Jailed for smoking on a plane, what about ships

Article is about a man smoking on a plane and causing a fire.

Should cruise lines adopt this attitude rather than perhaps just throwing them off the ship?

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=_rs~dv~Am&w_id=33177&news_id=2027297

No. Smoking on aircraft is an actual violation of Federal law and has the resultant penalties associated with it. Smoking onboard a ship is a matter of cruise line policy.

No. Smoking on aircraft is an actual violation of Federal law and has the resultant penalties associated with it. Smoking onboard a ship is a matter of cruise line policy.

Yes, in the US it is Federal Law. But internationally? This flight was from the UK, presumably a UK based carrier... How/ what law applies then? EM

He wasn't jailed for smoking on the flight. He was jailed for setting two fires.

Reading between the lines, as the Captain made an in-flight announcement about "moronic" behaviour, it sounds like in-flight smoking is not illegal in the UK.

Hopefully a UK reader will clarify that point.

This guy's actions, setting two fires, would get him arrested on any cruise ship.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, in the US it is Federal Law. But internationally? This flight was from the UK, presumably a UK based carrier... How/ what law applies then? EM

I believe it is just a ban, not illegal on U.K. Carriers.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Yes, in the US it is Federal Law. But internationally? This flight was from the UK, presumably a UK based carrier... How/ what law applies then? EM

I didn't read the article but presumably UK law and/or international law. As a previous poster mentioned he was apparently arrested for starting fires. (And if you are on a US carrier it is my understanding that Federal law would still apply on an international flight). In any event in order to be arrested for committing a crime you must actually violate a law and there are no laws governing smoking on a cruise ship.

We have flown airlines based on six different continents. All those flights were nonsmoking. Does the source of the governing law really matter? I guess you could google and do some serious legal research if you are so inclined. I can't really imagine any mainstream airline permitting smoking on board.

This is no correlation between the smoking rules/laws on airplanes vs cruise ships. The apples/oranges thing.

As mentioned, it is not a matter of law but cruise line policy that determines the guidelines for smoking on board. With foreign registry of most ships it may be difficult to have a universal law regarding smoking on board a ship.

But to that - and due in large part to the potential fire hazard - most (if not all) cruise lines have banned smoking in staterooms, many have banned smoking on balconies, some still allow it in designated areas of the casino (and perhaps some lounges), and most still allow it in designated outside common areas of the ship. More cruise lines seem to be headed to eliminating all inside smoking venues - following those such as Celebrity - and restricting the outside areas to one or two locations.

You CAN smoke on the ship, but only in the designated smoking areas...so no need to "sneak" a smoke elsewhere!

In the UK, under the Civil Aviation Act, the Air Navigation Order made under Section 61 creates a number of offences.

"Article 76 prohibits any person smoking in any compartment of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom at a time when smoking is prohibited in that compartment by a notice to that effect exhibited by or on behalf of the commander of the aircraft;"

Also: "Article 75 prohibits any person entering any aircraft when drunk, or being drunk in any aircraft;"

That being said, the specific charge under which Mr. Cox was convicted was "Arson - reckless as to whether life was endangered".

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is the UN organization that deals with international airlines, much like the IMO (International Maritime Organization) deals with ships, including cruise ships. The ICAO, in it's Chicago Convention, has gradually restricted smoking on all international flights, and called for its member states to do likewise for domestic flights. Each nation that is a member of ICAO must make enabling legislation that agrees with the ICAO Convention, hence the federal offence for smoking on a plane. The IMO, in its many Conventions, most notably in this case SOLAS and MLC, has not adopted a no smoking policy, therefore it is up to each and every IMO member nation to make their own laws regarding smoking (in the case of cruise ships, primarily Panama and Bahamas), and in the absence of a flag state law, it is the cruise line's decision on smoking, but it then is not a criminal or civil offence.

But couldn't you argue that someone who causes a fire on a ship because of the careless discarding of a cigarette (or similar action) should be charged with endangering the lives of possibly 4,000 people? Disembarking them at the next possible port may hurt them financially, but the thought that they may be charged and end up in prison is a much stronger deterrent.

He wasn't jailed for smoking on the flight. He was jailed for setting two fires.

 

Reading between the lines, as the Captain made an in-flight announcement about "moronic" behaviour, it sounds like in-flight smoking is not illegal in the UK.

 

Hopefully a UK reader will clarify that point.

 

This guy's actions, setting two fires, would get him arrested on any cruise ship.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He started one fire. The first was a different passenger, after which the captain made the announcement. Despite this, the 2nd guy still carelessly tossed his cig in the bin, starting the 2nd fire.

But couldn't you argue that someone who causes a fire on a ship because of the careless discarding of a cigarette (or similar action) should be charged with endangering the lives of possibly 4,000 people? Disembarking them at the next possible port may hurt them financially, but the thought that they may be charged and end up in prison is a much stronger deterrent.

