HAL considering going totally non-smoking?

[Jemima]

We have been filling out those forms for nearly 4 years now!!

As long as there a few heavy smokers in Seattle -- CEO's, etc., -- smoking will not disappear from HAL ships.

 

KK, You've mentioned this a couple of times. Are you just guessing or do you know that there are "heavy smokers in Seattle --- CEO's, etc."?

[sandypaper]

I'm with you brother. My point is simply that there is really very little middle ground or suitable accommodation here for smoking on a cruise ship. Like smoking on airplanes, trying to handle the small number of individuals and their need "to indulge themselves" by introducing both a small and potentially deadly fire AND unhealthful, second-hand smoke into very tight shared passenger spaces, is simply unsafe, illogical, costly and logistically unworkable.

 

As someone else already suggested, if smokers must smoke, they should stay at home but don't expect a cruise line, airplane or hotel to accommodate you. In fact, in general, society is moving toward no accommodations at all. If you are a smoker looking for legit places to indulge, the world is already a shrinking place. A cruise ship will soon be just one more place you will not be allowed to do your thing...

 

 

Thank you very much. I will stay home and leave your type away from me.

[RevNeal]

I don't see a problem with limiting smoking to outdoor public areas only. Even if someone is tucked into the tiniest of inside cabins, it isn't that far to the promenade deck for a cigarette break. And that is covered in the event of bad weather.

 

Gale Force winds

Arctic temperatures

Heavy Seas resulting in the locking of all external doors

These are just some of the reasons why limiting smoking to just one place outdoors simply isn't going to work.

 

If the ship can also provide an Oak Room (on its own hvac system) w/a bar (revenue generating) even better! :)

 

It will be essential that at least one such indoor space be made available for those who wish to smoke. The difference between airports/airplanes and ships has already been pointed out: time-span is the issue here (hours is do-able, days/weeks is not). And, quite frankly, going "outside" just isn't always possible when aboard a ship, at sea, subject to extreme weather and sea conditions.

[MadManOfBethesda]

I must be completely dense because I simply do not understand the arguments here. If you don't like HAL's smoking policy, cruise on another line that suits your desires. If you don't like HAL's dress code policy, cruise on another line that suits your desires. If you don't like HAL's trays-in-the-Lido policy, cruise on another line that suits your desires. I could go on and on...

 

You're not dense at all. But if they booked another line, I'm sure that they would find some policy on that line to object to.

 

In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that if HAL converted all but one of its ships to nonsmoking, nonsmokers still would book that last remaining haven for smokers on some pretense ("Oh, but it had a unique itinerary!" "Oh, but it is such a beautiful ship!") and then come to CC to post complaints that the the smell of smoke ruined their cruise and should be prohibited.

[soldham]

I guess it's pretty obvious we won't solve this issue here ;)

 

HAL will change their policy - or they won't. And individual cruisers will make their decision to cruise on this line or not based on how strongly they feel about smoking.

 

I think of it like a relationship - if the good outweighs the bad you stick with it. And, for me, the good is still in the lead.

 

Peace out.

[usha]

Then you need to be petitioning HAL to have space set aside for smokers --- space where smokers can go (at least one inside, and one outside) that will be separate, ventilated, and away from non-smokers.

This is a very sensible, equitable idea, Ruth.:)

[m steve]

It's using your balcony for a quick smoke late at night, during the night or early in the morning when you don't want to get dressed, go up several levels and then go out doors for a few puffs to satisfy the nicotine craving. Again, I don't smoke but I can understand some people's need. I like the idea of a ship experiment being non smoking indoors and balconies like the Westy or Noordam as they are much alike and have similar itineraries and then the HAL folks can really determine if it's a viable option or make part of the fleet non smoking and leave the rest alone.

[suse]

KK, You've mentioned this a couple of times. Are you just guessing or do you know that there are "heavy smokers in Seattle --- CEO's, etc."?

Yeah, how did she know that there are heavy smokers way over there in Seatle?

Well, there are some very nice people here who smoke and I would never wish undue hardship upon them, so I think Ruth's idea is best.

I know my good friend Joe quit but it's very hard for most people.

See ya later everyone!:)

[sail7seas]

<snip> I like the idea of a ship experiment being non smoking indoors and balconies like the Westy or Noordam as they are much alike and have similar itineraries and then the HAL folks can really determine if it's a viable option or make part of the fleet non smoking and leave the rest alone.

 

That's the best idea I've read yet. Test it by comparing on two 'like' ships doing similar itineraries. Give it a reasonable length testing period and make a real comparison.

 

Your post brings Rita (Blue skies) to mind. That is something she would have written, IMO....(though she was a smoker.)

[RevNeal]

It's using your balcony for a quick smoke late at night, during the night or early in the morning when you don't want to get dressed, go up several levels and then go out doors for a few puffs to satisfy the nicotine craving. Again, I don't smoke but I can understand some people's need. I like the idea of a ship experiment being non smoking indoors and balconies like the Westy or Noordam as they are much alike and have similar itineraries and then the HAL folks can really determine if it's a viable option or make part of the fleet non smoking and leave the rest alone.

 

And for those without a balcony?

Or, what about those times when the weather/seas are such that one simply CAN'T go outside?

[mallbucks]

How true!!

[hulamoon]

I am sorry to hear Rita passed away, I took a few months off and missed the news. Her posts were a highlight in my time with cruise critic.

 

Does anyone else think with HAL and Princess having the least restrictive smoking policies of the big lines, that more smokers will migrate to their ships?

[momofmeg]

Smoking is a legal activity in the United States. There are some who will defend others' right to engage in legal activites, so long as they do not force the activity on those who do not want to participate.

 

Once a upon a time opium and it's derivatives were legal in England.

 

and smoking could very well go that way-as many continue to develop lung cancer from second hand smoke. My husband's aunt did-she never smoked in her life-she was told this came from "second hand smoke". This is where the problem lies. Non smokers have rights also, they deserve not to have their lives shortened by second hand smoke,but if smokers have rights, non smokers lose theirs.

 

I know one person joked about snuff. It is gross, I know, (but in my mind smoking is too) and I would rather see that and chewing tobacco, as, at least the person is not hurting others, including his own family.

[mountainmare]

I just wish they would stop giving out the stupid questionaires. If they were going to restrict smoking in the cabins and on balconies they would already have done it.

They know they attracted some Celebrity passengers who want to smoke in the cabins (and Celebrity has probably attracted passengers for whom a smoke free balcony is the tipping point).

Why not just be honest and say the policy is not going to change.

We had a very smokey cabin when we embarked that had to be recleaned, we were in a very smokey hall, we were not happy campers. I would not book a long (expensive) HAL cruise...we're trying Azamara...but are getting ready for a short HAL cruise because we just love HAL. If this cruise is smokey we will switch to something else instead of hoping the questionaire is a sign a changes to come.

[soldham]

Yes - despite the claims that HAL has some wonderful system for getting rid of cigarette smoke that is in every nook and cranny of a room my experience (and yours apparently) does not support this.

 

Smoke outside. Perhaps if it is inclement weather you will do yourself some good and wait it out. I see smokers take long flights (13 hours or greater) and they seem to survive. Nobody is demanding that there be a smoking area on these......

[ziggypup]

I guess it's pretty obvious we won't solve this issue here ;)

 

HAL will change their policy - or they won't. And individual cruisers will make their decision to cruise on this line or not based on how strongly they feel about smoking.

 

I think of it like a relationship - if the good outweighs the bad you stick with it. And, for me, the good is still in the lead.

 

Peace out.

 

Ditto. HAL is going to do whatever they want. Anything mentioned on this board is not go to have any influence in either direction.

 

So until next week when some asks...."What's HAL smoking policy". Then this thread can start all over again.

[pms4104]

Did you miss the post detailing the cutbacks in smoking areas that took place just a few months ago?

Appears to me that a decision, and changes, were made.

Yes, Ruth, I am aware that HAL already has made some changes. But ... they keep handing out that same smoking survey onboard. So, are they done with the changes? If so, stop handing out the survey. If HAL is not done making changes, they should just get on with it and set and announce the new policies. I would think that 4 years worth of surveys should be more than enough to finalize what HAL plans to do.

[hulamoon]

At least it has been a civilized thread.

[RuthC]

Once a upon a time opium and it's derivatives were legal in England.

 

and smoking could very well go that way-as many continue to develop lung cancer from second hand smoke. My husband's aunt did-she never smoked in her life-she was told this came from "second hand smoke". This is where the problem lies. Non smokers have rights also, they deserve not to have their lives shortened by second hand smoke,but if smokers have rights, non smokers lose theirs.

