Smoking Policy from a Brits point of view!

[DON M.]

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.

 

Could you also post a link to ANY study, with facts, control groups, the number of people in the group etc. that led to the American Lung Ass. conclusion that 3,000 people will die from SHS each year. Dont waste your time because there is no such study. Call them, like I did, and you will get the answer " we do not make our studies public knowledge." Mark Twain- Scientific evidence, lies and more lies."

[AllieInMD]

What latest research? Show me a large scale long term study done by any legitimate independent objective researchers like the WHO study that says different. All the smoking bans started and the ALA/ACS statements etc are based on studies done long ago - like the EPA one that was thrown out in federal court because it was junk science and skewed to come to it's predetermined conclusion - or the WHO study that showed a wholly different outcome than projected and they attempted to bury it - I can't even find it on the WHO site - had to look at the NIH to find it.

 

You implied it, I believe that's why you brought it up. But as for them - you really think that smoking is what we should be concerned about with these people? Anti-social personality, conduct disorder, psychosis and schizophrenia? I say if it helps keep them in check, let's subsidize their nicotine habit!!

 

 

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.

[Charles4515]

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 am just following the logic of your argument to show you it's folly. There needs to be government regulation because it known without it, unsafe food will get into the food supply because some businesses are greedy or don't care or are sloppy. I don't know about trans fats in particular because I have not studied them. Can't follow everything! I am not saying the government is always right!

[AllieInMD]

Yep, did earlier in the thread - a link to the case about the EPA study - which was thrown out in federal court as evidence was cherry picked to support a conclusion they'd already come up with. I do believe that is where the ALA got their 3,000 figure.

 

And - the WHO study (after the EPA one) that came to the conclusions I posted. Now THAT one you can't find on the WHO site - was quite embarrassing and they took a lot of flack because the study didn't jive with politically correct policy.

 

Shouldn't it concern you, and anyone else - that groups/organizations tell you what is best for you - but refuse to supply the information and data on which it's based? Tells me that it can't stand up to scrutiny.

 

 

Could you also post a link to ANY study, with facts, control groups, the number of people in the group etc. that led to the American Lung Ass. conclusion that 3,000 people will die from SHS each year. Dont waste your time because there is no such study. Call them, like I did, and you will get the answer " we do not make our studies public knowledge." Mark Twain- Scientific evidence, lies and more lies."

[Clarea]

individual rights - one of the reasons I positively celebrated the Supreme Court's ruling the other day on the 2nd Amendment. Know who instituted the first modern ban on smoking? **** Germany - Hitler. If you don't like our posts on smokers rights, nobody is forcing you to read it.

 

I agree with you about the Supreme Court ruling. However, I don't agree that restrictions on PUBLIC smoking equate with banning guns, alcohol prohibition, or any of the individual rights that you cite. Read that again - restrictions on PUBLIC smoking, not BANNING smoking. Much different. If you really want to compare apples to apples, try comparing public smoking to public urination. I'll admit that public urination (hereafter called PU) is not exactly like public smoking (probably doesn't cause cancer) but it's a much closer analogy to public smoking than alcohol prohibition. Social conventions are changing and smoking is being relegated to the status of PU. The "nanny state" already has restrictions on PU, and eventually the restrictions on public smoking will approach those of PU.

[AllieInMD]

It's logical to have a public policy that you can't sell rancid food or bug infested food - the purchaser has no way of knowing that it's rancid or infested. It's way different when an adult chooses to eat french fries.

 

I am just following the logic of your argument to show you it's folly. There needs to be government regulation because it known without it, unsafe food will get into the food supply because some businesses are greedy or don't care or are sloppy. I don't know about trans fats in particular because I have not studied them. Can't follow everything! I am not saying the government is always right!

[DON M.]

Like Allie says, whatever your agenda, you can find a "study" for it and believe it. Here's one for all of you overweight people who are worried.http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/08/overweight-people-ha.html

[Captain Jake]

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.

 

And the Mention of Adolph is sad also.The arguments to justify the habit are growing weaker by the day.-----------------BT

[AllieInMD]

Oh, if they stopped at reasonable restrictions, I could live with that - in fact I have for many years. Many places ban smoking EVERYWHERE - including public streets - that smokers are also paying for. In California you can't be in a car smoking with a child under 17. So as a parent I can make medical decisions including withholding medical treatment, educational decisions including no school, religious decisions, immunization decisions - raise them in a polygamy compound if I want - but can't have a smoke around them. How crazy is that?

