Smoking Policy from a Brits point of view!

[mark290]

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.

 

That is certainly a sad story.

 

I can already hear the response by one poster that the cancer was caused by pollution or over exposure to perfume. Or that the only thing that delayed the inevitable onset was her healthy consumption of cigarettes.

[hazysnake]

oops - this is really snoopysnake, not hazysnake. We are both members, but sometimes I forget to log off as him and on as myself! Sorry...

 

 

 

That is certainly a sad story.

 

I can already hear the response by one poster that the cancer was caused by pollution or over exposure to perfume. Or that the only thing that delayed the inevitable onset was her healthy consumption of cigarettes.

 

According to the pulmonary doctor, her non-cancerous lung was providing her with 2% of the oxygen of a normal lung, and the other one, none. The doctor stated that this was absolutely caused by smoking. Even with an oxygen tank, in about a month her mind started malfunctioning due to insufficient oxygen. We all thought the lung cancer had spread to the brain, but tests for that were negative - the issue was insufficient oxygen to the brain. Imagine a woman who'd done the Sunday crossword every week for years suddenly trying to do the puzzle and not sure how to get started on it. She knew she did this puzzle all the time, and all of a sudden it was an impossible task.

 

Of course, some smokers won't change what they do because of what I say. But if there's a possibility that someone will quit, or not start, or be spared a loved one's cancer/emphysema death, I will state my case. I have my own physical problems of being around second-hand smoke, but there is more at stake. Some smokers are passionate about their positions, and theirs make non-smokers need to be even more passionate about ours.

[G'ma]

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!

 

How nice of you to treat the family. They'll all have a good time.

 

Now, about the smoking, a little research of RCCL website before you made your reservation would have prepared you for the fact that smoking is permitted on balconies and other venues onboard.

 

Personally, I can't imagine booking a new ship or hotel or resort where I've never been before without thorough research. And, if I were going to spend big $$, I'd make darn sure that everything was to my liking.

 

You still have time to cancel...and maybe rebook on Azamara or Oceania where smoking is restricted to only a few enclosed areas of the ship....and NOT permitted in cabins or balconies...and most public areas.

[amybear912]

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!

 

I think it's very nice that you are doing this for your family but as many have mentioned, please don't let these threads bring down your excitement level... a lot of what is said on here about the smoking issue and smelling it or whatever is totally over-dramatized for effect...

 

The casino may be an issue for members of your family that are sensitive to it... Hell, I'M a smoker and even I can't stay in the casino for long because it can get a bit foggy in there...

 

Most smokers onboard, in fact, I would say the majority... are extremely considerate and stick to the designated areas... Heck, a lot of us, even in a designated area will move or not light up if we think it may bother someone else... at least, we're that way...

 

The balcony issue... for the life of me, I can't figure out how smoke can bother someone when the ship is moving but hey, I guess anything is possible...

 

You always have the option of making friends with your heathenistic smoking neighbors ;) and simply asking them to refrain while you are out there or try to work something out...

 

I honestly don't think it's as big of an issue as some on these boards would have you believe...

[AllieInMD]

-Ok, I see your point is to persist with disinformation regardless of other information provided.-

 

Yes, you persist in putting forth policy statements as scientific fact, which it’s not – it’s just policy. It’s you that puts forth disinformation – I can back my statements up with links to scientific data – you can’t.

 

-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-

 

Ahh, such a flaw it is to assume things. I did check some of the links, more policy and plans – no fact, no science, no data. I provided links to the study outcome and conclusions – by scientists. All you can come up with is policy statements by anti-smoking groups. It has no more scientific credibility than if I put up policy statements by tobacco companies. Equally worthless with no science. I researched it – you still say “post the links’ – which I did many many pages ago – maybe even more than once. I was disappointed – I thought you more worthy than that – when you posted your links I pasted them to word so I could look them up and address them so they wouldn’t be lost in the thread. Now who’s not willing to research something they don’t want to see?

 

- But I would suggest that furthering the "rights" of smokers by passing along disinformation of the WHO-

 

Thanks, but I don’t think I will take advice from someone who refuses to read the actual science, keeps asking for links already provided - you don't even have to agree with the 28 scientists who came to the conclusions - that I can excuse as pure suspension of rational thought - but to refuse to even look at it and read it? I at least look at all you provide - I just reject is as it has no science. And you who consistently refuses to answer my one question when I answer all of yours.

