Can you still smoke in...........?

[Big_G]

Well I'm not a smoker but I find this silly.

 

What I think you're saying is that since no one can smoke, no one group should feel singled out, ie second class.

 

But that's off the mark because the reason they feel second class is because it's their favorite activity has been banned but not others.

 

For example, if they banned reading on your balcony, if you didn't read you wouldn't care, but if you did like to read you'd feel put out and picked on.

 

I think that's why no one gets this because in general we understand that when a person is in a group that's affected by a policy that doesn't affect others they feel oppressed.

 

Of course as a non-smoker I understand and appreciate that it's for the benefit of the majority, but I can see why smokers are disappointed.

 

It was tongue-in-cheek doc but in reality, it's a blanket policy. Are people who can't smoke in buildings second class citizens? The second class citizens argument is silly. Smokers are entitled to all the same benefits as non-smokers. By the way, I'm a cigar smoker who never lit-up once on a balcony before the rule change out of courtesy to my fellow cruisers.

[lmares1968]

It was tongue-in-cheek doc but in reality, it's a blanket policy. Are people who can't smoke in buildings second class citizens? The second class citizens argument is silly. Smokers are entitled to all the same benefits as non-smokers. By the way, I'm a cigar smoker who never lit-up once on a balcony before the rule change out of courtesy to my fellow cruisers.

 

I understood what you meant!:D

[John Reid]

One aspect of the "second-class citizen" argument is often overlooked. When the person sitting beside you at a bar or casino does not smoke, when a person eating in a restaurant does not smoke, when the person next to you in the workplace does not smoke, there is no negative impact to anyone within the environment of the area. The reverse is never true. Smoking always immediately impacts the area exposed. It isn't and never has been a valid argument. Air free of smoke does not impose; smoky air does.

[Ocean Boy]

I understood what you meant!:D

 

So did I.

[cruisingmum]

I'm a smoker but I don't drink or gamble. If there are restrictions for smokers then there should be restrictions for drinkers and gamblers.

 

There's nothing worse than an irritating drunk or a grumpy gambler who has lost too much money.

 

People will say 'oh, but I only have 1 or 2 glasses of wine, etc'. Any amount of alcohol, no matter how small, will affect a person's personality.

 

People are scared of inhaling second-hand smoke. I'm scared of drunks who kill innocent people in a car or a fight, and gamblers who commit suicide because they've got themselves into so much debt.

 

I respect a person's choice to drink and gamble. My choice is to smoke.

 

Just my opinion, we're all entitled to one.

[The Sunset Glow]

I understood what you meant!:D

 

So did I.

 

Me too.:D

[lmares1968]

Don't get it - its a weird (for choice of a better word) statement to make

 

 

 

That still doesn't make sense - non smokers don't WANT to smoke on their balcony so why would that affect them?? WHAT???

 

It does affect non-smokers who would like to enjoy time on their balconies without smelling cigarette smoke.

[Da books]

you know what happened to area restaurants and bars when the laws passed banning indoor smoking? they made MORE money. the customers who replaced the smokers had MORE disposable income to spend on beer and chicken wings. oh and they actually tasted it so they had seconds.

 

all the 'sky is falling' panic about how they were going to lose money hand over fist failed to materialize. if you leave Royal( or any line) that bans smoking there are 3 families more than willing to take your place BECAUSE of the smoking restrictions/policies.

I guess your expert analysis of the smoking ban outcomes is dependant on who's carrying out the studies.

 

"the Dallas Restaurant Association funded a study that showed a $11.8 million decline in alcohol sales ranging from 9 to 50% in Denton, Texas. A 2004 study by Ridgewood Economic Associates LTD funded by the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association found a loss of 2000 jobs, $28.5 million dollar loss in wages, and a loss of $37 million in New York State product.[77] A 2004 study for the National Restaurant Association of the United States conducted by Deloitte and Touche found a significant negative impact. The restaurant Association of Maryland found sales tax receipts for establishments falling 11% in their study. Carroll and Associates found bars sales decreased by 18.7% to 24.3% in a number of Ontario markets following banning smoking in bars.[78] The Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association reported that liquor sales were down over $67 million dollars while sales for home consumption increased and asked for the smoking ban to be amended in Ohio.[79]"

 

For the record I'm all for smoking being banned in most indoor venues.

