Smoking Policy from a Brits point of view!

[AllieInMD]

Just back to the original post for a minute. What about Asian pax - smoking is heavily entrenched in their culture - they are having a heck of a time trying to stem it a bit before the Olympics. And Asians have more and more disposable dollars to travel. I know the 9 day I took many of the really top end cabins were taken by Asians. Wonder how RCCL is going to deal with that one!

 

I just got off of the Jewel of the Seas, wonderful trip to the Norwegian fjords. We were with friends from the UK, who are smokers. All cabins on the Jewel are non smoking.........yet the 2008-2009 RCI UK book talks about the companies smoking policy. Here is what it says: "There are designated areas for smoking and non-smoking on all ships. All theatres and dining rooms are non-smoking. Cigar and pipe smoking is permitted on the outer ship decks in designated areas. THERE ARE NO NO-SMOKING STATEROOMS OR SUITES."

 

It goes on to talk about the Health Act of 2006 that will apply to all cruise ships while in UK waters.

 

With more and more Brits and Europeans that are booking the cruises, especially the new "Immersion cruises" and the fact that RCI imposes a $200.00 fine for smoking in the cabin........many that we talked to, just wanted to know where they can pay the $200.00 to be able to smoke in their cabins.

 

Either RCI needs to change their policy in their UK brochures, or allow smoking. They cannot have it both ways.

 

Personally I think that smoking in cabins is dangerous, but Immersion cruising is about bringing more Europeans aboard......and they smoke!!

 

Rick

[AllieInMD]

Uh huh - smokers only eat in sub-par places - right. And let's not forget - cruiseships depend heavily on liquor sales - so that smoker that sits and has a drink or two or three is their bread and butter. Maybe that is why they don't turn all the bars on the ship non-smoking (as well as the casino).

 

The places that have good food are making out big time because non-smokers are flocking there.One bartender told me that non-smokers who sit at the bar and eat a sandwich and have a drink or two or three than leave are replacing the smoker that would do the same but linger all afternoon,but there has to be places with sub par eats that the smokers are leaving that non-smokers won't replace----BT

[AllieInMD]

I think the extra $15 is for fuel to get them over to this side of the bay!

 

 

We paid 50 in Ocean City.Some advertise cheaper but this place doesn't sell bad ones----BT

P.S.---Hey Don M. Seems you lost the Over/Under

[DON M.]

We paid 50 in Ocean City.Some advertise cheaper but this place doesn't sell bad ones----BT

P.S.---Hey Don M. Seems you lost the Over/Under

 

Yep, its going way over 87 because of all the crab and polite debate talk. Very unusual for a smoking thread.

[startwin]

When I started work there were no smoking bans and I had no choice but work where smoking was allowed. I would not have had a job. It was allowed everywhere. I have not changed jobs in 25 years and the workplace has been smoke free for about ten years. Hooray. Doom was predicted. Today there are more customers than ever. And it was not mandated by law. My employer put the health of it's employees and customers first.

 

Cruise line employees have even less choice than other employees. It is economic survival to take those jobs.

 

As a resident of Maryland I am very happy with the current law.

 

I don't think smoking should be totally banned on cruise ships. I think the smoking limits on Azamara and Oceania would make the best industry standard. One designated indoor area and one designated outdoor area. I have been on Azamara and from my observation their policy worked well.

 

I totally agree. It meets the needs of the much smaller percentage of smoking passengers, and non-smokers are able to avoid those areas. I don't think it's fair to totally ban smoking, just to respect the comfort, health and safety of the majority.

[Captain Jake]

Uh huh - smokers only eat in sub-par places - right. And let's not forget - cruiseships depend heavily on liquor sales - so that smoker that sits and has a drink or two or three is their bread and butter. Maybe that is why they don't turn all the bars on the ship non-smoking (as well as the casino).

 

but if its smuggled liquor smuggled in with those rum runners they are not making a dime.It seems RCCL is figuring this out-----BT

[AllieInMD]

How bar back are you going though? When I started working you could smoke anywhere too. I worked in a hospital and could smoke at my desk! That hasn't been allowed in the majority of workplaces in decades - predominately only allowed in the hospitality industry. If you choose to work in a bar or restaurant - you CHOOSE that for yourself.

 

Know what I find particularly amusing about all this 'health scare' stuff. I work in healthcare. The local hospital (not one my company owns) has had a no-smoking campus since the day it opened - and right outside the ER and every other entrance everyone smokes. At one of the hospitals we own, right under the NO SMOKING sign at the ER is an ashtray - my daughter works in the ER there at night - I was there llate one Saturday night and what a crowd. That hospital is due to go completely smoke free campus on Tuesday. We got little tip cards on what to say to visitors/patients that are smokers if we encounter them - basically went "we are non-smoking now, once you are done with your cigarette please support our smoking ban". It even covers the same spiel if the person just had a family member die in the ER - you are supposed to remind them of the smoking ban. LOLOL. They know there is not a thing they can do about it. You can't toss patients out because of EMTALA, you can't toss their families out because they will ignore you and then they'll bad mouth the hospital and you'll lose patients (yes that happens quite often), and Security can not do a dang thing about it and they know it. Security has already said they know they can't do anything about it and are just going to ignore it or pay it lip service.