 

-and quoting a court decision that was overturned on appeal will not be a convincing argument. –

 

Even without the EPA study the WHO commissioned study more than a decade later stands. But - as you said so – repeatedly, and I’ve asked for the link to that EPA study being overturned because I like facts - even ones I might not like – you said you could provide it – please do.

 

-It's no wonder that the winds of change are growing stronger with this type of argument by "smoker's advocates".-

 

Yes, the winds of change – do gooders and hysteria mongers decide what is in the interest of the ‘public good’ and legislate it. And they think they’ve done a fantastic thing and history will remember them as wonderful people who saved many lives and will thank them forever. And after a few years, or decades – society comes to their senses. You know – like Prohibition and the DC gun ban.

 

-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.-

 

LOL – YOU said you can’t find it on the WHO site, and no wonder - and this grand conspiracy of the tobacco companies - soundbites of rhetoric - please - the way I found it was through the article by the WSJ when they called out the WHO for trying to bury it - correction, managed to bury it on their site - but not everywhere. I’ve always said I could find it – and gave a link to it. Again, ask yourself, you believe yourself to be rational and intelligent - if the study proved WHO's assertion that SHS is dangerous - that they constantly state - why isn't it on their website? Why isn't it permanently linked? In animated glow in the dark colors?

 

-I agree to disagree unless you can provide information that has not been refuted for nearly 10 years. –

 

"refuted' - there is a whole segment of the earth's population who believes the Holocaust was a myth - they refute it entirely - they ignore the evidence and give no credible evidence to support their position. Sound familiar? Anyone can refute anything - doesn't make it true.

 

Nobody has produced a true independent scientific study in this thread conducted since the WHO study. The only thing provided has been statements with no facts or science attached. Ok – except *maybe* those 48,000 Chinese women - and there was an International Labor Board or something with 200,000 worldwide - don't think there were any facts given/linked, but I'll give ya them just for hypothetical reasons. 200,000 out of the entire world's population. And this is the single most overwhelming health crisis?

 

-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.-

 

And yes, with folks like you spreading statements from anti-smoking hysteria mongers and putting them out there as scientific fact – that’s exactly why I’m an advocate for critical thinking and science on SHS. Please, I welcome a good debate on the topic, but next time please try to come up with some facts – not just policy pieces and unsupported statements.

 

Oh, and how come not one of you anti-smokers posting is willing to address the sheer overwhelming deaths from environmental pollution in comparison to alleged SHS deaths in terms of just what is the actual health crisis?

 

 

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.

[AllieInMD]

The reason the issue is debated over and over is because the anti-smokers already have 90% or so (guesstimate) of the ship as non-smoking, and they wish to make the remainder non-smoking - balconies in particular.

 

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

[SomeBeach]

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

 

Rick

I only scan through this thread every few days. I didn't realize you didn't get an answer early on. Just proves what a problem it is when posters go so OT, the OP never gets an answer.

If I recall there were only 3 ships that hadn't returned to the US and therefore didn't change so smoking would still be allowed in staterooms until summer 2008. The Jewel, after lasts years overseas summer season did return and therefore the staterooms went non when RCI implimented the policy.

Hope this helps.

 

Just checked RCI site, this is what it says...

The new policy will go into effect aboard 18 of 21 ships initially, with Legend of the Seas, Rhapsody of the Seas and Splendour of the Seas following suit with the 2008 summer season.

 

The UK books just didn't have the info right.

[startwin]

How nice of you to treat the family. They'll all have a good time.

 

Now' date=' about the smoking, a little research of RCCL website before you made your reservation would have prepared you for the fact that smoking is permitted on balconies and other venues onboard.

 

Personally, I can't imagine booking a new ship or hotel or resort where I've never been before without thorough research. And, if I were going to spend big $$, I'd make darn sure that everything was to my liking.

 

You still have time to cancel...and maybe rebook on Azamara or Oceania where smoking is restricted to only a few enclosed areas of the ship....and NOT permitted in cabins or balconies...and most public areas.[/quote']

 

FYI - I researched for a ship that would suit several generations including teenage boys. It didn't occur to me to have to question the smoking issue because it hasn't been an issue on the cruises my OH and I have taken before - not RCCI. I don't think I should have to consider changing cruiselines, it just seems from this board that RCCI attracts rather a lot of inconsiderate smokers, given that most people do not smoke. However, other comments on here since my posting have put my mind somewhat at rest.