[Ocean Boy]

I'm a smoker but I don't drink or gamble. If there are restrictions for smokers then there should be restrictions for drinkers and gamblers.

 

There's nothing worse than an irritating drunk or a grumpy gambler who has lost too much money.

 

People will say 'oh, but I only have 1 or 2 glasses of wine, etc'. Any amount of alcohol, no matter how small, will affect a person's personality.

 

People are scared of inhaling second-hand smoke. I'm scared of drunks who kill innocent people in a car or a fight, and gamblers who commit suicide because they've got themselves into so much debt.

 

I respect a person's choice to drink and gamble. My choice is to smoke.

 

Just my opinion, we're all entitled to one.

 

Maybe some, but more likely that most people just can't stand the stench of it.

[drarill]

Me too.:D

 

Me too!! and english is my second language

BTW, I didn't understand the "reading on your balcony" analogy… I can't affect anyone reading a book peacefully on my balcony...:confused:

Edited March 16, 2014 by drarill

[Ocean Boy]

Me too!! and english is my second language

BTW, I didn't understand the "reading on your balcony" analogy… I can't affect anyone reading a book peacefully on my balcony...:confused:

 

Some people don't like quiet. It isn't fair that you are not contributing noise to the environment. Reading should not be allowed....;)

[comxkid]

I guess your expert analysis of the smoking ban outcomes is dependant on who's carrying out the studies.

 

"the Dallas Restaurant Association funded a study that showed a $11.8 million decline in alcohol sales ranging from 9 to 50% in Denton, Texas. A 2004 study by Ridgewood Economic Associates LTD funded by the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association found a loss of 2000 jobs, $28.5 million dollar loss in wages, and a loss of $37 million in New York State product.[77] A 2004 study for the National Restaurant Association of the United States conducted by Deloitte and Touche found a significant negative impact. The restaurant Association of Maryland found sales tax receipts for establishments falling 11% in their study. Carroll and Associates found bars sales decreased by 18.7% to 24.3% in a number of Ontario markets following banning smoking in bars.[78] The Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association reported that liquor sales were down over $67 million dollars while sales for home consumption increased and asked for the smoking ban to be amended in Ohio.[79]"

 

For the record I'm all for smoking being banned in most indoor venues.

 

Same site also states this:

 

"Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of smoking bans. The majority of these government and academic studies have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with smoking restrictions and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses."

[LetsGetWet!]

Same site also states this:

 

"Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of smoking bans. The majority of these government and academic studies have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with smoking restrictions and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses."

 

Oops! Caught him very selectively quoting favorable stats & excluding the rest - including the overall conclusion which agreed with the poster he was trying to chastise! :D

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

[Stephluva2711]

I'm a smoker but I don't drink or gamble. If there are restrictions for smokers then there should be restrictions for drinkers and gamblers.

 

There's nothing worse than an irritating drunk or a grumpy gambler who has lost too much money.

 

People will say 'oh, but I only have 1 or 2 glasses of wine, etc'. Any amount of alcohol, no matter how small, will affect a person's personality.

 

People are scared of inhaling second-hand smoke. I'm scared of drunks who kill innocent people in a car or a fight, and gamblers who commit suicide because they've got themselves into so much debt.

 

I respect a person's choice to drink and gamble. My choice is to smoke.

 

Just my opinion, we're all entitled to one.

 

this made absolutely no sense. The fact of the matter is we are talking about smoking on CRUISE SHIPS. So regardless no one who drinks on the ship is going to go and then drive and kill someone as you so kindly put it. AND royal Caribbean along with other cruise lines do limit what you drink if you appear inebriated. The fact is not all but some smokers are rude and feel it's their right to smoke wherever they want. SO you can be sitting down enjoying the smoke free air and then they will just plop next to you and light up!. It's rude and i'm glad they are limiting the smoking on the ship. The fact that you can compare drinking a glass of wine, to smoking a cig just shows how much you are grasping at straws. as someone pointed out early, not smoking doesn't affect anyone, it's the smoking that does, and i don't think it's too much to ask that people can't smoke in the lounges. I'm from NYC, ya can't smoke now in the bars and clubs so what's the difference?