 

 

When I started work there were no smoking bans and I had no choice but work where smoking was allowed. I would not have had a job. It was allowed everywhere. I have not changed jobs in 25 years and the workplace has been smoke free for about ten years. Hooray. Doom was predicted. Today there are more customers than ever. And it was not mandated by law. My employer put the health of it's employees and customers first.

 

Cruise line employees have even less choice than other employees. It is economic survival to take those jobs.

 

As a resident of Maryland I am very happy with the current law.

 

I don't think smoking should be totally banned on cruise ships. I think the smoking limits on Azamara and Oceania would make the best industry standard. One designated indoor area and one designated outdoor area. I have been on Azamara and from my observation their policy worked well.

[AllieInMD]

You think it's the best policy because it suits YOU.

 

 

I don't think smoking should be totally banned on cruise ships. I think the smoking limits on Azamara and Oceania would make the best industry standard. One designated indoor area and one designated outdoor area. I have been on Azamara and from my observation their policy worked well.

[DON M.]

Businesses have employees. They should not be exposed to second hand smoke. Cruise line employees should not be exposed either. It is not wrong for the government to regulate a harmful activity. And with second hand smoke they are passing bans because the public wants them. As a resident of Maryland I am quite happy with the statewide ban. I am now able to go to bars!!!

 

Thats what we need, the govt. to keep "regulating harmful activity".

http://itola.com/business/new-mississippi-law-no-fat-people-allowed/

[AllieInMD]

Taking a cursory look at the square footage of an average ship, I'd venture a guess that 90-95% of a ship's square footage is already smoke free. Non-smokers won't be satisfied - like the guy who posted that SWORE he could smell smoke coming from the casino 5 or 6 decks up on the pool deck. He was probably smelling the exhaust from the funnel - funny how he wasn't complaining about THAT.

 

I totally agree. It meets the needs of the much smaller percentage of smoking passengers, and non-smokers are able to avoid those areas. I don't think it's fair to totally ban smoking, just to respect the comfort, health and safety of the majority.

[AllieInMD]

LOL - I think they are still makin plenty on the people who don't smuggle booze - even those of us that will smuggle - I've seen people talk about bar bills in the thousands. I bought 3 small rum runners (24 oz total) for balcony drinks and only bought 3 cuz we'll need to separate my rum from his whiskey. My SO and I were discussing this yesterday while out - we've already budgeted for $XX of bar drinks every day, drinks at dinner, and he's an occasional cigar smoker and looking forward to some R&R in the Connoisseur Club with some good port or brandy.

 

 

but if its smuggled liquor smuggled in with those rum runners they are not making a dime.It seems RCCL is figuring this out-----BT

[josumello]

I'm sure you meant to say that Paris' date=' the smoking capital, has very restrictive smoking laws. I'm sure the same number of people who smoked before, smoke now...so, Paris is not a "nonsmoking" city.

 

Also, from what I hear, the French aren't really paying much attention anyway......especially at the outdoor cafes, bars and lounges and on the street. The Hookah bars are still in business, too. The fines don't seem to be having any effect either. Police simply have too many serious matters to attend to with the thugs, thieves and felons to be chasing several hundred people walking down the street with a cig in their hand.

 

As for banning smoking on cruise ships...that might happen on a few - especially the smaller cruise lines. A few have already imposed severe smoking limitations (Oceania and Azamara come to mind). But, on mass-market cruises, it simply won't work. Carnival already tried that with the Paradise...and it was a total flop...

 

As long as there are smoking and nonsmoking sections in public places onboard, that should suffice. There's room enough for everyone, for sure.[img']http://www.websmileys.com/sm/smoking/rauch12.gif[/img]

 

Have to disagree with you about Paris. Just got back form a week in France. We were amazed how strictly the ban was enforced. Didn't expect it...................

 

 

Sue

 

 

 

 

18 April 2009 Serenade of the Seas Panama Canal

12-April-2008 Navigator of the Seas Transatlantic

28-April-2007 Radiance of the Seas Hawaii

25-July-2005 Jewel of the Seas British Isles/ Norwegian Fjords

16-Jan-2004 Majesty of the Seas Bahamas

20-July-2000 Dawn Princess Alaska

15-Jan-1996 Viking Serenade Baja/Mexico

08-Jan-1989 Festivale Caribbean

[crt37]

More than you probably want to know, LOL, from a lifelong non-smoker who has kissed smokers, I get a tangy, somewhat bitter taste with the kiss.

