prove that the rule doesn't exist.

 

Yeah, everyone knows someone like that.

 

But add up those stories against the 400,000 who die every year, and mostly die EARLY from smoking-related illness.

 

I'm glad you're not a scientist. Because the way you draw conclusions is beyond flawed.

 

 

Well put, :D if Cruise lines ban smoking period then everyone will know where they stand ! :eek:

 

Everyone happy ! :rolleyes:

[Chris3679]

Capper??? HAHA you ripped this word for word from someone else's forum post but you left out the next post. You have no credibility on this subject. All you do is post without verifying what you are trying to pass off.

 

 

 

Excerpt from report:

 

You are stuck on Lung Cancer, but you keep ignoring the many other immediate health risks.

 

No one has any reason to provide any inaccurate information on this. Any non smoker can spend a few hours in a smoky bar or casino and know what it does. There is no conspiracy here.

 

 

What's your point? I quoted it from this website - isn't that what you're doing?:

http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/EPA.html

 

I am not stuck on lung cancer as you claim. I was responding to a post alleging that passive smoke caused lung cancer in a family member.

 

Here are some links to various studies and a huge bibliography on secondhand smoke including, cancer, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, etc.

 

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

ttp://*****.com/2sm945

[boaterette]

So a lot of the peole here are saying that most smokers don't smoke in their cabin anyway and then a lot of people saying you can't walk down the hallways without smelling the stench of cigarettes. So really which is it?

 

Also to those who are saying that the spas will be making more money don't forget that these are owned by outside companies.

[Mark_K]

One of my biggest chuckles on this silly thread is that belief that smokers will take over the balconies.I expect to see little or no change in my cruise experience.Get Real!Nearly everyone is on a budget.The extra dollars a balcony would cost cannot be spent in the casino,excursions,bar,ect,ect,ect.We are nearly all on a budget and there is a limit on what most of us are willing to pay for a cruise and the thought that many smokers will flock to and overtake the balconies is a bunch of hogwash

Time will tell. Most people I know that cruise that stay in non-balcony cabins could actually afford a balcony but would prefer not to spend the money. I don't know many smokers, but it's seems to me budget isn't the priority to them when it relates to smoking. I could see many of them, albiet reluctantly, forking over the extra cash.

[Captain Jake]

So a lot of the peole here are saying that most smokers don't smoke in their cabin anyway and then a lot of people saying you can't walk down the hallways without smelling the stench of cigarettes. So really which is it?

 

Also to those who are saying that the spas will be making more money don't forget that these are owned by outside companies.

 

 

Sure the spas are owned by outside companies,but you can be sure RCL making big money off of them or else they would not exist.I've never said I smelt smoke in the hallways though some have and lots of smokers on this thread along with smoker friends say they do not smoke in cabins.I feel the non-smokers who say they are losing are wrong and those who say the spa business is not growing simply aren't looking at deck plans or their local shopping centers

[qorc]

Better hurry gorc... you are way behind in your usual smoking-thread insults and have a lot of catching up to do. Sucks to have to gather that much venom all at once doesn't it? :p

 

Not at all. It's quite humorous, to be frank. Funny how people can be so self-deluded and self-righteous in their God-given right to kill the rest of us with their incredibly and stupifyingly ignorant habit of inhaling known super-heated carcinogens into their systems and then blowing it out.

 

Do I care if you smoke? Heck no! In fact, from a financial standpoint, the government should NOT attack tobacco companies, they should be supporting them! The faster people die, the lower the long term social security, medicare and medicaid costs to all of us. Thus, the lower taxes on me and mine, and all people like us who choose not smoke and will live longer lives. So do us all a favor and, as I say, "Light up!!" I'm completely behind you.

 

Where I'm NOT behind you is when your smoke is around ME. Not only poisoning my lungs but destroying my ability to enjoy a cruise. Smoking on balconies not a problem when you're underway. Smoking in public areas? It's a problem.

 

See that's where YOUR rights end. Exactly at the point where mine begin.

 

But what's even funnier here is how people are trying to argue that the ill-health effects of smoking are either non-existent or are exaggerated. It's really funny.

 

But as I say. Please, IN THE PRIVACY OF YOUR HOME, PROPERTY OR CAR, light up!!!

 

and decrease the population of smokers and those too ignorant to read 50 years of warnings about this insidious habit.