No smoking on balconys?

[Ghengis Klown]

I thought that was something that was allowed on most cruise lines (all of mine) if this is the case whats a smoker supposed to do?

 

also, wut about that electric cigs?

[Clarea]

I thought that was something that was allowed on most cruise lines (all of mine) if this is the case whats a smoker supposed to do?

 

also, wut about that electric cigs?

 

http://www.royalcaribbean.com/customersupport/faq/details.do?pagename=frequently_asked_questions&pnav=5&pnav=2&faqType=faq&faqSubjectId=333&faqSubjectName=Onboard+Policies&faqId=3101

[lisiamc]

I thought that was something that was allowed on most cruise lines (all of mine) if this is the case whats a smoker supposed to do?

 

also, wut about that electric cigs?

 

FWIW, it's not allowed on Celebrity balconies any more either. Not sure about NCL. (from your previous cruises list.)

[sunsetbeachgal]

Not allowed on Princess either. Holland America still allows it.

[Ghengis Klown]

gheeze cruise lines

[Elizanessie]

NCL allows smoking on balconies and last week they announced that they have no intention at this time of changing their policy.

[L33_RYM]

I can see where they are coming from with the smoking of tobacco but the e-cigs restrictions are taking it a little far. There's a big difference between the smoke & odorless vapor.

[Eng23]

New policy on Royal Caribbean as of Jan. 1st 2014.

[noleguy84]

I guess if people see you smoking your ecig, that's what the issue is. Take 1 step away from the rail on your balcony and problem solved. We smoked ours in our cabin, left it in there a couple times and had zero problems from the room steward. Still don't understand the problem people have with them, they are odorless 100% safe water vapor. To each their own I guess.

 

Sent from my XT1080 using Forums mobile app

[L33_RYM]

I guess if people see you smoking your ecig, that's what the issue is. Take 1 step away from the rail on your balcony and problem solved. We smoked ours in our cabin, left it in there a couple times and had zero problems from the room steward. Still don't understand the problem people have with them, they are odorless 100% safe water vapor. To each their own I guess.

 

Sent from my XT1080 using Forums mobile app

 

I wonder if I can get away with a bit of "stealth vaping"?

[kruzerci]

I can see where they are coming from with the smoking of tobacco but the e-cigs restrictions are taking it a little far. There's a big difference between the smoke & odorless vapor.

 

I actually agree with this. I'm so glad they banned smoking, but I don't see the harm in an e-cig on a balcony.

 

It is a little bit unsavory when people are walking around when them in public and exhaling in your face, but you wouldn't even know if your neighbor was using one outside.

 

That being said, I don't see how they would enforce it. Your neighbor isn't going to smell anything from water vapor, so I don't see how anybody would be caught.

[L33_RYM]

I generally like to sit & vape when having a beer. It looks like this could be a non starter then. My local pub has a no vaping policy but it generally ignored as long as you are discreet about it. I guess they will be more strict on the ship than in my local.

[Dmom & dad]

I thought that was something that was allowed on most cruise lines (all of mine) if this is the case whats a smoker supposed to do?

 

also, wut about that electric cigs?

 

 

don't smoke or don't cruise! I am so glad they have finally done this I hate going out my balcony and smelling the stink or have ashes fall all over my balcony from above. My dad smoked my whole life I have always hated the smell Do people not know how bad they stink?

[spookwife]

I guess if people see you smoking your ecig, that's what the issue is. Take 1 step away from the rail on your balcony and problem solved. We smoked ours in our cabin, left it in there a couple times and had zero problems from the room steward. Still don't understand the problem people have with them, they are odorless 100% safe water vapor. To each their own I guess.

 

Sent from my XT1080 using Forums mobile app

 

Not so. I was subjected to them over Turkey Day w/e. Not odorless at all and there have been preliminary studies that suggest not so 100% harmless either. 3 different versions/brands. I give my cousins props for trying and it was a vast improvement over the real thing but it still gives the appearance. And appearances really are everything sometimes.

 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Forums mobile app

[L33_RYM]

Not so. I was subjected to them over Turkey Day w/e. Not odorless at all and there have been preliminary studies that suggest not so 100% harmless either. 3 different versions/brands. I give my cousins props for trying and it was a vast improvement over the real thing but it still gives the appearance. And appearances really are everything sometimes.

 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Forums mobile app

 

That was the argument in the local pub. They said if some people see you vaping then they might think that you are smoking. They must be the same people that if there is a band using dry ice as part of their performance need reassurance that the building is not on fire ;)

[Ghengis Klown]

I agree, the Ecigs are odorless

[L33_RYM]

I agree, the Ecigs are odorless

 

It's rules for the sake of rules.

[ahecht]

Still don't understand the problem people have with them, they are odorless 100% safe water vapor. To each their own I guess.

The water vapor thing is misinformation spread by the e-cig manufacturers. The "vapor" is actually a glycol or glycerin fog, not water vapor.

 

As for the odorless and 100% safe statement, most aren't odorless due to the added fragrances, which range from mint to buttered popcorn or even tobacco. As far as safety goes, in some cartridges (due to the lack of regulation of the cartridge contents) the vapor contains harmful chemicals such as formaldehyde or diethylene glycol. I agree that they're much less smelly and dangerous than cigarettes, but they're by no means 100% odorless and safe.

[L33_RYM]

The water vapor thing is misinformation spread by the e-cig manufacturers. The "vapor" is actually a glycol or glycerin fog, not water vapor.

 

As for the odorless and 100% safe statement, most aren't odorless due to the added fragrances, which range from mint to buttered popcorn or even tobacco. As far as safety goes, in some cartridges (due to the lack of regulation of the cartridge contents) the vapor contains harmful chemicals such as formaldehyde or diethylene glycol. I agree that they're much less smelly and dangerous than cigarettes, but they're by no means 100% odorless and safe.

 

You need to share that with various governments around the world as you seem to know something they don't.

[Merion_Mom]

Full article (emphasis mine)

 

The battery-operated devices heat nicotine, propylene glycol and glycerin into a vapor, which is inhaled by the user. Unlike conventional tobacco-burning cigarettes, e-cigarettes do not deliver poisonous tars or carbon monoxide.

 

Currently, the devices are regulated only by a smattering of local governments who have passed laws concerning their sale and use. The Food and Drug Administration has the legal authority to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, but has not yet done so. In the meantime, e-cigarettes have grown to become a $2-billion industry with no federal oversight.

 

Though the FDA says propylene glycol and glycerin food additives are "generally regarded as safe," the long-term effects of inhaling the substances are unknown. The FDA's Center for Tobacco Products has begun collecting reports of adverse effects from e-cigarettes, and those complaints include claims of eye irritation, headaches and coughing.

 

E-cigarette backers say the health effects of the key component — nicotine — are well established and minimal for most everyone except pregnant mothers. They note that nicotine gum and patches have been used as smoking cessation tools for many years.

 

"It's not the nicotine that's the real enemy; it's the way it's burned and delivered in cigarettes," said psychologist David Abrams, executive director of the American Legacy Foundation's Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies in Washington. "In reasonable doses, and assuming good quality control, nicotine might raise your heart rate two or three beats per minute, but it really has few adverse effects."

 

Yet that might not be true for teens. A surgeon general's report released Friday says evidence now suggests that nicotine exposure during adolescence "may have lasting adverse consequences for brain development."

 

And then there are the potential health effects on bystanders, who are also exposed to nicotine and propylene glycol emitted by the e-cigarette and its user.

 

Studies performed on e-cigarette vapor have detected heavy metals and volatile compounds such as formaldehyde, but the concentration and threat they pose has been hotly debated.

 

In a review of studies that examined e-cigarette mist, Drexel University environmental and occupational health expert Igor Burstyn concluded that "while these compounds are present, they have been detected at problematic levels only in a few studies that apparently were based on unrealistic levels of heating."

 

Abrams took heart in that assessment, though he acknowledged that the vapor was not benign. Even so, the bystander effects are "almost immeasurable compared to the toxins in secondhand cigarette smoke," he said.

 

That assessment may change when several studies examining fine particulate matter from e-cigarette vapor and their effects on the cardiovascular system are completed, Glantz said.

 

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-e-cigarettes-science-20140117,0,7562029.story#ixzz2qv5DuoqN

[peteukmcr]

There could also be another reason RCI are not allowing e-cigs is the danger of them exploding whilst being recharged and so the potential for starting fires.

 

A close friend of mine was luckily in the room when hers exploded whilst being recharged and so was able to prevent the home furnishings from catching fire, although she now needs new carpeting and redecoration of the damaged wall.

[Merion_Mom]

There could also be another reason RCI are not allowing e-cigs is the danger of them exploding whilst being recharged and so the potential for starting fires.

 

A close friend of mine was luckily in the room when hers exploded whilst being recharged and so was able to prevent the home furnishings from catching fire, although she now needs new carpeting and redecoration of the damaged wall.

 

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Sunny AZ Girl]

There could also be another reason RCI are not allowing e-cigs is the danger of them exploding whilst being recharged and so the potential for starting fires.

 

A close friend of mine was luckily in the room when hers exploded whilst being recharged and so was able to prevent the home furnishings from catching fire, although she now needs new carpeting and redecoration of the damaged wall.

 

Yes. There have been a couple of fires in our area secondary to e-cigarette charging. I'm not sure if they were caused by a defect in the cigarette or the wiring, but in any case the cruise lines will unlikely approve these devices. They would fall right into the same category as other banned appliances that can cause fires, such as irons, toasters and coffee pots.

 

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

[L33_RYM]

Full article (emphasis mine)

 

The battery-operated devices heat nicotine, propylene glycol and glycerin into a vapor, which is inhaled by the user. Unlike conventional tobacco-burning cigarettes, e-cigarettes do not deliver poisonous tars or carbon monoxide.

 

Currently, the devices are regulated only by a smattering of local governments who have passed laws concerning their sale and use. The Food and Drug Administration has the legal authority to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, but has not yet done so. In the meantime, e-cigarettes have grown to become a $2-billion industry with no federal oversight.

 

Though the FDA says propylene glycol and glycerin food additives are "generally regarded as safe," the long-term effects of inhaling the substances are unknown. The FDA's Center for Tobacco Products has begun collecting reports of adverse effects from e-cigarettes, and those complaints include claims of eye irritation, headaches and coughing.

 

E-cigarette backers say the health effects of the key component — nicotine — are well established and minimal for most everyone except pregnant mothers. They note that nicotine gum and patches have been used as smoking cessation tools for many years.

 

"It's not the nicotine that's the real enemy; it's the way it's burned and delivered in cigarettes," said psychologist David Abrams, executive director of the American Legacy Foundation's Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies in Washington. "In reasonable doses, and assuming good quality control, nicotine might raise your heart rate two or three beats per minute, but it really has few adverse effects."

 

Yet that might not be true for teens. A surgeon general's report released Friday says evidence now suggests that nicotine exposure during adolescence "may have lasting adverse consequences for brain development."

 

And then there are the potential health effects on bystanders, who are also exposed to nicotine and propylene glycol emitted by the e-cigarette and its user.

 

Studies performed on e-cigarette vapor have detected heavy metals and volatile compounds such as formaldehyde, but the concentration and threat they pose has been hotly debated.

 

In a review of studies that examined e-cigarette mist, Drexel University environmental and occupational health expert Igor Burstyn concluded that "while these compounds are present, they have been detected at problematic levels only in a few studies that apparently were based on unrealistic levels of heating."

 

Abrams took heart in that assessment, though he acknowledged that the vapor was not benign. Even so, the bystander effects are "almost immeasurable compared to the toxins in secondhand cigarette smoke," he said.

 

That assessment may change when several studies examining fine particulate matter from e-cigarette vapor and their effects on the cardiovascular system are completed, Glantz said.

 

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-e-cigarettes-science-20140117,0,7562029.story#ixzz2qv5DuoqN

 

Certainly e-cigarettes are totally harmless to anyone in the vicinity of a user, and nobody has argued otherwise. They are also much, much less harmful to the user — everyone is agreed on that — than actual, proper smoking, and may be of no harm at all. But the co-chair of the BMA’s Public Health Medicine Committee, Richard Jarvis — certainly not one of the aforesaid ‘moderate elements’ within this organisation — has said that e-cigarettes ‘directly undermine the effects and intentions of existing legislation’ which bans smoking in public places. He did not explain how, possibly because his statement is a palpable idiocy. The intention behind banning smoking in public places was to remove the risk to the so-called passive smokers, which was also the effect, as he put it. E-cigarettes are of no risk to people other than the users, and probably not to the users either.

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9026811/the-bmas-bizarre-jihad-against-e-cigarettes/

[deedeetoo]

Certainly e-cigarettes are totally harmless to anyone in the vicinity of a user, and nobody has argued otherwise. They are also much, much less harmful to the user — everyone is agreed on that — than actual, proper smoking, and may be of no harm at all. But the co-chair of the BMA’s Public Health Medicine Committee, Richard Jarvis — certainly not one of the aforesaid ‘moderate elements’ within this organisation — has said that e-cigarettes ‘directly undermine the effects and intentions of existing legislation’ which bans smoking in public places. He did not explain how, possibly because his statement is a palpable idiocy. The intention behind banning smoking in public places was to remove the risk to the so-called passive smokers, which was also the effect, as he put it. E-cigarettes are of no risk to people other than the users, and probably not to the users either.

 

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9026811/the-bmas-bizarre-jihad-against-e-cigarettes/

 

This rebuttal to Merion_Mom is just a columnist's opinion. It is not a discussion of scientific information as her article was.

 

Look people, the rules are the rules. Debating whether the rules are right or not is not going to change them. No one here gets to vote on what the rules are. That said, if you smoke your e-cig where no one can see you, then you probably aren't going to have a problem. Even if there is a smell, its probably not detectable unless the person is in your immediate vicinity.