 

Sounds extremely nasty. The thought of kissing a smoker is so repulsive. Like the old saying goes, "I'd rather lick an ashtray than kiss a smoker". :)

[AllieInMD]

It's that old thing - nobody cares when they 'come for others' until eventually they come for them.

 

People think this is a joke - I can't believe that NYC banned trans fats - actually told business owners what food they can serve paying adults - and people think this is good?

 

 

Thats what we need, the govt. to keep "regulating harmful activity".

http://itola.com/business/new-mississippi-law-no-fat-people-allowed/

[Charles4515]

How bar back are you going though? When I started working you could smoke anywhere too. I worked in a hospital and could smoke at my desk! That hasn't been allowed in the majority of workplaces in decades - predominately only allowed in the hospitality industry. If you choose to work in a bar or restaurant - you CHOOSE that for yourself.

 

 

I don't work in a bar or restaurant. Never have. Again I had no choice when I started working. And it is not true that smoking has not been allowed in majority of workplaces for decades. But there is no reason that smoking should be allowed in bars or restaurants. Years ago there was an excuse, we didn't know what we know now about smoking and smokers were a much larger percentage of the population. Now according to the latest research a large percentage of cigarettes are smoked by the mentally ill. See below.

 

http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa112300a.htm

[Charles4515]

You think it's the best policy because it suits YOU.

 

Duh. Of course. The same reason you are against the smoking limits!.

[Charles4515]

Sounds extremely nasty. The thought of kissing a smoker is so repulsive. Like the old saying goes, "I'd rather lick an ashtray than kiss a smoker". :)

 

Well, it is not like kissing an ashtray. When I get to the point of kissing a woman it is because of an attraction. The last thing on my mind is any repulsive thought. It is not extremely nasty. It is just something you notice. I think this is really getting off the subject of smoking policy...

[Charles4515]

It's that old thing - nobody cares when they 'come for others' until eventually they come for them.

 

People think this is a joke - I can't believe that NYC banned trans fats - actually told business owners what food they can serve paying adults - and people think this is good?

 

I guess then it is okay for business owners to serve spoiled food? Food infested with insects or rat turds?

[AllieInMD]

I live in MD and I know that even 20 years ago we couldn't smoke at work - office work - you couldn't smoke in many public places then either.

 

There is little to no risk from social exposure to SHS according to the WHO study data - sorry - it's another myth or assumption - much like the 'chicken little' scare over global warming that is just a cycle of nature. The problem is that when scientists discover that data doesn't support these politically correct stances, they can't get research funding unless they toe the party line. This is no better than people screaming about smoking studies being funded by tobacco companies as unethical.

 

LOL - interesting on the link - you evidently don't understand correlation - because mentally ill people smoke, doesn't mean all smokers are mentally ill. At one time the medical community believed 'self pleasure' caused mental illness, because mentally ill people did that a lot. I'm sure that mentally ill people abuse alcohol and drugs more, does that mean that all those that drink are mentally ill? How bout I bet if we studied all cancer patients we'd find most consumed large amounts of milk during childhood, so should we therefore make the correlation that milk consumption in childhood causes cancer? Of course not.

 

And - gee - smoking calms and eases the symptoms of schizophrenics - we should be providing them cigs free of charge!

 

 

 

 

I don't work in a bar or restaurant. Never have. Again I had no choice when I started working. And it is not true that smoking has not been allowed in majority of workplaces for decades. But there is no reason that smoking should be allowed in bars or restaurants. Years ago there was an excuse, we didn't know what we know now about smoking and smokers were a much larger percentage of the population. Now according to the latest research a large percentage of cigarettes are smoked by the mentally ill. See below.

 

http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/weekly/aa112300a.htm

[crt37]

 

I don't have to rationalize my habit, any more than any of you have to rationalize your cruise habit, or booze habit many seem to have, or seafood habit, it's a legal activity. Discomfort - the ONLY way a non-smoker could be caused discomfort these days is to purposely go into an area smoking is permitted - and yet ya all still whine. There are little to no health risks to SHS, especially occasional social exposure, scientific evidence has proven that already.

 

Any credibility you may have had has vanished like a puff of smoke. But that is understandable. When you strip away all the talk about smoking, one fact remains. Smokers, quite plain and simple, are drug addicts. They are addicted to nicotine. That is a fact. Drug addicts will do and say anything to justify continuing their addiction. It's really quite sad. But, sad or not, innocent victims of the second hand smoke spewed by nicotine addicts need to stand up for their rights to breathe air free of second hand smoke.

 

Since you seem to be unaware of the dangers of second hand smoke, here is a useful article from the Surgeon General with the main messages below:

 

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272006a.html

 

Main Messages

 

I would like to draw your attention to several new conclusions that I have reached due to overwhelming scientific evidence.

• Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in adults and sudden infant death syndrome and respiratory problems in children.
  
• There is NO risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure, with even brief exposure adversely affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory system.
  
• Only smoke-free environments effectively protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure in indoor spaces.
  
• Finally, the Report concludes that, while great strides have been made in recent years in reducing nonsmoking Americans’ secondhand smoke exposure, millions of Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces.

[Captain Jake]

Sounds extremely nasty. The thought of kissing a smoker is so repulsive. Like the old saying goes, "I'd rather lick an ashtray than kiss a smoker". :)

 

I think I would rather kiss a smoker---BT

[AllieInMD]

I'm not against smoking limits - key word is limits. I've always been a considerate smoker and I've always adhered to smoking restrictions. Have you ever seen me post that smoking should be allowed in the dining room? Or on the Promenade? Nope - I think those are reasonable. I know a lot of people don't like the smell. What I'm against is the wholesale banning of it - without regard to what individual business owners want to choose for their business - and with such restrictive bans on smoking that now I can't smoke in my cabin and have to pay a premium for a balcony room - but I will pay it - it's a CHOICE - and the rabid anti-smokers have a choice too - they can go to the lines with more restrictive policies - but they don't want that - they want to further restrict what I do.

 

Duh. Of course. The same reason you are against the smoking limits!.

[Charles4515]

I live in MD and I know that even 20 years ago we couldn't smoke at work - office work - you couldn't smoke in many public places then either.

 

There is little to no risk from social exposure to SHS according to the WHO study data - sorry - it's another myth or assumption - much like the 'chicken little' scare over global warming that is just a cycle of nature. The problem is that when scientists discover that data doesn't support these politically correct stances, they can't get research funding unless they toe the party line. This is no better than people screaming about smoking studies being funded by tobacco companies as unethical.

 

LOL - interesting on the link - you evidently don't understand correlation - because mentally ill people smoke, doesn't mean all smokers are mentally ill. At one time the medical community believed 'self pleasure' caused mental illness, because mentally ill people did that a lot. I'm sure that mentally ill people abuse alcohol and drugs more, does that mean that all those that drink are mentally ill? How bout I bet if we studied all cancer patients we'd find most consumed large amounts of milk during childhood, so should we therefore make the correlation that milk consumption in childhood causes cancer? Of course not.

 

And - gee - smoking calms and eases the symptoms of schizophrenics - we should be providing them cigs free of charge!

 

I don't work in an office, many people don't, and I have been in Maryland over twenty years.

 

It figures you would refer to a study years old instead of the latest research.

 

I never said all smokers are mentally ill. Just that a large percentage of the current consumption is by the mentally ill. That will be the most difficult to reduce.

[AllieInMD]

Don't you think that argument is a bit extreme? That's a sanitation issue. That's about food safe for human consumption. If trans fats are deemed not safe for human consumption based on health risks (not sanitation) - then what else should be banned? Do you want the gov't telling you you can't have a beer because you might become an alcoholic? How bout if waiters have to determine BMI before serving you dessert? Or checking your blood sugar?

 

So you're ok if they ban trans fats cuz some folks are prone to heart disease. Unless you eat nothing but a veggies and fruit, there's a group that will say that what you eat is bad for you and it could be banned based on your theory. Then again, with the samonella outbreaks from veggies - they might be off the menu too.

 

 

I guess then it is okay for business owners to serve spoiled food? Food infested with insects or rat turds?

[AllieInMD]

The Surgeon General is a political appointee and subject to the pressures of politicians and the politically correct. Remember the one we had that was crucified over the public statement supporting condoms for young people to stop the AIDS epidemic. I'll stick with the scientific research actually conducted by scientists.

 

 

Any credibility you may have had has vanished like a puff of smoke. But that is understandable. When you strip away all the talk about smoking, one fact remains. Smokers, quite plain and simple, are drug addicts. They are addicted to nicotine. That is a fact. Drug addicts will do and say anything to justify continuing their addiction. It's really quite sad. But, sad or not, innocent victims of the second hand smoke spewed by nicotine addicts need to stand up for their rights to breathe air free of second hand smoke.

 

Since you seem to be unaware of the dangers of second hand smoke, here is a useful article from the Surgeon General with the main messages below:

 

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272006a.html

 

Main Messages

 

I would like to draw your attention to several new conclusions that I have reached due to overwhelming scientific evidence.

• Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in adults and sudden infant death syndrome and respiratory problems in children.
  
• There is NO risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure, with even brief exposure adversely affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory system.
  
• Only smoke-free environments effectively protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure in indoor spaces.
  
• Finally, the Report concludes that, while great strides have been made in recent years in reducing nonsmoking Americans’ secondhand smoke exposure, millions of Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces.