Balcony neighbor horror stories

[avalon007]

I don't believe I have misrepresented anything. I don't think that a person who has paid for a balcony should have to go in knowing that they are going to have to compromise their enjoyment because somebody next door might not like what you do on your balcony. I guess in order to meet that 50% compromise, they should get a spreadsheet and come up with a plan and schedule times of when they are going to use the balcony, like: Day 1 - 1:00 you can have solitude and at 2:00 you can play cards...no we like our solitude time while having tea at 2:00 so can you play cards at 1:00 instead? and can you take smoke breaks at 3, 6 & 8 as those are time that I know I won't be out there....and so on and so on! But whatever....I'm through!

 

Yet, it's OK with you for a non smoker, solitude lover who also paid for a balcony to do just that? Compromise their enjoyment of their balcony to accommodate someone who does something that adversely affects others around them?

 

Can you not see that you are proposing that one person gets everything their way & another gets nothing their way?

 

There is only need for some sort of compromise when one party tends to dominate the area with their smoke, or loud music etc. So what you describe regards scheduling is just being unrealistic in an effort to emphasise your way of thinking.

 

Most reasonable people on here are saying that if someone's smoke or music or whatever is only affecting them some of the time, then they can live with that, but when the balcony owner's intended use for that balcony becomes severely limited by their neighbour, then is it not fair to expect a compromise?

 

Can't we all get what we want some of the time? Or do you feel you should get what you want all of the time?

[Dorset Cruiser]

My horror would be having a balcony next to former smokers.

 

99% of people who have never smoked do not seem to have an issue with OUTDOOR smoking as long as you aren't doing it very close to them. (i.e. smoke right near their face)

 

Former smokers are a whole different ballgame.

 

What they say:

 

"That smoke bothers me"

"That smoke stinks"

"I don't like the smell of smoke"

 

What the really mean:

 

"Man that smoke is tempting the hell out me. I could go for a cigarette right now. Damn you for tempting me."

 

:)

 

No, what they think is that the smoke bothers them and stinks and they cannot believe they spent so many years and wasted money on such a filthy habit which could seriously affect their health many, many years after winning the battle to give up that habit. My brother has recently been diagnosed with a chronic smoking related illness 20 years after his last cigarette. The effects of second hand smoke are well known and firsthand and secondhand smoking related diseases cost millions of pounds to health authorities all over the world.

 

The sooner they ban all smoking on ships, the better, and yes, I am a former smoker ;)

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

[NightOne]

 

I'm a person who is very sensitive to tobacco smoke,

 

So you aren't sensitive to other kinds of smoke?

 

You can light off the charcoal on the grill, throw some burgers and dogs on, and let them smoke away? Or are you also sensitive to that smoke?

 

If they fire up some wood fire grills and cook some steaks out by the pool are you sensitive to that smoke too?

 

I am guessing you could never go camping and light off a campfire. Or are you not sensitive to campfire smoke?

 

What about bonfires?

 

4th of July? You sensitive to firework smoke in the air?

 

What about diesel smoke from trucks? Am I correct in guessing you are sensitive to that as well?

 

Just curious.

 

:)

[awhcruiser]

Like. But the ban wouldn't work because theory says people drink more when they smoke, hence less bar money spent.

No, what they think is that the smoke bothers them and stinks and they cannot believe they spent so many years and wasted money on such a filthy habit which could seriously affect their health many, many years after winning the battle to give up that habit. My brother has recently been diagnosed with a chronic smoking related illness 20 years after his last cigarette. The effects of second hand smoke are well known and firsthand and secondhand smoking related diseases cost millions of pounds to health authorities all over the world.

 

The sooner they ban all smoking on ships, the better, and yes, I am a former smoker ;)

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

[babyher]

So you aren't sensitive to other kinds of smoke?

 

You can light off the charcoal on the grill, throw some burgers and dogs on, and let them smoke away? Or are you also sensitive to that smoke?

 

If they fire up some wood fire grills and cook some steaks out by the pool are you sensitive to that smoke too?

