Smoking Policy from a Brits point of view!

[AllieInMD]

ok, maybe if I type it slower. sorry - sarcastic - it's end of FY and I'm tired ...

 

In 1998 the WHO commissioned a study to be done by scientists in Europe on the effects of SHS - they call it ETS not SHS in Europe.

 

When the scientists were done, the results most definitely were not what the WHO expected, nor wanted. They tried to hide the study - that's not MY opinion or assumption - they were called out on it in the legitimate press - incidentally years before I ever thought of getting into this debate with anyone - the WSJ European Edition - and I do believe some British papers tho haven't searched for those links.

 

However, the US National Institutes of Health published it to their website, including the study findings and conclusions.

 

So - you have a study by scientists commissioned by WHO, you have the WSJ calling WHO shady for hiding the study, and you have the NIH publishing the study on their website. They stand on their own - I didn't pay for any of that research or publishing it, neither did tobacco companies, it was produced by vehemently anti-smoking groups (except WHO)

 

Now I've answered your questions. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same? I do believe it was you that posted a link to a WHO statement about how the study was misrepresented in the press and that the actual findings were that SHS was dangerous etc. Your link. Ok - then if the study, that they commissioned, actually showed that SHS/ETS was dangerous and was merely misrepresented by the press - then where's the study? I think that statement was like 10 years ago. Where's the study on their site? If it proved their theories on SHS/ETS - why wouldn't they put it on their site? If I claimed I had a bona fide scientific study that said that smoking is good for you - you bet the link would be in my signature block lol! So why isn't their study, that they claim proves SHS/ETS is dangerous - on their site?

 

I'm tired - goin to peruse some dress code and booze smuggling threads for some levity - if the thread is still here tomorrow night I'll be back. Sleep well :)

 

I present links to the WHO. You have not. Can you please provide links to your assertions. Otherwise you can refrain from your condescending "it is you my dear" statements. You would like me to believe you without any documentation. I present documentation that clearly shows you are passing along disinformation. Now you choose to ignore that.

 

You said you would abide by WHO scientists. Again I provided links. But as I said, now they don't match your behavior so you choose to not believe. When you provide links to your wild assertions of the WHO, you will look as if you are not just a tobacco industry parrot. Otherwise, you sound like the price discrimination people....but I digress.

[yogimax]

Hmmm. My post #13 was totally ignored.

 

Only 25% of Brits are smokers.

[cruisinMike]

ok, maybe if I type it slower. sorry - sarcastic - it's end of FY and I'm tired ...

 

In 1998 the WHO commissioned a study to be done by scientists in Europe on the effects of SHS - they call it ETS not SHS in Europe.

 

When the scientists were done, the results most definitely were not what the WHO expected, nor wanted. They tried to hide the study - that's not MY opinion or assumption - they were called out on it in the legitimate press - incidentally years before I ever thought of getting into this debate with anyone - the WSJ European Edition - and I do believe some British papers tho haven't searched for those links.

 

However, the US National Institutes of Health published it to their website, including the study findings and conclusions.

 

So - you have a study by scientists commissioned by WHO, you have the WSJ calling WHO shady for hiding the study, and you have the NIH publishing the study on their website. They stand on their own - I didn't pay for any of that research or publishing it, neither did tobacco companies, it was produced by vehemently anti-smoking groups (except WHO)

 

Now I've answered your questions. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same? I do believe it was you that posted a link to a WHO statement about how the study was misrepresented in the press and that the actual findings were that SHS was dangerous etc. Your link. Ok - then if the study, that they commissioned, actually showed that SHS/ETS was dangerous and was merely misrepresented by the press - then where's the study? I think that statement was like 10 years ago. Where's the study on their site? If it proved their theories on SHS/ETS - why wouldn't they put it on their site? If I claimed I had a bona fide scientific study that said that smoking is good for you - you bet the link would be in my signature block lol! So why isn't their study, that they claim proves SHS/ETS is dangerous - on their site?

 

I'm tired - goin to peruse some dress code and booze smuggling threads for some levity - if the thread is still here tomorrow night I'll be back. Sleep well :)

 

Links please. I have given links to refute what you keep repeating (including refuting the press reports of the time where the tobacco industry leaked disinformation to them).

 

By the way Allie, I would also suggest that if you are going to be a smokers rights advocate, along with not passing on disinformation about the WHO, I would also not link to a court case that was overturned by appeal in favor of the EPA. Yes, I can provide a link to that also.

