RCCL New Smoking Policy Discussion (merged)

[qorc]

people here really aren't talking about people who smoke "one or two cigarettes" per week.

 

We're debating heavy smokers, especially those we encounter on cruises.

 

You're trying to change the debate. Nice try. Won't work.

 

As I said in an earlier post, GO AHEAD AND LIGHT UP PEOPLE!! As long as you do it in your own home or car when children or non-smokers aren't around. Go ahead. Smoke and die! It will mean less taxes for social security and medicare for the rest of us ultimately.

 

But to smoke around me and mine, and then try to equate that to driving cars? Beyond moronic.

 

And yeah, I maintain, given all the information out there (see above), to not only take up smoking but to CONTINUE it for your adulthood not only shows amazing stupdity, but staggering personal weakness as well. I'm sorry, I'm not a "we are the world" kinda person. I have great sympathy for those who are in bad circumstances not in their control.

 

I have no sympathy for those who choose their bad circumstances, and worse, poison the rest of us doing it. None.

[vjmatty]

Or fall on them in your case.

 

Nice retort! ;)

[qorc]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4283295.stm

 

 

 

I post this assuming that you wanted a statistic for air pollution and not carbon monoxide poisoning? And according to the article the death rate from air pollution falls short of your 400,000 mark but over 300,000 is still a stark number.

 

I never doubted the poor effects of carbon monoxide. But again it's not the killer that ciggies are. And the 400,000 is in the US alone. WORLDWIDE IT IS IN THE TENS OF MILLIONS A YEAR. Your link doesn't refute what I said.

 

Hey, I would LOVE if we all have clean cars and trucks. Unfortunately, we NEED cars and trucks in our economy and lives. Until there is an alternative, unless you're saying we should go back to HORSES AND CARTS, we are stuck with them.

 

But no one NEEDS cigarettes.

 

so, again, bad analogy.

[alcheme]

I would hardly call one or two cigarettes per week "staggeringly ignorant", you have a very simplistic way of thinking when you don't recognize degrees and see only absolutes.

 

I have to agree with you there. One or two per week implies that you are NOT addicted, and yet you choose to smoke anyway. Staggeringly ignorant is probably not strong enough.

[JoeD]

The Ten Biggest Lies about Smoke & Smoking

 

By Robert Hayes Halfpenny

 

THE LIE: Cigarette smoke and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) or Second Hand Smoke (SHS) Causes cancer.

 

THE Truth: Simply stated there is no known cause for any type of cancer. With all the testing that has been done with every type of chemical, gas, inert matter, and substances that have been altered through exposure to heat or chemical reaction, nothing has been proven to cause cancer. NOTHING! In some instances specific substances, in massive quantities, have been administered to laboratory rats. In these cases many of the animals might have developed a cancer. These sorts of tests may be considered Junk Science in that they have no relationship to a real life scenario.

 

The World Health Organization ran one of the most exhaustive tests on SHS ever done. After years of meticulous record keeping of all the data, their ultimate findings showed no measurable relationship of SHS to any form of cancer or other illness. The only measurable fact they did discover was that of all adult children who came from homes where both parents smoked had had a 22% better chance of NOT contracting lung cancer than did adult children who came from homes where both parents did not smoke. The W.H. O attempted to hid these facts from the public until several astute reporters forced them to make their facts public.

 

THE LIE: The desire for smoking bans is a grass roots movement.

 

THE TRUTH: Smoking bans have almost exclusively been started by organizations such as The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, A.S.H., the Heart, Cancer, and Lung Organizations and major pharmaceutical corporations. Over one billion dollars, from the Master Tobacco Settlement has funded the activities of many of these organizations for the past 5 years. Promoting smoking bans is big business for these organizations, especially the drug companies who are reaping huge profits on their almost worthless smoking cessation products.

 

When all sources of money are added together, nearly $1,500,000,000.00 have been squandered in bring about smoking bans in about 155 municipalities across the nation. The average money spent on each of these municipalities equates to about $9,675,000.00 per location. In simpler terms it will take Jerry Lewis’s Muscular Dystrophy Telethon 30 years to collect the same sum of money at the rate of $50,000,000.00 per Telethon. When a properly informed public is given the opportunity to vote on a smoking ban issue, they invariably will vote the ban down. This has already happened on numerous occasions and it is expected to occur in New York City by 2005.

 

THE LIE: Second Hand Smoke is a public health issue.