[wassup4565]

The proof will be in the balcony bookings. If the balcony cabins get booked up at the same rate they did before the change in policy, then RCI will continue with the new policy. If there is a significant drop-off in bookings of balconies, such that balcony cabins have to be discounted or given away as upgrades....

 

I'm a smoker, and I just booked my first inside cabin. Not worth paying the extra for a balcony if I have to hike all along the hallway, up the elevator, and halfway along the ship just to have a smoke. So I'll be booking cheaper cabins from now on. And possibly reviewing whether land resorts are an option I would enjoy more.

 

Non-smokers, obviously, should support RCI by booking those more expensive balcony cabins.

[PartyAllDaTyme]

FWIW, we just booked our first cruise on RCI yesterday, a D1 balcony. Before the smoking policy changed, we would never have even considered RCI.

[Langley Cruisers]

Non-smokers, obviously, should support RCI by booking those more expensive balcony cabins.

 

Non-smokers do not have to book balconies to "support" RCI. The fact that they do not allow indoor smoking anymore (except the Casino) is a huge step forward for non-smokers, IMO.

 

FWIW, we just booked our first cruise on RCI yesterday, a D1 balcony. Before the smoking policy changed, we would never have even considered RCI.

 

I hope you have a fabulous time! RCI has a great product. :)

.

[Da books]

Oops! Caught him very selectively quoting favorable stats & excluding the rest - including the overall conclusion which agreed with the poster he was trying to chastise! :D

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 via Tapatalk

 

Nothing selective about it the thing is huge and way too big to post here.

 

The studies I posted were all detailed as in who carried them out and I don't see one reference in the other post just a generalisation with no references.

 

The post I was replying too stated as if it was fact that businesses are making more money as a result of the bans.

 

Oops! Caught you not reading the posts properly before you replied :D

[Two 2 Tango]

The proof will be in the balcony bookings. If the balcony cabins get booked up at the same rate they did before the change in policy, then RCI will continue with the new policy. If there is a significant drop-off in bookings of balconies, such that balcony cabins have to be discounted or given away as upgrades....

 

I'm a smoker, and I just booked my first inside cabin. Not worth paying the extra for a balcony if I have to hike all along the hallway, up the elevator, and halfway along the ship just to have a smoke. So I'll be booking cheaper cabins from now on. And possibly reviewing whether land resorts are an option I would enjoy more.

 

Non-smokers, obviously, should support RCI by booking those more expensive balcony cabins.

 

Having been a smoker and addicted to the drug nicotine I do understand the pull of the drug will make smokers defend there need to get a fix. But this seems a bit strange that you would only book a balcony for a place to smoke, have you never thought it is also a good place to get fresh air and look at the view? Looking at the cost, those cigs on the balcony were very expensive if you were booking a balcony just to smoke.

[Ocean Boy]

The proof will be in the balcony bookings. If the balcony cabins get booked up at the same rate they did before the change in policy, then RCI will continue with the new policy. If there is a significant drop-off in bookings of balconies, such that balcony cabins have to be discounted or given away as upgrades....

 

I'm a smoker, and I just booked my first inside cabin. Not worth paying the extra for a balcony if I have to hike all along the hallway, up the elevator, and halfway along the ship just to have a smoke. So I'll be booking cheaper cabins from now on. And possibly reviewing whether land resorts are an option I would enjoy more.

 

Non-smokers, obviously, should support RCI by booking those more expensive balcony cabins.

 

FWIW, we just booked our first cruise on RCI yesterday, a D1 balcony. Before the smoking policy changed, we would never have even considered RCI.

 

Wassup, it looks like the balcony that you left behind just got snapped up.;)

[akcruz]

Nothing selective about it the thing is huge and way too big to post here.

 

The studies I posted were all detailed as in who carried them out and I don't see one reference in the other post just a generalisation with no references.

 

The post I was replying too stated as if it was fact that businesses are making more money as a result of the bans.

 

Oops! Caught you not reading the posts properly before you replied :D

 

That is one study, there are many others out there that will dispute that. I can tell you in my local area restaurants had a nice uptick when smoking was banned indoors.