[AllieInMD]

That post wasn't even to you. However, I said I believe the study the WHO commissioned - and it says that SHS is nada much to worry about. I've provided the links to the study - and to the WSJ that called them out for trying to bury it. Again - if your link is true and the statement on it is true - and the study WHO commissioned proves that SHS is bad - where's the study on their site? They won't link it - because it proves them wrong.

 

I find it hysterical that anytime a non-smoker is faced with independent facts they blame the tobacco companies - one even stated RJR - talk about conspiracy paranoids - the study was done by 28 - yes - 28 scientists - European scientists - that the WHO considered experts - so much so that they hired them.

 

 

Actually, no, you didn't give any WHO links on your wild assertions. I have provided the WHO documentation for that time period you refer to that refutes your assertions. You choose to parrot the disinformation of the tobacco industry. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see your link to the WHO.

[AllieInMD]

Yikes - 2 at a time - I recall some friends in my teens seeing how many cigs they could get in their mouth and lit - ICK.

 

Thanks for the compliment. I'm actually quite passionate about a few things - I was raised that way. My sister did a lot of pro bono work, my brother did a lot of pro bono landlord/tenant work and helped a whole lot of people against slum landlords, and I do a lot of work with parents doing pro se divorces and child custody and support claims.

 

Going off topic for a public service - one of my biggest passions is about anonymous breast cancer gene testing - if you are tested positive you can immediately be denied life insurance and in the future will most likely be denied health insurance - I had no clue - was told that by both a lawyer and a Komen Fellow I consulted with when I had to decide if I was going to be tested. The other is CyberKnife - star wars medical technology - makes almost all inoperable tumors operable - with no pain or incisions or blood or recovery time. *public service off*

 

night night - and congrats again :)

 

LOL...I said "at times". For instance during harvest, sitting on a combine 16 hours a day for a couple of months can cause you to do lot's of things.....like have 2 cigarettes going at the same time. Did it many times :confused: . Chain smoker, it's not that hard to do Allie.

 

I'll have to agree with the other poster. Though we differ on some subjects and thoughts, I admire your passion. ;)

 

I'm certainly not against smokers. It's getting tougher to be one in today's society.

[AllieInMD]

I think the brochures were just printed before the change in policy is all. Before the change there were no no-smoking cabins (see the difference that hypen makes?)

 

 

Allie........

 

I started this thread because my friend in England is very pro smoking.....and pointed out to me the UK brochure showing that smoking is allowed in cabins.

 

Altho I'm not a Brit.........their brochure states flatly that there will be " no no smoking cabins". Either that would be a typo........with 2 no's, or it's OK to smoke in any cabin.

 

Then when we arrive at the vessel........every cabin has a "no smoking" symbol next to, or on the door.:eek:

 

I asked my friend today if she had followed up with RCL UK to find the correct answer............alas she had a death in the family that she needs to tend to, so no chance to talk to RCL UK.

 

Maybe someone over there can ask on her behalf!

 

Rick

[FanofFlorida]

I dont need a scientist to tell me something so freakin obvious- like:

 

IF you are around someone who is inhaling toxic fumes and then exhaling them into your breathing air that you may also fall victim to the same disease as them

 

Like their lungs provide some incredible defensive filtering system that eliminates any harmful effect of the originating chemicals.... what about the smoke that is not inhaled.. hmmm

 

I am a huge fan of freedom (as well as Florida)

I am a proponent of 'smoker's rights' as much as for anyone's rights.

To establish areas where people dont have to smell or breathe smoke is just good business for a cruise line because most smokers, as I was, are fine with going to designated areas to smoke and ignore the few judgmental who find it necessary to seek out misery and point fingers...

 

Really, what is the point of trying to disprove SHS warnings?

It is just gross, and I love to smoke. I just choose not to.

[AllieInMD]

Links were already given.

 

The study was done, the study exists, and the conclusions exist. The tobacco industry didn't hire them, the WHO did.

 

Go ahead - provide the link to the case - I'm always interested in reading FACTS.