 

I am guessing you could never go camping and light off a campfire. Or are you not sensitive to campfire smoke?

 

What about bonfires?

 

4th of July? You sensitive to firework smoke in the air?

 

What about diesel smoke from trucks? Am I correct in guessing you are sensitive to that as well?

 

Just curious.

 

:)

 

 

Oh I will be looking forward to the responces you get.

 

I have asked this question of the anti smoking brigade , and I always get "That's a different type of smoke" :)

[NightOne]

We blame the policy for allowing smoking in an area where it's likely to negatively affect people who don't want to be around it. I hope that will change, eventually, on all cruise lines.

 

Totally agree that the policy should be changed!

 

I say going forward all the cruise lines should implement a policy where non-smokers are not allowed to book balcony cabins. Problem solved!

 

This way non-smokers will not be subjected to any smoke from nearby cabins.

 

That work for you? Or were you looking for a policy that only suits YOUR preference?

 

Just having a little fun.

 

Don't be too serious. :)

[bigque]

Yet, it's OK with you for a non smoker, solitude lover who also paid for a balcony to do just that? Compromise their enjoyment of their balcony to accommodate someone who does something that adversely affects others around them?

 

Can you not see that you are proposing that one person gets everything their way & another gets nothing their way?

 

There is only need for some sort of compromise when one party tends to dominate the area with their smoke, or loud music etc. So what you describe regards scheduling is just being unrealistic in an effort to emphasise your way of thinking.

 

Most reasonable people on here are saying that if someone's smoke or music or whatever is only affecting them some of the time, then they can live with that, but when the balcony owner's intended use for that balcony becomes severely limited by their neighbour, then is it not fair to expect a compromise?

 

Can't we all get what we want some of the time? Or do you feel you should get what you want all of the time?

 

Look you don't have to go back and forth with me, cause I really don't care who does what on their balcony because people aren't out there all day everyday the entire cruise, so I gonna do me (I don't smoke or play music or play cards out there) and I hope they keep on doing them, because when I do spend time on mine after not having been out there I all day, I'm not going to announce that I'm back so it's my time now! If a person do what they do within the rules on their balcony that they paid good money for is "severely" limiting their neighbor's intended use as you say, then they can always come back after the cruise and make a thread about it on CC! Oh and what's "resonable" to you does not mean it's resonable to everybody else just because you deem it to be so. Last post by me for real this time! :cool:

[avalon007]

Look you don't have to go back and forth with me, cause I really don't care who does what on their balcony because people aren't out there all day everyday the entire cruise, so I gonna do me (I don't smoke or play music or play cards out there) and I hope they keep on doing them, because when I do spend time on mine after not having been out there I all day, I'm not going to announce that I'm back so it's my time now! If a person do what they do within the rules on their balcony that they paid good money for is "severely" limiting their neighbor's intended use as you say, then they can always come back after the cruise and make a thread about it on CC! Oh and what's "resonable" to you does not mean it's resonable to everybody else just because you deem it to be so. Last post by me for real this time! :cool:

 

:rolleyes:

[Paul65]

So you aren't sensitive to other kinds of smoke?

 

You can light off the charcoal on the grill, throw some burgers and dogs on, and let them smoke away? Or are you also sensitive to that smoke?

 

If they fire up some wood fire grills and cook some steaks out by the pool are you sensitive to that smoke too?

 

I am guessing you could never go camping and light off a campfire. Or are you not sensitive to campfire smoke?

 

What about bonfires?

 

4th of July? You sensitive to firework smoke in the air?

 

What about diesel smoke from trucks? Am I correct in guessing you are sensitive to that as well?

 

Just curious.

 

:)

 

 

Not so much other types of smoke. I had some allergy testing done years ago, and I had a strong reaction to tobacco smoke. Things like a camp fire will bother me a little, but if I stay upwind of the smoke, I'm usually OK.

 

With tobacco, I've had reactions just from someone coming into my office, after being in the smoking area. In that case it's usually just a little bit of itchy eyes, and not a strong reaction, though.

[Paul65]

Oh I will be looking forward to the responces you get.

 

I have asked this question of the anti smoking brigade , and I always get "That's a different type of smoke" :)

 

And you, for some reason, think that all types of smoke are the same? :confused:

[babyher]

And you, for some reason, think that all types of smoke are the same? :confused:

 

Its all no good for you. Smoke contains pollutants, irritants, by products of the substance being burned.

 

The smoke from a good cigar or pipe tobacco may smell more pleasant than a pile of burning tires or the the smokestack of a factory, but it still as hazardous as any type of smoke

[Paul65]

Its all no good for you. Smoke contains pollutants, irritants, by products of the substance being burned.

 

The smoke from a good cigar or pipe tobacco may smell more pleasant than a pile of burning tires or the the smokestack of a factory, but it still as hazardous as any type of smoke

 

This is, at best, only partially true. I don't know that any smoke is good for you, but the smoke from burning different things will contain different chemicals. It's silly to assume that all types of smoke will affect a person in the same way.

[drarill]

I see this ignorant argument repeatedly on the topic. Someone who is that closed-minded is not going to understand. First of all, you're talking about extremes that most people don't really claim. This, of course, is standard fair for all sorts of different arguments to try to cloud the real issue. But I'll try to give your my perspective, to see if you can put aside your rhetoric and listen to reason.

 

I'm a person who is very sensitive to tobacco smoke, so if there is a chain smoker next to me on a cruise, I won't be able to enjoy my balcony much. So, why not just cruise on Celebrity? Well, there are lots of reasons. Royal Caribbean tend to sail out of ports that are more convenient for us, we enjoy the overall experience of Royal Caribbean, we tend to sail with our son, and they have a great children's and youth program and tend to have more kids on board, in general, than Celebrity. So, as I said, I think ignorant is the right word for an argument that assumes, if there's one thing you don't like about a particular cruise line that your should just go to another that takes care of that one thing. It should be obvious that there are many factors that go into planning and choosing a vacation.

 

Now, I have sailed on RCI with balcony cabins a total of seven times. One time out of the seven, we had problems with there being an almost constant presence of smoke on the balcony. So, for that one time out of seven, there was disappointment over that particular aspect of the cruise. That did not ruin the entire cruise experience; it just made for one disappointing aspect.

 

The reaction to that was not to go around telling people not to smoke on their balconies. The reaction was to note on our comment card that it was a problem for us. Despite how you might want to characterize it to bolster your argument, most people do not really blame the smokers for smoking where they're allowed to do so. We blame the policy for allowing smoking in an area where it's likely to negatively affect people who don't want to be around it. I hope that will change, eventually, on all cruise lines. Smoking needs to be relegated to out of the way places, where it doesn't impact others. Society is moving that direction, and while some see it as a restriction of their freedom to smoke, others see it as freedom to enjoy life relatively free of smoke.

I agree with you!!!

[babyher]

This is, at best, only partially true. I don't know that any smoke is good for you, but the smoke from burning different things will contain different chemicals. It's silly to assume that all types of smoke will affect a person in the same way.

 

so someone walking in a room that was just in a smoking room bothers you, but a roaring campfire is ok as long as you stand on the other side.

 

And you got an allergist to validate your craziness too.

[Paul65]

so someone walking in a room that was just in a smoking room bothers you, but a roaring campfire is ok as long as you stand on the other side.

 

And you got an allergist to validate your craziness too.

 

I don't spend a lot of time around camp fires, but the smoke from a camp fire does not cause the same reaction as tobacco smoke. I don't know why that is so hard for you to accept.

 

I know someone who is terribly allergy to bee stings, but will not have any abnormal reaction to being stung by a wasp. They are similar, but not the same. You shouldn't have to resort to calling it craziness, just because you don't understand it. :cool:

[NightOne]

Techically, cigarette smoke would be an irritant to some people and not an allergen.

 

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/allergies/allergy-basics/cigarette-allergy-symptoms.htm

 

From this page:

 

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/conditions/asthma/allergens/smoke/

 

"People with allergies may be more sensitive to cigarette smoke than others and research studies indicate that smoking may aggravate allergies."