[AllieInMD]

Although my initial look at the site you linked I was ready to blast you - because it's a personal citizen's blog. Ah, but I did look - as I always do. But you are correct, the links at the bottom are to the studies and the WSJ article - links I gave way back in post 40something - and the abstract copied and pasted but conveniently ignored. Congrats - you managed to easily find the links that the other poster couldn't even with all their 'research'. Oh, and of course the one guy that kept insisting I never posted them - which I did back on page 3 or so.

 

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

[SomeBeach]

FYI - I researched for a ship that would suit several generations including teenage boys. It didn't occur to me to have to question the smoking issue because it hasn't been an issue on the cruises my OH and I have taken before - not RCCI. I don't think I should have to consider changing cruiselines, it just seems from this board that RCCI attracts rather a lot of inconsiderate smokers, given that most people do not smoke. However, other comments on here since my posting have put my mind somewhat at rest.

 

 

Kudos to you for doing this for your family. I've taken my family on cruises the last 4 years and they enjoy it A LOT!

You state "it just seems from this board that RCCI atracts rather a lot of inconsiderate smokers." The key part of your statement is *this board* as you yourself highlighted. Once on the ship, you will find that ALL the folks are much better than what is implied here.

Enjoy your cruise.

[AllieInMD]

I know you have difficulties following -especially a long thread like this - so I'll spell it out for you - again:

 

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.

 

--That's personal opinion, you are entitled to yours, I am entitled to mine.

 

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

 

--Really? How many times a week are we told that obesity is a huge health crisis in this country? How diabetes and obesity related heart disease are up? Heck - there are kids in this world being taken from their parents because the 'state' decides they weigh too much. As for drinking - we've already established that *just* drunk driving kills around 15,000 people a year in this country from alcohol - that's about 5 times the claimed number of SHS deaths.

 

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

 

--Yep it is, we agree on something :)

 

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

 

--Don't know if I could or not, never looked for one.

 

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

 

-*SIGH* I've answered every question put to me, you may not like the answer, but I do answer. Please try to keep your accusations at least accurate.

 

Have you seen someone personally die of Emphysema?

 

--Hmm, let me think. Have only see a few folks die - but think they were my parents from breast and liver cancer respectively, some old age, a drug overdose or two, and an old lady of a heart attack - but I don't know if she was a smoker, didn't look that close at her medical records - was busy callin a code.

 

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

 

--Where have I ever said that? I haven't even ever said smoking isn't bad for you. Please try to keep up - I've said that SHS is not a huge risk and is most definitely not the huge health crisis hysteria mongers make it out to be.

 

BTW I am an ex-smoker.

 

-Congrats

 

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.

 

-And Amy Winehouse has early emphysema from smoking crack with her cigs. And there have been some posters who related long living relatives that smoked every day. Dana Reeve never smoked a day and she died of lung cancer. The result is - nobody can explain it yet - and probably never. And - not to be crass - in all seriousness - if you grew up around smokers your whole life - and you smoked - and you were exposed to all that - which is deadly in your opinion - how come you aren't in a hospital bed somewhere?

 

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.

 

-Nice rhetoric - but those people - including your parents and your SIL - and you - made their own choices. How am I responsible for grown adults making their own decisions? And living with the consequences? Sorry that your parents died and your SIL is sick - but put the responsibility where it belongs - on THEM. I'm sure it's easier to think of your parents and SIL having been the victim of someone else rather than face that they killed themselves with their choices as sure as a drunk driver does the same.

[AllieInMD]

I work for a healthcare company that owns 8 hospitals and a bunch of diversified businesses. My SO works for the Federal Gov't. Your comment was snarky, but I'll let it pass because it blew up in your face. :eek:

 

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

[AllieInMD]

I see you still can't read threads - it's there- and another poster even posted it after I went off last night. Denial - it's not just a river in Egypt anymore. Please try to keep your accusations at least somewhere in the realm of reality. And again - you comment on how I spend my free time - are you from the gov't here to tell me how to spend my time - or are you just wanting to sniff me?

 

 

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.

[reallyitsmema]

FYI - I researched for a ship that would suit several generations including teenage boys. It didn't occur to me to have to question the smoking issue because it hasn't been an issue on the cruises my OH and I have taken before - not RCCI. I don't think I should have to consider changing cruiselines, it just seems from this board that RCCI attracts rather a lot of inconsiderate smokers, given that most people do not smoke. However, other comments on here since my posting have put my mind somewhat at rest.