 

As for your links - you really need to understand the difference between 'marketing plans for stamping out smoking' - policy statements - and fact/data/science. Politicians say stuff all the time - doesn't make it real :rolleyes:

 

Your links:

 

http://www.fctc.org/

 

First, not an unbiased objective organization like the scientists who did the study I quoted. Even with that – the first paragraph makes statements – no facts – no data – no backup – no links. The tobacco companies will and have said smoking doesn’t hurt smokers – but without anything to back it up – it’s bunk. Just saying it doesn't make it real. Sorry – sword cuts both ways.

 

http://www.fctc.org/index.php?item=treatyoverview

(of interest Article 8 for those arguing the WHO says SHS is not dangerous).

 

Same biased organization – but either way. This is a summary of the plan to stamp out smoking by it’s opponents. I could put up the marketing plans of the tobacco industry – same thing – just opposite side. As for Article 8 – see above – generic statements – don’t even have any figures – no facts – no science. Sword cuts both ways.

 

http://www.fctc.org/docs/factsheets/...eet_003_en.pdf

 

This one gave me a virus warning when tried to open in IE and a 404 error in Firefox – feel free to cut and paste.

 

http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre...s_20070529.htm

Position statements, but no science or data – none – no links to studies – nothing. Only thing even remotely close to ‘data’ is about Chinese women. About 48,000 of them – in one of the most populous countries on earth – what’s the percentage on that – .0036? And in one of the most polluted countries on the earth to boot. I’m not a scientist but I don’t think 48,000 women out of 1,321,851,888 people is statistically significant – nor indicative of a world health crisis. Other studies I quoted said 40% of all deaths are related to environmental pollution – which China has plenty of – didn’t look for how many die in China – but I’m betting that 40% of all deaths is a whole lot more than 48,000.

 

Sorry – no facts – no data – no science.

 

 

 

Links please. I have given links to refute what you keep repeating (including refuting the press reports of the time where the tobacco industry leaked disinformation to them).

 

By the way Allie, I would also suggest that if you are going to be a smokers rights advocate, along with not passing on disinformation about the WHO, I would also not link to a court case that was overturned by appeal in favor of the EPA. Yes, I can provide a link to that also.

[AllieInMD]

....

I dont need a scientist to tell me something so freakin obvious- like:

 

IF you are around someone who is inhaling toxic fumes and then exhaling them into your breathing air that you may also fall victim to the same disease as them

 

---key word - may. And you very well might not. and those never around smoke might fall victim - or they may not. Not a scientist (and god I'm tired of research) but what goes into a lung is not necessarily what comes in - oxygen goes in, that's not what comes out - and if all that toxic stuff came out - then none would stay in a smoker and cause disease. Like I said - I have no clue what's exhaled - but I do know that the assumption that what went in is what comes out is already disproven (oxygen/carbon dioxide exhaled)

 

Like their lungs provide some incredible defensive filtering system that eliminates any harmful effect of the originating chemicals.... what about the smoke that is not inhaled.. hmmm

 

-no , but it's a whole lot less than the smoker inhales - and the amount inhaled in an occasional exposure on a cruise ship is very little unless they choose to inhale as much as possible.

 

- Really, what is the point of trying to disprove SHS warnings?

 

Because people really believe this 'huge public health crisis' garbage - even if you can manage to accept the numbers stated - they are still so statistically small that it's no huge crisis - many other health issues are way more critical - effect and kill people. And if they wanna believe it all - fine, their choice - but when they try to legislate MY life - and especially when they wouldn't dare give up anything to combat the true health risks in the world - I ain't going to accept it with a whimper and rolling over.

 

It is just gross, and I love to smoke. I just choose not to.

[cruisinMike]

Links were already given.

 

The study was done, the study exists, and the conclusions exist. The tobacco industry didn't hire them, the WHO did.

 

Go ahead - provide the link to the case - I'm always interested in reading FACTS.

 

As for your links - you really need to understand the difference between 'marketing plans for stamping out smoking' - policy statements - and fact/data/science. Politicians say stuff all the time - doesn't make it real :rolleyes:

 

Your links:

 

http://www.fctc.org/

 

First, not an unbiased objective organization like the scientists who did the study I quoted. Even with that – the first paragraph makes statements – no facts – no data – no backup – no links. The tobacco companies will and have said smoking doesn’t hurt smokers – but without anything to back it up – it’s bunk. Just saying it doesn't make it real. Sorry – sword cuts both ways.

 

http://www.fctc.org/index.php?item=treatyoverview

(of interest Article 8 for those arguing the WHO says SHS is not dangerous).