 

So it is not that people are allergic to cigarette smoke but rather it is the case that it aggravates other allergies.

 

Btw, from everyhing I read about this smoking ... It is not good for you!

 

:)

[babyher]

I don't spend a lot of time around camp fires, but the smoke from a camp fire does not cause the same reaction as tobacco smoke. I don't know why that is so hard for you to accept.

 

I know someone who is terribly allergy to bee stings, but will not have any abnormal reaction to being stung by a wasp. They are similar, but not the same. You shouldn't have to resort to calling it craziness, just because you don't understand it. :cool:

 

I understand it all too well . I work with more people with their special illnesses and doctors notes , and excuse forms .

[Paul65]

Techically, cigarette smoke would be an irritant to some people and not an allergen.

 

I've read that, and have also been called some nasty names, when I said I was allergic to tobacco smoke. That's why in such discussions, I am careful to say that I am "sensitive" or "have a reaction," because people like to jump on things like this to try to prove someone is a liar.

 

For all practical purposes, it doesn't really matter if your "allergy-like symptoms" are caused by a true allergy or by a sensitivity, except perhaps that typical antihistamine allergy medications may not help as much with an irritant, so in that sense, it may be worse to be "sensitive."

 

I'm not so sure that I believe the claims that tobacco smoke cannot contain any allergens, though. That specific claim is usually from less rigorous sources. Note that the NIH link you posted sort of dances around the subject, saying that it can aggravate allergies, but avoiding saying outright that it cannot be the cause of an allergy. True allergies are caused by your body's reaction to proteins, and there are certainly proteins in tobacco. One would expect proteins to be destroyed in burning the tobacco, but not necessarily 100% destroyed.

 

It's an interesting topic, but as I said, a somewhat moot point, when you have similar symptoms, whether it is a true allergy or not.

[Paul65]

I understand it all too well . I work with more people with their special illnesses and doctors notes , and excuse forms .

 

You're a pretty unpleasant and judgmental person. I hope that's just your persona when hiding behind a keyboard, and not your every day demeanor.

[babyher]

You're a pretty unpleasant and judgmental person. I hope that's just your persona when hiding behind a keyboard, and not your every day demeanor.

 

You don't do so bad yourself.

[Paul65]

You don't do so bad yourself.

 

I don't know. I don't think I've been mocking your medical conditions. I just picked at you about your rhetorical skills, over-exaggerating claims and being too busy to bother trying to back them up. I think that's a subtle difference. :cool:

[babyher]

I don't know. I don't think I've been mocking your medical conditions. I just picked at you about your rhetorical skills, over-exaggerating claims and being too busy to bother trying to back them up. I think that's a subtle difference. :cool:

 

And you have a very smug way about yourself .

[Paul65]

And you have a very smug way about yourself .

 

It's easy to be smug about something you know is a fact, such as your own reaction to a common irritant. So, I'll accept smug. :D

[bigboffs]

These postings show that many do not have severe allergies and/or do not understand them. They are not the result of an addiction but rather a problem that the body biologically develops.

 

A person may be allergic to one member of a substance family but not all. As examples, grapefruit allergy does not mean all fruit is so affected; an allergy to cold only kicks in at below certain temperatures; an allergy to stringbeans does make the individual allergic to all vegetables; a person allergic to an airborne pollutant such as tobacco smoke may not be allergic to all other smoke. People with severe allergies, when exposed to them, can develop life threatening reactions so many carry injectable epinephrine.

 

As to smoking on RCCL balconies, since the cruise line recognizes this medical issue it now only allows smoking in certain areas and like around the pool; it seems that they could limit smoking to balconies on one side of a ship thus giving cruisers a choice.

[babyher]

It's easy to be smug about something you know is a fact, such as your own reaction to a common irritant. So, I'll accept smug. :D

 

Be as smug as you want. Like my dad used to say , one day you will try it with the wrong person (and it won't be on the internet)