 

THE TRUTH: It is impossible for SHS to be a public health issue for the simple reason there is NO proof that SHS has hurt anyone. In fact, according the W.H.O. (see above), SHS may have some beneficial effect on children. The smoke haters like to point out that the Health Departments have a right to control smoking issues for the same reason they have the right to check on health conditions in restaurants and bars.

 

This is a specious argument primarily because true health issues in food service establishments relate primarily to microbes and organisms that have an absolute direct effect on heath and sanitation. It is the Health Departments’ sole responsibility to see to it that health standards are maintained. If individuals are concerned about SHS a simple notice stating that smoking is allowed is all that is needed for the public to make a decision about patronizing and establishment. This concept is called, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!

 

THE LIE: Smoking bans are good for business.

 

THE TRUTH: Of all the nonsense put forth by the smoke haters this concept is nearly the most ridiculous. There was no basis in fact for this idea when originally stated. Now that the financial results of the bans are being felt in many different cities it is becoming painfully obvious that many businesses are being irreparably harmed. Many of the smoke haters who not only are experts on SHS would also have you believe they are experts in the field of accounting. They will site tax records and other data to prove the business of bars and restaurants are up since the bans were imposed. Their numbers however are egregiously manipulated and include figures from establishments that normally wouldn’t be part of such a survey.

 

The fact of the matter is the anecdotal evidence is far more realistic. There is a hardly a restaurant or bar that hasn’t been adversely affected by these bans. Business has dropped off from between 20% and 50%. Many businesses have been forced to close. Jobs have been lost, a life time of work in building a business has been lost, and city tax revenues have been adversely affected.

 

THE LIE: Restaurants and bars are public businesses.

 

THE TRUTH: All restaurants, bars, and any other businesses that have been set up by an individual or group of individuals are PRIVATE ENTERPRISES! There is no getting around this fact. It is carved in granite. Our Constitution mandates the rights of private property as one of the most important rights we have! The fact that anyone should think they have the right to abrogate the very tenets of our Constitution demonstrates a colossal arrogance that we can not afford to have in this country.

 

When a small group of people attempt to force their own jaundiced views on the citizenry it is called an Oligarchy. Our elected officials are our SERVANTS! They are in office for only one purpose and that is to see to the needs of all the people Henry David Thoreau said in the 19th century, “the government that governs best, governs least”. He was right then---he is right today!

 

THE LIE: Technology does not work

 

THE TRUTH: Dr. James Repace, the self appointed expert on second hand smoke, once stated to the effect that a 300 mile per hour hurricane couldn’t clear out the danger of SHS in an enclosed space. In Atlanta, Georgia there is an organization that deals with some of the most dangerous infectious germs and bacteria in the World. Out of very obvious necessity, the filtration system they use must be 100% effective, 100% of the time. The system they use (which does contain several built in redundancies) is not out of “Buck Rogers” but one that is very similar to the type of commercial systems most restaurants or bars use.

 

Several St. Louis Park food service establishments had their air tested by an independent organization. The results of these tests showed favorable results and the overall effectiveness of properly maintained filtrations systems. If Atlanta, Georgia can have an organization that deals with Anthrax, Small Pox, Bubonic Plague and other organisms that could kill people by the 100’s of thousands with no fear of exposure, common sense dictates that similar filtrations systems should work on the relatively benign particulates of SHS.

 

THE LIE: 3000 lives a year are lost due to SHS.

 

THE TRUTH: Originally the number that was first generated by the E.P.A. was 53,000 deaths per year. They published this number before even running their “test”. The “test” is in fact not a test, but rather what is called a META survey. This survey took 31 different reports and compiled all the data to come up with a figure of only 3,000 deaths that were attributed other undefined causes. The first number E.P.A. published was a piece of hypothetical misinformation. The second number of 3,000 they put forth was a deliberate lie. A Federal Judge by the name of Osteen ruled the 3,000 deaths attributed to SHS by the E.P.A. was a deliberate lie foisted on an unsuspecting public. Judge Osteen determined the number of 3,000 deaths was not attributable to SHS and that the E.P.A. told this lie in the expectation to harm the legitimate business pursuits of the tobacco industry. Judge Osteen completely vacated the findings of the E.P.A. So that there is no misunderstanding as to this decision, it should be noted that another court partially overturned Judge’s Osteen decision for purely judicial reasons. THEY DID NOT, in any way, repudiate Judge Osteen’s basic premise concerning his comments about the E.P.A. or their motives.