 

Same biased organization – but either way. This is a summary of the plan to stamp out smoking by it’s opponents. I could put up the marketing plans of the tobacco industry – same thing – just opposite side. As for Article 8 – see above – generic statements – don’t even have any figures – no facts – no science. Sword cuts both ways.

 

http://www.fctc.org/docs/factsheets/...eet_003_en.pdf

 

This one gave me a virus warning when tried to open in IE and a 404 error in Firefox – feel free to cut and paste.

 

http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre...s_20070529.htm

Position statements, but no science or data – none – no links to studies – nothing. Only thing even remotely close to ‘data’ is about Chinese women. About 48,000 of them – in one of the most populous countries on earth – what’s the percentage on that – .0036? And in one of the most polluted countries on the earth to boot. I’m not a scientist but I don’t think 48,000 women out of 1,321,851,888 people is statistically significant – nor indicative of a world health crisis. Other studies I quoted said 40% of all deaths are related to environmental pollution – which China has plenty of – didn’t look for how many die in China – but I’m betting that 40% of all deaths is a whole lot more than 48,000.

 

Sorry – no facts – no data – no science.

 

 

Ok, I see your point is to persist with disinformation regardless of other information provided. It was as I said in my original post. There is much more if you follow past the first page of those links as far as information. However, I know if it is not backing the behavior, you will not research it. Not your fault, human nature. But I would suggest that furthering the "rights" of smokers by passing along disinformation of the WHO and quoting a court decision that was overturned on appeal will not be a convincing argument. It's no wonder that the winds of change are growing stronger with this type of argument by "smoker's advocates".

 

Ok, hint on were to find the 1998 WHO study (that you say you can't find and the WHO is hiding.....same thing as tobacco industry said...hmmmm), published in that year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

 

I agree to disagree unless you can provide information that has not been refuted for nearly 10 years. And yes, with folks like you fighting with such disinformation, this passive non-smoker could just become quite an advocate for smoking reform in public places.

[manuelstar]

Allie........

 

Altho I'm not a Brit.........their brochure states flatly that there will be " no no smoking cabins". Either that would be a typo........with 2 no's, or it's OK to smoke in any cabin.

 

Then when we arrive at the vessel........every cabin has a "no smoking" symbol next to, or on the door.:eek:

 

I asked my friend today if she had followed up with RCL UK to find the correct answer.

Rick

 

No need to call, it is very clearly stated on the UK website:

http://www.royalcaribbean.co.uk/php/latest_news.php?pageid=88

 

Smoking areas are very limited on the Independence. NO smoking inside the pub, schooner bar, viking crown lounge and Pyramid lounge!

[FanofFlorida]

Should we argue all scientific theory? Statistics can be used to prove anything.... really a person will find data to support a particular belief... it is human nature, and the source of most conflict.

 

I guess I am just confused about what the conversation is about.

Is RCI trying to ban smoking on all it's ships?

If not, then what the #@%& is being talked about?

 

Really, what is the issue if currently there are public areas that allow smoking. Whether or not SHS linked illnesses are ACTUALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY proven, regardless of underhanded freedom stealing, right winged, smoker haters... it really does stink, and I actually like smoking.

 

Is personal comfort a value? I wonder because it seems that if someone could smoke WHEREVER they want, regardless of the effect it has on another human's personal preferences, it would appear that the smoker so values their preference/comfort that they dont give a rip about anyone else.

I know I am part of some labeled generation of rude and inconsiderate spoiled brats, but last I checked, paying attention to other's preferences was labeled as kindness, or respect, or just general consideration for the comfort of others. Ahhh, now those behaviors I might recognize to reflect values.

SO am I a smoker hater if I believe in limited designated areas? I never would have labeled myself right wing for that.... in fact, I thought the idea of supporting the general comfort and safety of the public was more a lefty thing... funny

[peterv]

If anyone is interested in reading the WHO study, I found a link to it from another site, the links to the study are at the bottom of the page.

 

WHO Study Link

Cheers,

Peter

[Shipyard Cruiser]

Another "I was only kidding post"? ;)

 

I don't think it's a right wing conspiracy - stereotypically and in general the right wing is for individual rights and the left wing is about near socialist nanny-states. (look at NY and a ban on a food!) But I don't think that's really got much to do with it (translation - let's not drag politics into it too!) - it's about people (generalization) who accept whatever is told to them by someone perceived as an "authority" or expert.