 

No different than gun bans - started with small restrictions - and worked it's way up to places like the DC gun ban and think it's Chicago and San Fran that are already being sued. The first domino has fallen :)

 

Why is PU outlawed? Because while you do it your genitals are exposed - that's why. A lot of places don't have an actual codified law against peeing in public, it's captured under exposure laws. While I do think Americans are generally too uptight about nudity, I also believe there is a time and place for it and that it's ok to outlaw whippin it out on a public street.

 

Just like I think it's ok to outlaw murder and armed robbery and carjacking.

When it goes as far as outlawing what your french fries were cooked in, it's become way too much a nanny state for my tastes. As was Prohibition going to far - and why it was repealed. And when it goes so far as to deny you your constitutional rights like the gun ban, then it's gone too far - shame it took 30 years to right that wrong. I predict the anti-smoking crusade will keep goin for some time and then there will be backlash like there was on alcohol ban (which still kills tons of innocents) and gun bans.

 

 

I agree with you about the Supreme Court ruling. However, I don't agree that restrictions on PUBLIC smoking equate with banning guns, alcohol prohibition, or any of the individual rights that you cite. Read that again - restrictions on PUBLIC smoking, not BANNING smoking. Much different. If you really want to compare apples to apples, try comparing public smoking to public urination. I'll admit that public urination (hereafter called PU) is not exactly like public smoking (probably doesn't cause cancer) but it's a much closer analogy to public smoking than alcohol prohibition. Social conventions are changing and smoking is being relegated to the status of PU. The "nanny state" already has restrictions on PU, and eventually the restrictions on public smoking will approach those of PU.

[Captain Jake]

Like Allie says, whatever your agenda, you can find a "study" for it and believe it. Here's one for all of you overweight people who are worried.http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/08/overweight-people-ha.html

 

Good News for Overweight Smokers:D

[AllieInMD]

And for people who support smoking bans because of health care costs is the stuff out there that says non-smokers actually cost more because they live longer. Heck my insurance company wouldn't pay for stop smoking aids or drugs - they said they would cover lung transplants or other cancer treatments - but wouldn't help anyone quit smoking. If they can legislate all this other stuff regarding smoking, why not legislate that insurance companies MUST cover stop smoking stuff? Suddenly THAT is too intrusive on private industry.

 

 

Like Allie says, whatever your agenda, you can find a "study" for it and believe it. Here's one for all of you overweight people who are worried.http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/08/overweight-people-ha.html

[Captain Jake]

Oh, if they stopped at reasonable restrictions, I could live with that - in fact I have for many years. Many places ban smoking EVERYWHERE - including public streets - that smokers are also paying for. In California you can't be in a car smoking with a child under 17.

.

 

Maybe if streets were not littered with butts the ban would not be needed.How many smokers dispose of their butts properly when walking down the street? How many toss them from the car?I'm wondering if the scent was so wonderful why would they want to toss the butt? You would think they'd want to keep the ash trays full of the butts instead of wasting their money on those pine scented things hanging from their mirrors------BT:D

[AllieInMD]

“Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It”

 

In case you hadn't noticed - it's not just smoking rights that I am peeved about - it's about gov't being a nanny state and stomping on individual rights - guns, trans fats, etc - it's just that smoking is the one that comes up here. Imagine if gov't decided to limit all pax to 2000 calories total a day - food and booze - on a ship - what this board would be like! ;)

 

 

 

 

 

And the Mention of Adolph is sad also.The arguments to justify the habit are growing weaker by the day.-----------------BT

[Host Mick]

Over/Under on the closing of this thread is 87. Come on get those stats on SHS posted fast,I bet the under in Vegas.

 

139 and counting.

The overs win. Time to pay off.

 

I'd much rather bet on the point in which everything has already been said and additional posts are clarifications or a repeat of an opinion already opined. For mosts threads, that is about 12 posts or one page. Every other page is usually a waste of drive space.

[AllieInMD]

Hmm, well I see tons of booze bottles, fast food wrappers, and starbucks cups on the side of the road - maybe we should outlaw McD's, starbucks, and beer bottles?

 

Pitching a cig out a window is LITTERING - just like tossin out a fast food wrapper - and is covered by a separate law - and a very expensive ticket - my ex got nailed for that once. New cars don't have ashtrays - I bought one that sits in the cupholder that I use. I have a real thing about littering - if I dump out a soda cuz I need the cupholder, I empty the liquid and put the cup in the back. Could be why my car always looks crappy ;)

 

I don't have one of those pine scented things hanging from my mirror, the chemicals in the scent makes me sick.