I have sailed the Mariner twice, the last time being two weeks ago. It is an awesome ship for teens, you made a good choice, my 17 yr old loves it.

 

Don't let the smoking threads on here make you overly concerned. Before we went on the Mariner last year, I read a few threads here on CC that had me feeling like you do right now. Both my son and I are asthmatics and smoke is a major trigger for both of us. We had no issues at all on our balcony, we smelled smoke once or twice but nothing overpowering. We had to avoid Boleros and the casino since those were fairly smokey but heh, it was a good money saver for me as far as the casino goes.:eek: ;)

 

Don't let these threads get to you, avoid them like the plague. Have a wonderful cruise on a wonderful ship.:)

[AllieInMD]

Ah yes - another do gooder who wishes to tell me how to spend my time. Am I so arrogant that I pass judgment on how you spend your time?

 

I always follow the rules of smoking onboard - I even paid for a balcony this time rather than breaking the rules and smoking in my cabin. It's a shame that you see someone that is passionate about a subject and that they put time and effort into it as a bad thing. From the smoking threads I've learned a lot - done a lot of research - I consider it an education in what's called a major health crisis. I don't have to agree with someone in order to respect that they actually try to use their brain and learn and have a position on something and stand up for it. I guess we could all be ho hum and not take a stand on anything. You're welcome to do so. Those people have my deepest pity.

 

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.

[AllieInMD]

It's a shame that all the other smoking threads have gone POOF - there were just as many people who posted saying they didn't have a problem with smoke on their balconies as there were that said it would be a problem. It's like someone says in the dress code threads - it's never as big an issue on the actual ship as it is on CC :cool:

 

edited: was rude not to say - have a wonderful cruise with your family!

 

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!

[AllieInMD]

Not to be picky - but the study you linked to - is about cardio vascular -"attenuated endothelial function" - so it's apples and oranges to the WHO commissioned study on SHS/ETS and lung cancer.

 

I'll look at it because I like being educated - but I admit I am not well researched in cardio vascular (yet) - though a quick check did find a medical journal article saying that family history of diabetes is a major determinant of endothelial function.

 

 

 

 

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

[AllieInMD]

Today one of my closest friends - a very rabid anti-smoker - called to say he had to bow out of a planned trip with me and my SO in a few weekends. His wife had to rush to Long Island because her mother, who just went through chemo and radiation a few months ago is sick again - the cancer is back - and she was admitted to the hospital. She's 80 years old. She still smokes - and wanted out of the hospital because she hated it, and because she couldn't smoke there. My rabid friend? He IS the type to get right in your face and ask "was it worth it?" - and has asked his mother in law (and all his sister in laws too) - and she told him yes - it was worth it - she lived 80 good years - and if they would just leave her alone and let her die in peace the last few weeks would be good too. They brought her home - called in hospice - and she's a happy woman for her remaining days.

 

So though I respect your mother's feelings that it wasn't worth it, not every smoker - nor every smoker that gets lung cancer - feels the same Many feel that living their lives doing what they want and like is much better than a longer lifetime of not doing what they want.

 

 

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.

[AllieInMD]

Yes, for every step that people who think they know what's best for everyone takes we must continue to move 10 steps forward in preserving individual rights. Just like in Prohibition and gun bans - it ain't easy, but it can be done :D

 

Please - share the link?

 

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

[AllieInMD]

I assume you mean me :D

 

Nope - I related a story from another person dying of lung cancer and THEIR feelings on the subject of 'was it worth it?' quid pro quo to keep things a bit more balanced

 

Where have I ever said that smoking is healthy to the smoker? And tho the EPA has said that perfume contains many toxic compounds and known carcinogens in terms of it's health risks - I don't believe I've ever said that all lung cancer in smokers was caused by perfume. I have said that the non-smokers who yell so much about SHS are way more likely to die from pollution induced lung cancer - I stand by that.

 

I know the sarcasm is good rhetoric - but really - try to stick to what's actually been said and make your accusations on my position at least somewhat accurate.

 

That is certainly a sad story.

 

I can already hear the response by one poster that the cancer was caused by pollution or over exposure to perfume. Or that the only thing that delayed the inevitable onset was her healthy consumption of cigarettes.

[FrancescaH]

Not to be picky - but the study you linked to - is about cardio vascular -"attenuated endothelial function" - so it's apples and oranges to the WHO commissioned study on SHS/ETS and lung cancer.

 

I'll look at it because I like being educated - but I admit I am not well researched in cardio vascular (yet) - though a quick check did find a medical journal article saying that family history of diabetes is a major determinant of endothelial function.