 

You think I'm wrong about that part of society's mentality? History is full of it - why do you (general, not you specifically) think that you are so much better that you can't be fooled like the last few thousand years of humanity? Are you (general, not personal) really that arrogant? I'm not.

 

You want some examples of 'the people' being fooled by the medical/scientific 'authority'?

• racial superiority
  
• quite a few claim that 9/11 was an 'inside job' and Bush ordered the planes to crash
  
• the universe revolves around the earth
  
• the earth is flat
  
• ***** causes blindness
  
• ***** causes mental illness
  
• lobotomy will cure mental illness and make the patient healthy and happy
  
• heroin and cocaine cures everything (and is available at the local drugstore)
  
• infants/newborns can't feel pain so no anesthesia during surgery
  
• women should be knocked out while giving birth

Those are just a few - some very recently in the scope of humanity. People are gullible - suspend all rational thought or ability or look at things objectively - when someone 'in the know' or an 'authority' or an expert states something. Heck, about a month ago a bunch of folks believed about the airline charging pax by pound - for their bodies. That journalist or researcher convinced people of a long lost tribe in SA with photos just in the last month. How many times did google and microsoft and other companies and organizations pull practical jokes on most of the world with fake press releases and products?

 

My mother would have been dead at 42 if she'd listened to the "medical authority" - because she questioned it - and continued to question it - and encouraged her children to question anything they read or heard - she lived to be 70 - watch all her kids graduate, get married, lived to see 6 grandchildren born and several of them graduate high school and go to college.

 

Do I give blind faith to what any 'authority' says? No - they better have the facts and science/data to back it up. I don't comprehend why anyone would voluntarily abdicate their right to be educated with facts.

 

You many post have only proven my point over and over and over again.

 

A drug addict, legal or not, will say and do anything to justify their habit.

 

Please don't bring up eating and drinking again. Most people eat and drink with no problem.

 

Smokers have a physical addiction to ncotine which is a drug.

 

But I'm sure you will find some tobacco funded company study to disput that.

 

Finally a question which I'm sure you won't answer.

 

Have you seen someone personally die of Emphysema?

 

But I forgot, Emphysema has nothing to do with smoking, right?

 

BTW I am an ex-smoker.

 

Both my parents were life long smokers and died of Emphysema.

 

My sister-in-law is a life long smoker and has early stage Emphysema.

 

So as you write post and post trying to justify your drug habit think about the people who are dying because they can't kick nicotine.

[Shipyard Cruiser]

Thanks for the compliment. I am becoming more active in fighting for smoker's rights - and so is my SO.

 

The thread may have gotten so off topic but this is the longest running smoking thread I've seen here - not been POOF'd - rather impressive that ALL sides could keep it away from the personal attacks that get them POOF'd.

 

What tobacco company do you and your SO work for?:D

[abcten]

Actually, no, you didn't give any WHO links on your wild assertions. I have provided the WHO documentation for that time period you refer to that refutes your assertions. You choose to parrot the disinformation of the tobacco industry. If I'm wrong, I'd like to see your link to the WHO.

 

You are exactly right Mike. She provides no scientific evidence to back up her claims. Other WHO links have been provided by other posters in this thread which show the WHO's true position that SHS is dangerous to non-smokers. This thread has over 300 posts. I haven't taken the time to count, but I'd bet easily over 100 of the posts in this thread are by Allie in her attempt to disseminate disinformation. Talk about being consumed by an addiction. Not only the time and money to feed the addiction itself and the time and effort to justify the addiction, but also the time and effort to disseminate disinformation about the addictions negative health effects on other innocent victims. What a waste. We really should pity her.

[VAHockeymom]

What smoke free cruises does RCCL offer, never have heard of them, or seen ANY sort of advertising to the effect?

 

I actually have seen them offered, but they are few and far between. I think my point was that there are lovely ships that have gone smoke free or almost smoke free (ie. Celebrity).

 

These smoking threads are always interesting and never boring...I just wish that everyone could find a place where they can agree.

 

Have a good day.

