its not just NCL with a new limited smoking policy

[smeyer418]

http://www.rclinvestor.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=103045&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1029186&highlight=

although RC looks like its done a better job of early notification....

the puritans win again(although I don't smoke as long its legal and a source of government income-the expansion of child insurance is to be funded with tobacco or liquor taxes-sometimes I think this is going too far)...

[electricron]

With somewhat different policies.:)

Here's a short list of the Smoking/No Smoking Areas:

*Cabins> NCL=Smoking, RCI=No Smoking

Balconies> NCL=Smoking, RCI=Smoking

?*?Casinos> NCL=Smoking, RCI=??Smoking/No Smoking??

*Bars/Lounges> NCL=No smoking except Smoking Lounge, RCI=Smoking except one Lounge

Open Decks> NCL=Smoking on one side, RCI=Smoking on one side

Restaturants> NCL=No Smoking, RCI=No Smoking

Theatres> NCL=No Smoking, RCI=No Smoking

Corridors> NCL=No Smoking, RCI=No Smoking

[seahorse]

Thanks Sid,

 

This is huge:eek: Regent also gave plenty of warning to it`s clients. The President of the company sent out a personal letter.

 

Still have not heard anything from NCL:rolleyes:

[GottaLuvCruising]

It's a sign of the times. Cruise lines, just like restaurants, hotels and rental car companies, are FINALLY waking up. It will still take a while, but it's getting better. Now if only laws would protect children from 2nd hand smoke...

[POOHISME2]

I think it's great RCI gave it's clients 5 months notice, very respectful.

[cliffd64]

Well, this policy HAD to be announced before it could be implemented, because RCI is going to CHARGE you a CLEANING FEE if you violate the policy and smoke in your cabin... :eek: NCL's policy has no financial impact on passengers.

 

In a lot of ways, this policy is more strict than NCL's policy. I imagine that not being able to smoke in your own cabin will be a bit inconvenient for hard-core smokers.

 

Well, between RCI (and it's other brands) and NCL, there is 40 percent of the mass market that has toughened up smoking rules... only the Carnival conglomerate to follow I guess...

[CruisinMatt]

Seabourn also put a new more restrictive smoking policy in place fairly recently as well.

[salty dingo]

CHARGE you a CLEANING FEE if you violate the policy and smoke in your cabin... :eek: NCL's policy has no financial impact on passengers.

 

Hey, RCL, that was my idea! I made that comment earlier in response to NCL's rather questionable policy that guests can smoke in their cabin, but it will be cleaned "extra thoroughly".

 

I wondered why all cabins are not cleaned "extra thoroughly" all the time, and if an extra measure is really needed for smokers, maybe it is fair for them to pay for it??

[RSWBADGER]

I think it's great RCI gave it's clients 5 months notice, very respectful.

 

 

Second hand smoke deserves no respect.

[KeystoneCruiser]

Second hand smoke deserves no respect.

 

 

I'm sorry, I have to agree with Poohisme2 on her comment. I am not a smoker, hate second hand smoke and do support all of the non-smoking laws now in place. (in fact I helped pass the petitions to get it on the Ohio ballot last year.)

 

My point is that there is nothing wrong with smoking bans and I think they are a good thing BUT at the same time, smokers have rights as well and they deserve to be notified ahead of time. That way if they don't like it or don't want to patronize that ship or company because of it, they have time to react or make other plans. Ohio passed the smoking law in November but enforcement did not begin until April 1 to give people a chance to prepare.

 

What NCL did with their smoking policy was wrong, not because of the policy, but because they instituted it too quick with people not having time to cancel out. Of course, that is normal procedure for NCL in everything they do. NCL didn't want to lose money on cancelled cruises over their new policy, so they basically stuck it to the smokers and put it in place with no warning or way out for the smokers. I put NCL's actions in this on par with an inconsiderate smoker smoking in a non smoking area.

[CRUZIN TOM]

But NCL's changes were very minor. They already had no smoking areas designated throughout the ship. All they did was add a couple of more areas for non-smoking. :)

[RSWBADGER]

I'm sorry, I have to agree with Poohisme2 on her comment. I am not a smoker, hate second hand smoke and do support all of the non-smoking laws now in place. (in fact I helped pass the petitions to get it on the Ohio ballot last year.)

 

My point is that there is nothing wrong with smoking bans and I think they are a good thing BUT at the same time, smokers have rights as well and they deserve to be notified ahead of time. That way if they don't like it or don't want to patronize that ship or company because of it, they have time to react or make other plans. Ohio passed the smoking law in November but enforcement did not begin until April 1 to give people a chance to prepare.

 

What NCL did with their smoking policy was wrong, not because of the policy, but because they instituted it too quick with people not having time to cancel out. Of course, that is normal procedure for NCL in everything they do. NCL didn't want to lose money on cancelled cruises over their new policy, so they basically stuck it to the smokers and put it in place with no warning or way out for the smokers. I put NCL's actions in this on par with an inconsiderate smoker smoking in a non smoking area.

 

It's hard for me to agree with you that NCL's new smoking policy was put into effect without providing more of a notice to it's smoking customers. We as a non-smokers have endured for way too long the effects of second hand smoke and the nasty odor of smoking in public places.

 

I'm sorry but when it's a question of health, a policy such as this cannot come soon enough.

[KeystoneCruiser]

It's hard for me to agree with you that NCL's new smoking policy was put into effect without providing more of a notice to it's smoking customers. We as a non-smokers have endured for way too long the effects of second hand smoke and the nasty odor of smoking in public places.

 

I'm sorry but when it's a question of health, a policy such as this cannot come soon enough.

 

Like I said, I support smoking bans and even worked to pass them, but I also firmly believe that you have to give people a chance to make other arrangements. One week notice is not enough time.

 

In Ohio, the law technically went into effect 30 days after the certification of the vote which made it Dec. 15, but the smoking ban was not enforced for 6 months to allow restaurants and bars to build patios for smoking areas, allow smokers to attempt to quit and to make other arrangements. That made it fair to all sides.

 

One thing we have to be careful of is that we can't dictate what people do with their own health. We can dictate healthful alternatives where the public is concerned, hence smoking bans. But we cannot bar smoking completely nor should we. There is a push right now to remove soda from vending machines and sugared cereals from stores because they are bad for people's health. I disagree whole heartedly with that for two reasons: 1.) If people want to eat unhealthy, it is nobody's business but their own! and 2.) Apple Jacks is on the list of cereals to ban....I love Apple Jacks...lol:D

 

When laws restrict a person's right to choose what they do privately, then they are bad laws.

[salty dingo]

One week notice is not enough time.

 

Agreed.