IF someone did start a fire than that is a completely different question. Whether or not they should be charged should be left to the discretion of the Ship's Master and should be dictated by the particular facts and whether or not any law applies under which to charge them (i.e. if someone caused a fire in a trash bin that was easily contained that would be treated differently than someone causing a fire that caused actual damage to the ship).

Smoking on cruise ships is not a legal violation. However, it is a safety risk to all passengers, especially if somebody smokes in their cabin. We think that the policy of fining a smoker $200 (or more) per violation is a good starting point. Continuous violation of the smoking policy should result in the passenger being tossed off the ship (at their own expense) at the next port.

Hank

But couldn't you argue that someone who causes a fire on a ship because of the careless discarding of a cigarette (or similar action) should be charged with endangering the lives of possibly 4,000 people? Disembarking them at the next possible port may hurt them financially, but the thought that they may be charged and end up in prison is a much stronger deterrent.

Again, you have to understand that the overriding law is the law of the flag state (the country where the ship is registered). If that country makes it a crime to start a fire by discarding a cigarette, then it is up to that country to decide if they wish to prosecute that crime. If that country does not make it a crime to start a fire in this manner, then that's the end of it. There is some jurisdictional overlap between flag state (the ship's flag) and the port state (the local laws of the nation the ship is in at the time), so there could be some case where it becomes a crime to start a fire like this, but it would be very rare, and would most likely have to be the result of a major fire on the ship.

Article is about a man smoking on a plane and causing a fire.

 

Should cruise lines adopt this attitude rather than perhaps just throwing them off the ship?

 

http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=_rs~dv~Am&w_id=33177&news_id=2027297

There is a difference as violating smoking ban on an airplane is a violation of a regulation. Violating the ban on a ship is a violation of a company rule. Regardless, if a person smokes on a ship if it is not allowed, they should throw them off the ship immediately regardless of where the ship is located. That would stop them from smoking on any ship ever again.

DON

The part of the original story which is relevant to the cruise industry is that the man caused fires in discarding his cigarette/s. If the same situation occurred on a ship whereupon a person discards lit smoking material which causes fire/s you could easily argue that this person's actions were reckless and that ultimately gaol might be appropriate for them. Were they were simply smoking in an inappropriate location one could argue it is up to the cruise line to implement it's own policy.

Regards John

There is a difference as violating smoking ban on an airplane is a violation of a regulation. Violating the ban on a ship is a violation of a company rule. Regardless, if a person smokes on a ship if it is not allowed, they should throw them off the ship immediately regardless of where the ship is located. That would stop them from smoking on any ship ever again.

 

DON

Death penalty for any infraction. Why not? It would certainly reduce crowding at popular venues.

. . . of course it shouldn't apply to me when I break a ship's rule.

There is a difference as violating smoking ban on an airplane is a violation of a regulation. Violating the ban on a ship is a violation of a company rule. Regardless, if a person smokes on a ship if it is not allowed, they should throw them off the ship immediately regardless of where the ship is located. That would stop them from smoking on any ship ever again.

 

 

 

DON

I agree. It is still the discretion of the company to impose penalties, until a law or a regulation overrides it.

Sent from my iPad using Forums

I have never seen a careless smoker on any of my cruises personally. However I think if the cruise company has published its smoking policy and someone breaks that repeatedly then being jailed on the ship would be fair and appropriate. If only all passenger behaviour was so clear cut as to what is acceptable.

 

Should cruise lines adopt this attitude rather than perhaps just throwing them off the ship?

 

If a cruise line adopts a zero-tolerance smoking policy, and/or imposes strict penalties for violators, I have no problems. I don't want to be around anyone's smoke, anywhere.

Smoker's "rights"? BS. I have a right to not have to be exposed to their toxins.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

If a cruise line adopts a zero-tolerance smoking policy, and/or imposes strict penalties for violators, I have no problems. I don't want to be around anyone's smoke, anywhere.

 

Smoker's "rights"? BS. I have a right to not have to be exposed to their toxins.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Yes, like it or not smokers do have rights as long as it's a legal act, which it is. Of course we non-smokers have rights also which is why smoking is confined to certain areas of the ship, areas that we can easily enough avoid.

Can't wait to see the smoking threads if and when marijuana becomes legal in the ship's flagged country. Then we'll see arguments pitting those who demand the right to relieve their pain versus those who demand the right to a smoke free environment.

I have never seen a careless smoker on any of my cruises personally. However I think if the cruise company has published its smoking policy and someone breaks that repeatedly then being jailed on the ship would be fair and appropriate. If only all passenger behaviour was so clear cut as to what is acceptable.

Back in the days when smoking was allowed on balconies, we had many cigarette ends on the balconies of various cabins we've been in. So we didn't actually SEE the careless smokers, but we certainly knew that they were there, somewhere above us! Sadly, there are always a few careless people.