[Shipyard Cruiser]

You are exactly right Mike. She provides no scientific evidence to back up her claims. Other WHO links have been provided by other posters in this thread which show the WHO's true position that SHS is dangerous to non-smokers. This thread has over 300 posts. I haven't taken the time to count, but I'd bet easily over 100 of the posts in this thread are by Allie in her attempt to disseminate disinformation. Talk about being consumed by an addiction. Not only the time and money to feed the addiction itself and the time and effort to justify the addiction, but also the time and effort to disseminate disinformation about the addictions negative health effects on other innocent victims. What a waste. We really should pity her.

 

Your right.

 

It's really sad to see an addiction consume someone like that.

 

But I also think she is not the typical smoker you will find onboard.

 

Most follow the rules and respect the non-smokers.

 

But there will always be a few who just don't have a clue.

 

I think pity is really the right word.

[startwin]

Let me give you some insight into my feelings right now....

 

I am a grandmother who has decided to blow a huge amount of my savings for my whole family of several generations to have a vacation to remember, to build memories and have some quality time together. I've cruised several times before, but not with RCCI. I picked the Mariner because it has something for everyone. And I coughed up extra $$'s for balcony rooms for everyone. (Never had one before).

 

I've read several smoking/non-smoking threads on here, and I am feeling sick to my stomach that I've wasted a lot of money on balcony cabins that we won't be able to enjoy, because apparantly that is where all the smoking is allowed, along with quite a few other areas on the ship. Much more so than other cruiseships we have been on. Health problems and common sense mean we have to avoid SH smoke. I am hoping someone can tell me that it's not as big a problem as I perceive it to be. We really want to be able to enjoy our balconies and not be told I shouldn't have booked them if I don't like smoke. This has really taken away from enjoying the anticipation of our cruise. I don't understand why there is such a liberal approach to smoking on RCCI, and I do respect smoker's rights (I used to be one), but not at the expense of the majority. And I want to be able to use the balcony without being smoked back inside!

[FrancescaH]

Let me give you some insight into my feelings right now....

 

I am a grandmother who has decided to blow a huge amount of my savings for my whole family of several generations to have a vacation to remember, to build memories and have some quality time together. I've cruised several times before, but not with RCCI. I picked the Mariner because it has something for everyone. And I coughed up extra $$'s for balcony rooms for everyone. (Never had one before).

 

I've read several smoking/non-smoking threads on here, and I am feeling sick to my stomach that I've wasted a lot of money on balcony cabins that we won't be able to enjoy, because apparantly that is where all the smoking is allowed, along with quite a few other areas on the ship. Much more so than other cruiseships we have been on. Health problems and common sense mean we have to avoid SH smoke. I am hoping someone can tell me that it's not as big a problem as I perceive it to be. We really want to be able to enjoy our balconies and not be told I shouldn't have booked them if I don't like smoke. This has really taken away from enjoying the anticipation of our cruise. I don't understand why there is such a liberal approach to smoking on RCCI, and I do respect smoker's rights (I used to be one), but not at the expense of the majority. And I want to be able to use the balcony without being smoked back inside!

 

Smelling smoke on the balconies is not really a problem except for those few occasions when you are docked, there is little breeze, and you have someone smoking in a neighboring balcony. While at sea you don't notice the smoke much at all on balconies. Some spots like the casino can have a strong smoking smell based on our previous sails but in general it's not bad. And we do pay attention as my husband has mild asthma triggered by smoke. Most smokers are very respectful of the designated smoking areas. I hope you love the Mariner as much as we have!

 

As for recent studies for second hand smoke and it's effects, here's one that may or may not have been mentioned...

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/25/3205

[snoopysnake]

....Have you seen someone personally die of Emphysema?

 

But I forgot, Emphysema has nothing to do with smoking, right?

 

BTW I am an ex-smoker.

 

Both my parents were life long smokers and died of Emphysema.

 

My sister-in-law is a life long smoker and has early stage Emphysema.

 

So as you write post and post trying to justify your drug habit think about the people who are dying because they can't kick nicotine.

 

My mother died of lung cancer, and she was so defensive about cigarettes that she made a certain poster on this board seem like the president of the American Lung Association. But when she got the diagnosis of lung cancer, everything changed. She even begged the only remaining smoker of her siblings to quit. One of mom's favorite sayings about smoking was "You've got to die of something sometime," but I did not have to ask her "Was it worth it?" about smoking once she had lung cancer. I knew that she now finally believed, it was NOT worth it. CANCER is what convinced her that smoking was not worth it. Her cancer convinced me that it IS worth it to try to convince others not to smoke. If someome can be spared that diagnosis of lung cancer, or if someone else might be spared losing a loved one from it, or emphysema, COPD, etc., it IS worth trying to convince them, even if we get slapped around by the most defensive smokers.