 

 

Maybe if streets were not littered with butts the ban would not be needed.How many smokers dispose of their butts properly when walking down the street? How many toss them from the car?I'm wondering if the scent was so wonderful why would they want to toss the butt? You would think they'd want to keep the ash trays full of the butts instead of wasting their money on those pine scented things hanging from their mirrors------BT:D

[snoopysnake]

I don't have one of those pine scented things hanging from my mirror, the chemicals in the scent makes me sick.

 

I can sympathize with you on a smell like pine making you sick! The smell of cigarettes makes me sick, and it makes a lot of other people sick, but it seems to be a smell that certain pro-smoking individuals refuse to believe has that capability.

 

Just because it smells good to a smoker, does not mean it can't smell bad or sickening to a non-smoker.

 

I know you want to smoke, but it doesn't mean other people aren't harmed by it.

[trvlbug]

Hello All,

 

I have watched this thread now for awhile. 74 years ago while living in England my grandmother fell down some stairs while holding her twins. Her nerves were shot. When she went to the Dr. he told her to have a cigarette to calm them LOL. None of her four children smoked and the youngest are 75. My grandmother died at 95 and my grandfather at 89 (both smokers). My father smoked until 50 and he is 79 and my mother who never smoked is 75. One of their four children smokes, me. One of my three children smokes.

 

I have now smoked for 32 years. I have tried to quit numerous times. Patches, zyban, you name it. There was a study a few years back that nicotine was harder to quit than heroin and that for female smokers the nicotine was more addictive than in a male.

 

I think the thing that bothers me is that so many assume that us smokers are rude and wanting our own way. Cigarettes are legal. I have ALWAYS complied with where and when I can smoke. We use to be able to smoke in our cabins. That was not my rule. It was the cruise ship's. Now I am only allowed to smoke on a balcony, at one bar and sometimes the casino and a small part of the pool deck (at least on Freedom last December). However, when I comply I am told by others that this is not good enough! I ruined their balcony experience, they had to walk past me on the pool deck (they could have walked on the other side), they couldn't go to the one bar out of 13 because I smoked there. Yes, I wish I could quit, but I can`t. But I am not rude nor insensitive. I don`t smuggle booze, I don`t cut in line. I don`t smoke where I am not allowed.

 

I have known people who use drugs and endanger lives everyday because of how high they are. I have one `friend`` that is an alcoholic and cannot quit. He has driven drunk numerous times. That endangers a lot of people. All of these people get more sympathy than me because I am addicted to nicotine.

 

So please don`t lump all of us smokers in the same category. We are addicted to something that is legal and we follow the rules. Ok off my soapbox. I am wound up now so I will go and have a smoke to calm down LOL. Plus, I hope that you all have wonderful cruises in the future.

 

Trish

[coffeebean]

I agree with you to a point, but given the percentage of non-smokers to smokers, there are far too many smoking areas on most ships. It should be much more limited in favour of the comfort of the majority.

 

NCL ships allow smoking only in the casino and the totally enclosed cigar bar inside their ships. The smokiest place on the entire ship is the casino. It is a pleasure to go to any lounge or bar with the exception of the casino, and have a drink in a clean air environment.

 

Outside, there are designated smoking areas.

[AllieInMD]

It's not that we don't believe you don't like the smell of smoke - I believe it - just as much as I believe scents/perfumes have same effects on me. It's that we aren't trying to legislate or ban little pine things - heck - you can wear one around your neck into your office or a public place - just like you can douse yourself in perfume - all perfectly ok in society today.

 

When faced with someone who has an overwhelming smell I don't like - I move away from them as fast as I can - I don't try to pass a law. You can do the same with anyone that smells like smoke. As for actual smoke - it's easily avoided - don't go the few remaining places smoking is allowed. I don't come into a non-smoking area and light up, you (collective you, not you personally) shouldn't come into a smoking area and complain.

 

 

I can sympathize with you on a smell like pine making you sick! The smell of cigarettes makes me sick, and it makes a lot of other people sick, but it seems to be a smell that certain pro-smoking individuals refuse to believe has that capability.

 

Just because it smells good to a smoker, does not mean it can't smell bad or sickening to a non-smoker.

 

I know you want to smoke, but it doesn't mean other people aren't harmed by it.