 

 

I will get a little picky and point out that if you read it you'll see the study linked SHS to cardio health. They looked at cotinine (he major metabolite of nicotine that indicates levels of nicotine intake) levels versus artery health. Just because it does't have to do with the normal concerns about lung function doesn't mean the concern about cardio health isn't valid. This study certainly indicates SHS is bad for your cardio health.

[AllieInMD]

That's what I said - it was about cardio vascular - not lung cancer and SHS - which is what this thread has been about - and the data and science I've provided is about. I freely admitted in response to your first post that I haven't researched cardio vascular. So, in essence you just restated what I said - it's about a diff topic than what I've been discussing and providing data on. You're trying desperately to call me out on a topic I've never discussed here :) If/when I have time to research the cardio vascular effects of SHS and become educated on it we can discuss it if you like.

 

I will get a little picky and point out that if you read it you'll see the study linked SHS to cardio health. They looked at cotinine (he major metabolite of nicotine that indicates levels of nicotine intake) levels versus artery health. Just because it does't have to do with the normal concerns about lung function doesn't mean the concern about cardio health isn't valid. This study certainly indicates SHS is bad for your cardio health.

[mark290]

Today one of my closest friends - a very rabid anti-smoker - called to say he had to bow out of a planned trip with me and my SO in a few weekends. His wife had to rush to Long Island because her mother, who just went through chemo and radiation a few months ago is sick again - the cancer is back - and she was admitted to the hospital. She's 80 years old. She still smokes - and wanted out of the hospital because she hated it, and because she couldn't smoke there. My rabid friend? He IS the type to get right in your face and ask "was it worth it?" - and has asked his mother in law (and all his sister in laws too) - and she told him yes - it was worth it - she lived 80 good years - and if they would just leave her alone and let her die in peace the last few weeks would be good too. They brought her home - called in hospice - and she's a happy woman for her remaining days.

 

So though I respect your mother's feelings that it wasn't worth it, not

every smoker - nor every smoker that gets lung cancer - feels the same Many feel that living their lives doing what they want and like is much better than a longer lifetime of not doing what they want.

 

 

Wow. That was good timing. You have a personal story that totally

refutes the prior persons story. Your story actually covers every point

of the other one but supports your view. You have someone close to you. They are going to die of cancer. They smoked all their life. They happened to have been asked was it worth it ? She responded that it

certainly was. As the topper she only wants to be in a place she

can spend her last few days smoking. What are the odds of that

happening virtually in the middle of your debate project ?

[AllieInMD]

BTW, a little research and I found the link to where the suit over the EPA study was overturned. Wonder if the poster who said he'd found it read it? It was not overturned because it the judge was wrong about the manipulation of the science/data. It was overturned on procedural grounds. I had a feeling because an appellate court can not overturn a decision based on their interpretation of the facts - the trial court is the trier-of-fact. An appellate court can only overturn a trial courts decision based on procedural error (error of law) or abuse of judicial power.

 

The EPA based their appeal on the court not having legal rights to review the agency report - that the tobacco companies had no legal right to challenge it in court - that the EPA complied with the Radon Act in appointing a tobacco industry member on an advisory committee - that if even if they didn't it was harmless error - that the judge shouldn't have been looking closely at the data used to form the EPA conclusions.

 

Basically - my opinion here - they based their appeal on "nobody but us should be looking at the study and nobody should be allowed to challenge what we tell them"

 

So, to boil it down - the federal court decision (Osteen) was not overturned because the judge was wrong about the data being manipulated - it was overturned on technicalities of procedure and standing.

[startwin]

I have sailed the Mariner twice, the last time being two weeks ago. It is an awesome ship for teens, you made a good choice, my 17 yr old loves it.

 

Don't let the smoking threads on here make you overly concerned. Before we went on the Mariner last year, I read a few threads here on CC that had me feeling like you do right now. Both my son and I are asthmatics and smoke is a major trigger for both of us. We had no issues at all on our balcony, we smelled smoke once or twice but nothing overpowering. We had to avoid Boleros and the casino since those were fairly smokey but heh, it was a good money saver for me as far as the casino goes.:eek: ;)

 

Don't let these threads get to you, avoid them like the plague. Have a wonderful cruise on a wonderful ship.:)

 

Thanks for the reassurance. None of us are likely to go into the casino - no interest in gambling - so no problem there. Feeling better already ;)