 

Stay strong, Shipyard Cruiser and my fellow crusaders.

[Captain Jake]

For every step the Smoking Lobby pushes us back we must continue to move 10 steps forward------------------BT

 

Interesting story in the Washington Post the other day saying with the cutback in tobacco use in the country some Virginia Farmers are switching to growing flowers and increasing revenue

[madelinerose]

startwin...CC members represent a very small minority of the passengers who will be on your Mariner cruise, so don't let these posts ruin your anticipation for 9 long months.

 

If you truly feel your cruise may not be what you've envisioned, an option may be Celebrity....no smoking on balconies or in the cabins.

 

RCI owns Celebrity and since your cruise is 9 months away, who knows what may happen? Good luck and I hope you are able to enjoy the Mariner. ;)

 

This has really taken away from enjoying the anticipation of our cruise. I don't understand why there is such a liberal approach to smoking on RCCI, and I do respect smoker's rights (I used to be one), but not at the expense of the majority. And I want to be able to use the balcony without being smoked back inside!

[Sue L]

Let me give you some insight into my feelings right now....

 

I am a grandmother who has decided to blow a huge amount of my savings for my whole family of several generations to have a vacation to remember, to build memories and have some quality time together. I've cruised several times before, but not with RCCI. I picked the Mariner because it has something for everyone. And I coughed up extra $$'s for balcony rooms for everyone. (Never had one before).

 

I've read several smoking/non-smoking threads on here, and I am feeling sick to my stomach that I've wasted a lot of money on balcony cabins that we won't be able to enjoy, because apparantly that is where all the smoking is allowed, along with quite a few other areas on the ship. Much more so than other cruiseships we have been on. Health problems and common sense mean we have to avoid SH smoke. I am hoping someone can tell me that it's not as big a problem as I perceive it to be. We really want to be able to enjoy our balconies and not be told I shouldn't have booked them if I don't like smoke. This has really taken away from enjoying the anticipation of our cruise. I don't understand why there is such a liberal approach to smoking on RCCI, and I do respect smoker's rights (I used to be one), but not at the expense of the majority. And I want to be able to use the balcony without being smoked back inside!

 

 

don't worry, you make catch a whiff here or there, but nothing like some of the people on these boards make it out to be. Some on these boards will say billows of smoke from 16 rooms down came flowing into their room, please take them for the exagerations they are. I will give you a clue RCCL has one of the stricter smoking policies, go on Carnival, you can smoke in a TON more places and the way the ship is laid out you need to walk through many more of them to get from point A to point B. RCCL no longer allows smoking in the cabins, but most of the other mainstream lines DO as well as on their balconies.

 

I smoked up until last fall, and we always got a balcony. I would ask our neighbors on either side when I saw them if the smoke was bothering them while they were out there. Except for once they didn't even realize I was smoking when they were sitting right there not more then 3 feet from me on the other side of the balcony partition. And the one who knew I was smoking was also smoking but I couldn't smell theirs and I didn't realize it. Enjoy the anticipation and don't let these threads get to you.

[Gonzo70]

I am a grandmother who has decided to blow a huge amount of my savings for my whole family of several generations to have a vacation to remember, to build memories and have some quality time together. I've cruised several times before, but not with RCCI. I picked the Mariner because it has something for everyone. And I coughed up extra $$'s for balcony rooms for everyone. (Never had one before).

 

I've read several smoking/non-smoking threads on here, and I am feeling sick to my stomach that I've wasted a lot of money on balcony cabins that we won't be able to enjoy, because apparantly that is where all the smoking is allowed, along with quite a few other areas on the ship.

 

How much smoke you will smell depends on how far away the nearest smoker is and how sensitive you are to the smell of cigarette smoke. I am very sensitive so I do notice it when people are smoking in nearby balconies. For me it is generally strong enough to be a bit unpleasant, but not so strong as to drive me inside. Some people can't even smell it at all. Unless you are unusually sensitive to the smell, you will be able to enjoy your balcony. Be sure to mention your feelings about this on your comment card at the end of the cruise.

 

By the way, that was very nice of you to treat your family to such a nice vation. I hope y'all have a great time.