No Smoking on Verandahs

[Ex techie]

I really can't say much more at this point, I might be able to later....but all I can say is that it really had nothing to do with PASSENGERS at all......other than to keep them safe. In other words, it wasn't anything any PASSENGERS did.

 

I've heard that crew can no longer smoke in their cabins as well. Now only a couple of DSA's.

 

ex techie

[Ex techie]

What are the chances that someone is going to swan dive off the ship into the water, swim to shore and drive off into the sunset after consuming a few beers?

 

What are chances that a Guest who was very very intoxicated would decide to see if he could release the Aft anchor on the HAL Ryndam?

http://www.cruisecritic.co.uk/news/news.cfm?ID=4251

 

Or that the Captain of Celebrity Mercury would be found in command of the ship whilst under the influence of alcohol?

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003007115_webcruise19m.html

 

Or this Captain of a Russian ferry?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/russia-boat-crash_n_3773275.html

 

You don't have to swim ashore to endanger life when intoxicated.

 

ex techie

[ducklite]

What are chances that a Guest who was very very intoxicated would decide to see if he could release the Aft anchor on the HAL Ryndam?

http://www.cruisecritic.co.uk/news/news.cfm?ID=4251

 

Or that the Captain of Celebrity Mercury would be found in command of the ship whilst under the influence of alcohol?

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2003007115_webcruise19m.html

 

Or this Captain of a Russian ferry?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/17/russia-boat-crash_n_3773275.html

 

You don't have to swim ashore to endanger life when intoxicated.

 

ex techie

 

Not typical of the average passenger who wants to have a drink with dinner or while lounging by the pool. Frankly cruise ships should secure sensitive areas (like the anchor) better, and bartenders shouldn't be afraid of cutting obviously intoxicated passengers off--with full support from the ships security and senior officers. As far as intoxicated senior staff--other senior staff should be able to step in without fear of reprimand in those cases.

[Ex techie]

Not typical of the average passenger who wants to have a drink with dinner or while lounging by the pool. Frankly cruise ships should secure sensitive areas (like the anchor) better, and bartenders shouldn't be afraid of cutting obviously intoxicated passengers off--with full support from the ships security and senior officers. As far as intoxicated senior staff--other senior staff should be able to step in without fear of reprimand in those cases.

 

I've already broken my decision to ignore your posts on smoking twice now so this will be my last post in reply to you.

 

If DCL continue to allow Guests to BYOB, they cannot control how much a Guest drinks, therefor even if they cut them off, they can continue drinking themselves into oblivion if they wish. Nor can they stop them getting wasted ashore and then back aboard they can endanger the ship.

 

 

As for securing sensitive areas, they do, but I'm pretty sure they need to be immediately accessible to Crew in the case of emergency. Possibly a SOLAS requirement or I see no reason why they wouldn't already?

Hopefully Skipper may know?

 

Senior Officers should be able to step in without reprimand. Didn't happen on the Concordia though, no one confronted Captain Schettino.

It just isn't done. So should all ships have an alcohol ban for crew?

DCL tried that. The Magic was a crew dry ship when she first sailed in '98 and that was quickly rescinded.

DCL also has a confidential free number to call shoreside from any crew phone if you are being mistreated or feel threatened or to report things you think are wrong etc.

I would hope other cruise lines have a similar system in operation.

 

 

Nothing I will say will change your mind so conversation is over.

 

 

ex techie

[MizDaisy]

What about the newly married man who got beat up and tossed off his balcony by a bunch of drunks? That one was all over the news.

 

And besides, I was talking about the difference between the harm that drinking too much can cause in general, not just on a ship.

[MizDaisy]

Between the incidents that ex techie and I listed, there have been more deaths/injuries caused by alcohol on ships than there have by smoking.

 

You can't dispute the facts.

[ducklite]

Between the incidents that ex techie and I listed, there have been more deaths/injuries caused by alcohol on ships than there have by smoking.

 

You can't dispute the facts.

 

Most of which should have been quite preventable but cutting people off. The servers are too afraid to lose tips or sales, which is irresponsible on the part of the cruise lines.

[CELTICGIRLCRUISER]

Hopefully our designated areas will give the "them" camp something to complain about for the next 15 years.

 

:rolleyes:

[Irene7]

I unfortunately made the mistake of reading through this entire thread but feel the need to respond to sentiments like those above. Many of those who choose to smoke seem reluctant to accept the fact that the cigarette smoke they are producing causes adverse health effects to those that don't. I do not have any allergies but just the smell of cigarette smoke causes my eyes to burn and nausea. Can I live with this? Of course I can but why should I and the other 80% of the population who choose not to participate in this addictive practice have to? And because of this, I should avoid booking a balcony room just so you and others like you can maintain a truly nasty and deadly habit for your own pleasure? Comparing the exposure to smoke and the laundry soap aisle in a grocery store is laughable and stating that it is someone's responsibility to avoid air pollutants that make them feel sick such as cigarette smoke is equally laughable. It should be YOUR responsibility to make sure that your actions do not adversely affect the health of those around you. And just because you believe that by smoking in public, you are not doing this does not make it so. And please stop comparing the second hand effects of smoking to drinking or other unhealthy practices. If I walk by someone having a drink, I am not going to feel the urge to vomit. Same holds true with someone stuffing their face with fried chicken and a milkshake.

 

I do not know you but I am sure that you and many others who smoke are wonderful people. And you can look at any of my posts and see that I do not make a point of engaging in conflicts on these boards. But own cigarette smoking for what it is - a disgusting habit that has direct adverse effects on those around you. And by smoking in public areas - even if smoking is permitted - you are basically stating that "I don't care how my actions may effect anyone around me because satisfying my addiction is more important"

 

If your talking about smoking in public designated areas, they are there for a reason, so smoker's can smoke. We are not their because we don't care about others, we are their because that is the designated spot. Non-smokers know that there are smokers in these areas and should stay clear. I hate it when a non-smokers comes to and hangs around a designated spot and gives these dirty looks. I say, we'll then get the heck out of here and go back to where smoking is not allowed. If I am in public and smoking is allowed (which there are not many places like that), I will not light up next to a non-smoker. I will go off where there is no one or go over to smokers gathered together away from the non-smokers.

[TwinPrincessMermaids]

They handled the problem from the inside...taking care of it immediately...and chose to give their paying passengers enough notice to cancel (if they so chose) and get full refunds. That's just good business.

 

Oh oh please excuse my pertinence MzDaizy but I feel like there is some inside information begging to squeak through on there and I'm being nosy! (I do apologize up front since I just can't help myself!)

 

I know I can't expect anything OFFICIAL (but just blink twice if I'm right teehee)

 

Ok COMPLETELY SPECULATION HERE:

RCI never really released anything official as of yet as to the cause of their Grandeur fire in May. It went around on the boards about cigarette butts tossed over the side, yadayada but nothing conclusive. Others said electrical. (I'm sure AKK or ExTechie will possibly have a comment to that affect.) But anyway they have been very quiet about it. I just wonder the 'higher' marine uppers found out something had to do with cigarettes and a balcony which would make it the second balcony smoking related disaster... and if that is why Disney just said "no mas after 90 days."

 

OR! MORE SPECULATION:

Does anyone know of any incidents that actually happened on their ships that involved smoking on the balconies that were quickly handled and hushed?

 

I'm leaning more towards the 'unofficial Grandeur' conspiracy myself...

 

Very interesting as it quite sounds Mz may be in the know! And also explains the theoretical rolling eyes at the so-called 'victory' of the non-smokers, some of which have been quite smug?

 

Wish I was a fly on their wall...(powers that be)

[MizDaisy]

Most of which should have been quite preventable but cutting people off. The servers are too afraid to lose tips or sales, which is irresponsible on the part of the cruise lines.

 

 

How can the bartenders or servers cut people off, when people can haul their own alcohol onboard??:confused:

[MizDaisy]

Oh oh please excuse my pertinence MzDaizy but I feel like there is some inside information begging to squeak through on there and I'm being nosy! (I do apologize up front since I just can't help myself!)

 

I know I can't expect anything OFFICIAL (but just blink twice if I'm right teehee)

 

Ok COMPLETELY SPECULATION HERE:

RCI never really released anything official as of yet as to the cause of their Grandeur fire in May. It went around on the boards about cigarette butts tossed over the side, yadayada but nothing conclusive. Others said electrical. (I'm sure AKK or ExTechie will possibly have a comment to that affect.) But anyway they have been very quiet about it. I just wonder the 'higher' marine uppers found out something had to do with cigarettes and a balcony which would make it the second balcony smoking related disaster... and if that is why Disney just said "no mas after 90 days."

 

OR! MORE SPECULATION:

Does anyone know of any incidents that actually happened on their ships that involved smoking on the balconies that were quickly handled and hushed?

 

I'm leaning more towards the 'unofficial Grandeur' conspiracy myself...

 

Very interesting as it quite sounds Mz may be in the know! And also explains the theoretical rolling eyes at the so-called 'victory' of the non-smokers, some of which have been quite smug?

 

Wish I was a fly on their wall...(powers that be)

 

 

 

The only reason I've said as much as I have is because I'm sick to death of seeing so many non-smokers patting themselves on the back for "getting the policy changed".....mostly on another board.

 

One last hint......the change had NOTHING to do with balconies at all. But as long as DCL was making internal changes, they went ahead and followed the policy that exists at their resorts.

[TwinPrincessMermaids]

Aw poop. My theories all shot to bupkiss then. Thanks anyway.

 

I know much much less about the workings of the parks than I do cruising (and clearly that isn't much either!) So now I'm at a loss...

 

 

Oo what about another shot at it? Aulani?

 

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Forums mobile app

[MizDaisy]

Aw poop. My theories all shot to bupkiss then. Thanks anyway.

 

I know much much less about the workings of the parks than I do cruising (and clearly that isn't much either!) So now I'm at a loss...

 

 

Oo what about another shot at it? Aulani?

 

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Forums mobile app

 

 

All I meant about making their policy the same as it is at the resorts is that they don't allow smoking in the hotels or on the balconies.

[TwinPrincessMermaids]

Oh well. Was a worth a shot. :)

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Forums mobile app

[ducklite]

[/b]

 

If your talking about smoking in public designated areas, they are there for a reason, so smoker's can smoke. We are not their because we don't care about others, we are their because that is the designated spot. Non-smokers know that there are smokers in these areas and should stay clear. I hate it when a non-smokers comes to and hangs around a designated spot and gives these dirty looks. I say, we'll then get the heck out of here and go back to where smoking is not allowed. If I am in public and smoking is allowed (which there are not many places like that), I will not light up next to a non-smoker. I will go off where there is no one or go over to smokers gathered together away from the non-smokers.

 

I agree with you 100% that non-smokers shouldn't complain about smoke in a designated smoking area. That said, there are times where businesses need to put the DSA in a better place. Directly in front of the main entrance to a hotel is a bad place. Moving it 40 feet from the rear entrance is a smart place. Better yet if they provide shelter and seating for the smokers.

[ducklite]

How can the bartenders or servers cut people off, when people can haul their own alcohol onboard??:confused:

 

Considering that in two cases it was senior officers at fault, I don't think it really matters where they got it. The point is that ships need to be more proactive about managing the actions of obviously intoxicated guests--and crew.