 

THE LIE: Most people approve and support smoking bans.

 

THE TRUTH: most people who do not smoke really don’t care one way or the other about the smoking issue. It is only a very small but well funded group of smoke haters who want to see these ban invoked. When these bans are ultimately passed and the true effect of them is fully realized, then people start to speak out against them. In New York a poll was taken to see how the people felt about the ban. 86% of those polled stated the ban went way too far. At this point in time there is reason to expect the New York may be rescinded in part or in full sometime in 2005.

 

Canada, one of the most strident nations in attempting to enforce a smoking ban nationwide, is currently facing wide spread rebellion against their Draconian measures. The reports of businesses being financially ruined run rampant. Politicians who supported the bans are being voted out of office. Cigarettes, which are now literally worth their weight in sterling silver,

 

are being stolen with increasing regularity and then sold on the black market. These very same actions will and indeed are occurring in the United States as well. If the bans were truly supported would such occurrences happen?

 

THE LIE: Smokers and smoking impose a heavy cost on society.

 

THE TRUTH: Of all the lies told by the anti smoke haters this one has to be the most ludicrous. For example, if smoking kills people well before their time, the saving of Social Security and Medicare benefits would be significant. The extra medical costs to the “State” are more than exceeded by the outrageous taxes currently paid by smokers. Contrary to reports that smokers miss more work time than non-smokers is a completely unsubstantiated number. Indeed, there are so many variables as to why people miss work, it would be impossible to determine whether smoking was a significant cause or not.

 

Furthermore, it has been a policy of long standing that insurance companies assess smokers a higher rate for insurance premiums. This has been done in spite of a lack of any definitive proof that smokers, because of smoking, contribute to higher medical costs. It is astounding that an otherwise healthy person who watches his weight, exercises, eats a healthy diet, and drinks only in moderation if at all, has to pay a higher insurance premium than an obese person who eats and drinks to excess and doesn’t know the meaning of the word exercise, but does not smoke.

 

THE LIE: Smoking statistics do not lie.

 

THE TRUTH: In this World there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Never has an argument been won based on statistic alone. They can serve only as a point of departure. In a free and open society people must be allowed to operate as free agents without the fetters of the doomsayers. Life is a risk, but it is that risk which gives it zest. When we allow ourselves to sacrifice our freedoms for the sake of safety, we deserve neither safety nor freedom. Accepting statistics at face value will lead us down that garden path. There are many statistics that can be cited that make the danger of smoking seem mild by comparison.

 

For example, the use of cell phones, hair dryers, and electric blankets have higher risks that SHS. About half of the smoking population has quit over the past 30 years, yet there has been no comparable increase in life expectancy. The smoke haters will quickly tell you this is because of the effects of second hand smoke. The fallacy of their argument is that if there has been smoking there has also been second hand smoke. In spite of the decline of smoking, childhood illnesses such as asthma, ear infections and A.D.D are rapidly increasing. Cigarettes and/or smoke have about 4,000 identifiable chemicals. Your daily diet has about 10,000 such chemicals. Arsenic which is considered a leading cause of lung cancer is found in significantly larger quantities in a glass of water than in a cigarette.

[qorc]

I have to agree with you there. One or two per week implies that you are NOT addicted, and yet you choose to smoke anyway. Staggeringly ignorant is probably not strong enough.

 

lol. that's so true.

[vjmatty]

people here really aren't talking about people who smoke "one or two cigarettes" per week.

 

We're debating heavy smokers, especially those we encounter on cruises.

 

You're trying to change the debate. Nice try. Won't work.

 

 

Actually, YOU changed your post, which earlier said "you do staggeringly ignorant things", which is what I responded to. Thank you for making that edit :)

[NthernLgts]

So much for discussion on RCI's new policy. I'm guessing we're within a day of having this one locked away for good.

[Grumm]

people here really aren't talking about people who smoke "one or two cigarettes" per week.

 

We're debating heavy smokers, especially those we encounter on cruises.

 

You're trying to change the debate. Nice try. Won't work.

 

As I said in an earlier post, GO AHEAD AND LIGHT UP PEOPLE!! As long as you do it in your own home or car when children or non-smokers aren't around. Go ahead. Smoke and die! It will mean less taxes for social security and medicare for the rest of us ultimately.