 

I know one person joked about snuff. It is gross, I know, (but in my mind smoking is too) and I would rather see that and chewing tobacco, as, at least the person is not hurting others, including his own family.

So you agree with me. We should all be defending smokers right to engage in a legal activity so long as that activity is not forced on others.

[suse]

So you agree with me. We should all be defending smokers right to engage in a legal activity so long as that activity is not forced on others.

The suggestion that smoking is legal is, of course, correct. However, I think you are missing the point that it is forced on others in the way of second hand smoke.

Sadly.

[RuthC]

The suggestion that smoking is legal is, of course, correct. However, I think you are missing the point that it is forced on others in the way of second hand smoke.

Sadly.

No, I'm not. That's exactly the point I was making: That so long as smokers have a place to indulge, and that place is separated from non-smokers, then there should not be a problem.

 

I have seen too many posts from non-smokers insisting, no, demanding! that they should be able to go to any and every spot on the ship, and have that spot be smoke-free.

Nonsense. Smokers are entitled to an outside and an inside area that is set aside for them. No one else needs to go there.

 

Why is the fairness of that so hard for some non-smokers to grasp?

Rather than the never-ending go-round listing places where people should not smoke, why not a consensus on two places where it would be allowed?

[Two@Sea]

The suggestion that smoking is legal is, of course, correct. However, I think you are missing the point that it is forced on others in the way of second hand smoke.

Sadly.

 

I've never known Ruth to miss ANY point... give her post another glance. I think you misunderstood. ;)

[Terpnut]

No, I'm not. That's exactly the point I was making: That so long as smokers have a place to indulge, and that place is separated from non-smokers, then there should not be a problem.

 

I have seen too many posts from non-smokers insisting, no, demanding! that they should be able to go to any and every spot on the ship, and have that spot be smoke-free.

Nonsense. Smokers are entitled to an outside and an inside area that is set aside for them. No one else needs to go there.

 

Why is the fairness of that so hard for some non-smokers to grasp?

Rather than the never-ending go-round listing places where people should not smoke, why not a consensus on two places where it would be allowed?

The problem is that smoking is not like choosing to wear pink clothes, chewing gum or drinking alcohol--it's constituents simply cannot contain the dangerous by-product of their actions. I still remember the smoking area in high school--the reality was that anyone in a nearby hallway and even some classrooms in the vicinity were affected by the smoke. How many people have breathed second-hand smoke trying to enter buildings because smoking is prohibited inside and smokers are indulging right outside the building entrances?

 

To implement a smoking room or area adjacent to non-smoking areas is extremely expensive and my guess is that doing it on a space-limited cruise ship is simply cost-prohibitive. Most hotels, bars and restaurants have learned this basic truth a long, long time ago.

 

And all personal opinions on the subject aside, all of the arguments in favor of accommodating smoking on board a cruise ship ignore the far more critical and potentially catastrophic risk of fire.

[kakalina]

Truthfully, I think HAL will go nonsmoking when to be otherwise hurts their bottom line. If they are not losing customers why should they change their policies? When/if the time comes when nonsmokers speak out with their money then things might change. As long as their ships are full I am certain they are happy.

[G'ma]

Truthfully, I think HAL will go nonsmoking when to be otherwise hurts their bottom line. If they are not losing customers why should they change their policies? When/if the time comes when nonsmokers speak out with their money then things might change. As long as their ships are full I am certain they are happy.

 

WoW!!!

 

Are you trying to ruin a great rant???

 

I agree with you 100%.... I can't understand why so many others don't understand that as long as the status quo is filling ships, there is no incentive to change.

 

If all those rad non-smokers would withhold their vacations dollars from cruise lines who permit smoking - and chose to give their business to lines where it is prohibited or severely restricted....all the cruise line would probably make changes.

 

However, they want their cake AND they want to eat it too.

 

They don't really, really fear death from 2nd hand smoke...what they don't like is the smell... While it's true that smoke does what physics says it does, that is; in a nice trade wind on a ship moving along at 15 knots or so, smoke dissapates, it's equally true that ALL smoke has a residual smell....which is what they don't like.

 

Too bad. Get over. Perfume does the same thing and to some is equally noxious.

 

It's all baloney. If they really feared for their health, they wouldn't step foot on a smoking ship.