[berwyn]

Hello All,

 

I have watched this thread now for awhile. 74 years ago while living in England my grandmother fell down some stairs while holding her twins. Her nerves were shot. When she went to the Dr. he told her to have a cigarette to calm them LOL. None of her four children smoked and the youngest are 75. My grandmother died at 95 and my grandfather at 89 (both smokers). My father smoked until 50 and he is 79 and my mother who never smoked is 75. One of their four children smokes, me. One of my three children smokes.

 

I have now smoked for 32 years. I have tried to quit numerous times. Patches, zyban, you name it. There was a study a few years back that nicotine was harder to quit than heroin and that for female smokers the nicotine was more addictive than in a male.

 

I think the thing that bothers me is that so many assume that us smokers are rude and wanting our own way. Cigarettes are legal. I have ALWAYS complied with where and when I can smoke. We use to be able to smoke in our cabins. That was not my rule. It was the cruise ship's. Now I am only allowed to smoke on a balcony, at one bar and sometimes the casino and a small part of the pool deck (at least on Freedom last December). However, when I comply I am told by others that this is not good enough! I ruined their balcony experience, they had to walk past me on the pool deck (they could have walked on the other side), they couldn't go to the one bar out of 13 because I smoked there. Yes, I wish I could quit, but I can`t. But I am not rude nor insensitive. I don`t smuggle booze, I don`t cut in line. I don`t smoke where I am not allowed.

 

I have known people who use drugs and endanger lives everyday because of how high they are. I have one `friend`` that is an alcoholic and cannot quit. He has driven drunk numerous times. That endangers a lot of people. All of these people get more sympathy than me because I am addicted to nicotine.

 

So please don`t lump all of us smokers in the same category. We are addicted to something that is legal and we follow the rules. Ok off my soapbox. I am wound up now so I will go and have a smoke to calm down LOL. Plus, I hope that you all have wonderful cruises in the future.

 

Trish

Best post ever!

[bluefintuna]

We have cameras watching us from everywhere, including from outer space. We now have smoking banned and transfats and on and on. This is not the land of the free, but it certainly is the home of the brave. "Yesterday, they came for THEM, tomorrow they will come for you". History does repeat itself and a good example is: we pay $4 a gallon for gas, we gripe and say nothing. You have to know it will go to $5 and $6 and $7; what then? We are all taking a hosing and it is effecting every part of our lives. My point is life isn't fair or safe and everyday is a crap shoot.

[Captain Jake]

Best post ever!

 

I respectfully disagree.I thought it was nonsense---------------BT

[Clarea]

When faced with someone who has an overwhelming smell I don't like - I move away from them as fast as I can - I don't try to pass a law. You can do the same with anyone that smells like smoke. As for actual smoke - it's easily avoided - don't go the few remaining places smoking is allowed. I don't come into a non-smoking area and light up, you (collective you, not you personally) shouldn't come into a smoking area and complain.

 

I agree with this, mostly. My complaint is not with smokers. My complaint is with the smoking policy of RCI. I don't mind avoiding areas on the ship where smoking is allowed, such as the smoking side of the pool deck. It's easy just to move to the other side. No big deal. However, when I encounter smoke on my balcony (from smokers legitimately smoking on their balcony), then I complain to RCI because I cannot get away from the smoke unless I give up my balcony. I know this is not fair to smokers, but it's not fair to me either, and I don't know of a solution that would satisfy all.

[Captain Jake]

We have cameras watching us from everywhere, including from outer space. We now have smoking banned and transfats and on and on. This is not the land of the free, but it certainly is the home of the brave. "Yesterday, they came for THEM, tomorrow they will come for you". History does repeat itself and a good example is: we pay $4 a gallon for gas, we gripe and say nothing. You have to know it will go to $5 and $6 and $7; what then? We are all taking a hosing and it is effecting every part of our lives. My point is life isn't fair or safe and everyday is a crap shoot.

 

If this is such a crappy place,Why are so many coming and so few leaving?No doubt The USA is the LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE!----BT

[Clarea]

 

Why is PU outlawed? Because while you do it your genitals are exposed - that's why. A lot of places don't have an actual codified law against peeing in public, it's captured under exposure laws. While I do think Americans are generally too uptight about nudity, I also believe there is a time and place for it and that it's ok to outlaw whippin it out on a public street.

 

Not sure I agree with your reasoning. My guess would be that PU is restricted more for being a health hazard.

 

This thread has gone on for longer than before, hasn't it. I wonder what makes the moderators pull the plug?