 

But to smoke around me and mine, and then try to equate that to driving cars? Beyond moronic.

 

I have no sympathy for those who choose their bad circumstances, and worse, poison the rest of us doing it. None.

 

"Go ahead. Smoke and die"???? I won't pretend that I understand your perception of moronic, but I believe I've just read an example of it.

 

Alan

[vjmatty]

Staggeringly ignorant would be thinking that one or two cigarettes per week is the same as smoking one or two packs per day... kind of like thinking one or two beers per week will cause cirrhosis :rolleyes:

[NOT my real name]

Keep the great ideas rolling in.

 

Well, let's see. Let's explore if the government mandated that cigarette companies replace cigarettes with a plastic tube as the alternative nicotine delivery device. Today's cigarettes could no longer be legally manufactured and would be replaced by plastic tubes. Those tubes would burn in such a way as to get most of the toxins to stay within the smokers body. A win-win situation for all, although they could probably never get 100% of the toxins to stay within the smokers body. The tubes could be rather large, perhaps the size of a large cigar. Then they could emboss wording onto the sides of the tubes with messages:

 

"I willingly kill children while I smoke",

"I endanger the health of others and don't care",

"I ignore the dangers of smoking"

 

We really need to move to more shocking methods of getting people to stop smoking. For years we have tried to use the carrot approach. Smokers have been coddled and handled with care. It's time to throw the carrot away and start using a stick to get them to stop killing innocent victims.

[Captain Jake]

I never doubted the poor effects of carbon monoxide. But again it's not the killer that ciggies are. And the 400,000 is in the US alone. WORLDWIDE IT IS IN THE TENS OF MILLIONS A YEAR. Your link doesn't refute what I said.

 

Hey, I would LOVE if we all have clean cars and trucks. Unfortunately, we NEED cars and trucks in our economy and lives. Until there is an alternative, unless you're saying we should go back to HORSES AND CARTS, we are stuck with them.

 

But no one NEEDS cigarettes.

 

so, again, bad analogy.

 

You continue to hit HOME RUNS.Time after time on this thread some pro smokers lamely try to deflect from the facts by naming,other causes of cancer,saying the various Health Departments are wrong or questioning the the smarts of non-smokers.They simply want to justify the pollution of our space by saying 'there or worse things'.Others try to deflect your post by accusing you of name calling but NEVER challenge their fellow smokers for doing the same.I may not have a law degree by I know that smoking kills and no matter how many CC members think differently my mind is not going to change

[vjmatty]

You continue to hit HOME RUNS.Time after time on this thread some pro smokers lamely try to deflect from the facts by naming,other causes of cancer,saying the various Health Departments are wrong or questioning the the smarts of non-smokers.They simply want to justify the pollution of our space by saying 'there or worse things'.Others try to deflect your post by accusing you of name calling but NEVER challenge their fellow smokers for doing the same.I may not have a law degree by I know that smoking kills and no matter how many CC members think differently my mind is not going to change

 

Now come on Jake, I never denied smoking causes cancer... please try not to lump all CC members into one person :rolleyes:

 

This "debate" has taken such a twisted direction that I am relieved it is time for me to head to court... bye all! :D

[Grumm]

Well, let's see. Let's explore if the government mandated that cigarette companies replace cigarettes with a plastic tube as the alternative nicotine delivery device. Today's cigarettes could no longer be legally manufactured and would be replaced by plastic tubes. Those tubes would burn in such a way as to get most of the toxins to stay within the smokers body. A win-win situation for all, although they could probably never get 100% of the toxins to stay within the smokers body. The tubes could be rather large, perhaps the size of a large cigar. Then they could emboss wording onto the sides of the tubes with messages:

 

"I willingly kill children while I smoke",

"I endanger the health of others and don't care",

"I ignore the dangers of smoking"

 

 

 

We really need to move to more shocking methods of getting people to stop smoking. For years we have tried to use the carrot approach. Smokers have been coddled and handled with care. It's time to throw the carrot away and start using a stick to get them to stop killing innocent victims.

 

The carrot approach was a cr*p idea. They are almost impossible to light and don't taste as good as cigarettes. Love the way you have us smokers bracketed as murderers.......too funny!

 

Alan

[vjmatty]

The carrot approach was a cr*p idea. They are almost impossible to light and don't taste as good as cigarettes. Love the way you have us smokers bracketed as murderers.......too funny!

 

Alan

 

ROFLMAO :)

 

Now I really have to go

[EileenS]

Not only will the price of balcony cabins go up but non-smokers will never be able to enjoy theirs. Even a polite smoker will not be so courteous about non-smokers complaining about the smell coming over into their balcony. And the casino will probably be overrun with smokers.......This could really be a mess.

 

 

My husband and I are going on a cruise the end of August and have a balcony. We are also smokers. He smokes cigars, I smoke cigarettes.

Maybe we are the minority, but the first thing we do when on a cruise is knock on our neighbors doors and see if smoke bothers them.

Are we still going to smoke out on our balcony? Yes, but NOT when they are outside.

Our last cruise was about 4 years ago and both our neighbors were smokers, so they didn't mind. (obviously)

There are enough places that cruise lines still allow smoking, and I think everyone has the right to enjoy their cruise, smokers and non.

MHO

 

[NOT my real name]

ROFLMAO :)

 

Now I really have to go

 

 

I thought you were already out the door. It's funny how you will stay on here for hours posting your pro-smoking nonsense but then once you start losing your silly arguments and being exposed, then just by shear coincidence you always have some important reason that you have to leave. Funny how that works.

[xpcdoojk]

Actually I have since been advised that the correct term is "don't get your panties in a KNOT"

 

I sit corrected ;)

 

The way I have heard the expression is "don't get your panties in a wad". I think the regular posters on this thread live their lives with their panties in a wad. All wound up a bit too tight and full of worry about things that in the larger scheme of things are of practically nil danger to them. :rolleyes:

 

jc

[NOT my real name]

. They are almost impossible to light and don't taste as good as cigarettes.

 

Oh, boo hoo. Who cares what they taste like. The government needs to force companies to stop making the old ones and only make the new ones. You will have no choice. You will still suck on them because you need your fix. We need to stop you from causing death and disease to innocent victims. If that means you have to suck on something that tastes bad, tough.

[xpcdoojk]

 

Hey, message boards are a rough place. We eat the weak and ridicule the foolish. Make sure you wear armor when you arrive. If you can't deal with it, go find a more politically correct board.

 

Thanks for playing.

 

The clueless post of the month.

 

jc:D

[NOT my real name]

Staggeringly ignorant would be thinking that one or two cigarettes per week is the same as smoking one or two packs per day

 

So you are saying you only smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a week? That means you aren't even addicted to cigarettes. So you have known the dangers of smoking for 50 years and have also known for many years that you are causing death and disease to innocent victims yet you make a conscious decision to go ahead and smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a week. Cold, heartless, sick.

[Grumm]

Oh, boo hoo. Who cares what they taste like. The government needs to force companies to stop making the old ones and only make the new ones. You will have no choice. You will still suck on them because you need your fix. We need to stop you from causing death and disease to innocent victims. If that means you have to suck on something that tastes bad, tough.

 

So much for pathos!

 

Alan

[xpcdoojk]

So you are saying you only smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a week? That means you aren't even addicted to cigarettes. So you have known the dangers of smoking for 50 years and have also known for many years that you are causing death and disease to innocent victims yet you make a conscious decision to go ahead and smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a week. Cold, heartless, sick.

 

OK, that post is simply unbelieveable. :eek:

 

SMOKING IS LEGAL... :cool:

 

Calling someone heartless and sick for doing a legal activity says it all!:mad:

 

Credibility so easily destroyed and still so clueless.:rolleyes:

 

jc

[Grumm]

So you are saying you only smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a week? That means you aren't even addicted to cigarettes. So you have known the dangers of smoking for 50 years and have also known for many years that you are causing death and disease to innocent victims yet you make a conscious decision to go ahead and smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a week. Cold, heartless, sick.

 

Just when I thought I'd figured what "moronic" means, you go and take it to a new level...are you for real or just a trouble-making troll?

[vjmatty]

So you are saying you only smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a week? That means you aren't even addicted to cigarettes. So you have known the dangers of smoking for 50 years and have also known for many years that you are causing death and disease to innocent victims yet you make a conscious decision to go ahead and smoke 1 or 2 cigarettes a week. Cold, heartless, sick.

 

First of all I am not even 40 years old so how would I know something for 50 years? Secondly, what innocent victims? I don't smoke in public and have not killed anyone... so melodramatic! :rolleyes: Can't we all just get along?