 

Overall it has been proved that eliminating indoor smoking has been a good thing for businesses and not the horror smokers thought it would be.

 

Wassup, it looks like the balcony that you left behind just got snapped up.;)

 

One goes and another comes along to take their place. Hopefully there will be a line waiting to fill those balcony cabins, although I don't want my price to go up.

 

I am one that enjoys the sea air and it is one of the things I like about cruising. Having a balcony lets me enjoy that even more.

Edited March 17, 2014 by akcruz

[beachnative]

The proof will be in the balcony bookings. If the balcony cabins get booked up at the same rate they did before the change in policy, then RCI will continue with the new policy. If there is a significant drop-off in bookings of balconies, such that balcony cabins have to be discounted or given away as upgrades....

 

I'm a smoker, and I just booked my first inside cabin. Not worth paying the extra for a balcony if I have to hike all along the hallway, up the elevator, and halfway along the ship just to have a smoke. So I'll be booking cheaper cabins from now on. And possibly reviewing whether land resorts are an option I would enjoy more.

 

Non-smokers, obviously, should support RCI by booking those more expensive balcony cabins.

 

I totally understand your way of thinking…BUT in the opposite direction.

 

"I'm a smoker, and I just booked my first inside cabin. Not worth paying the extra for a balcony" for me would translate to "I'm a NON-smoker and I just began switching my inside and oceanview cabins to balcony cabins…especially looking for Junior Suites."

 

We had become so disgusted with the drifting smoke that we abandoned balconies on almost all cruises. We currently have 18 cruises booked and will book 4 more when we board the Grandeur tomorrow. So count me in on "Non-smokers, obviously, should support RCI by booking those more expensive balcony cabins."

 

We love and totally support Royal Caribbean's new smoking policy.

Edited March 17, 2014 by beachnative

[graphicguy]

So, this is just moving the smoking venue from the balconies to the Casino. Haven't been on a RCCL ship since the smoking changes, but I don't think this is for the better. Now, instead of someone smoking on a balcony, OUTSIDE, where the smoke dissipates quickly, it's now INSIDE, where it won't dissipate. AND, those who go to the casino, or anywhere around it, now have many more smokers there than they have had in the past.

 

I'm a non-smoker. But, I'm all for allowing it back on the balconies to mitigate the smoking increase in the casino.

 

I see this as the pendulum swinging too far one way, to too far the other way. RCCL surely will see how this isn't a good answer and have to come up with something in the middle that may not appease both sides, but is a workable compromise.

[Da books]

That is one study, there are many others out there that will dispute that. I can tell you in my local area restaurants had a nice uptick when smoking was banned indoors.

 

Overall it has been proved that eliminating indoor smoking has been a good thing for businesses and not the horror smokers thought it would be.

Is it your opinion that your local restaurants had a nice uptick or is there actual figures somewhere?

 

I understand there are many studies but it seems the only ones that find no negative impact are the ones conducted by the health industry. The ones conducted by the hospitality industry nearly always show a decline in sales.

 

Think about it, why would the hospitality industry keep having studies done and say they're loosing money if they weren't. Wouldn't they be happy about the restrictions if they were making more money?

 

I'm not posting this because I don't agree with the restrictions as I mostly do. I used to hate smelling smoke when I'm trying to enjoy a meal. I just don't like reading peoples opinions on the subject that are stated as if they were fact just because they're happy about it.

[LetsGetWet!]

Is it your opinion that your local restaurants had a nice uptick or is there actual figures somewhere?

 

I understand there are many studies but it seems the only ones that find no negative impact are the ones conducted by the health industry. The ones conducted by the hospitality industry nearly always show a decline in sales.

 

Think about it, why would the hospitality industry keep having studies done and say they're loosing money if they weren't. Wouldn't they be happy about the restrictions if they were making more money?

 

I'm not posting this because I don't agree with the restrictions as I mostly do. I used to hate smelling smoke when I'm trying to enjoy a meal. I just don't like reading peoples opinions on the subject that are stated as if they were fact just because they're happy about it.

The "fact" remains that the majority of studies have found no economic harm to businesses from the smoking bans. You obviously choose to ignore that "fact" and all the studies that don't fit your preconceived conclusion. Several have pointed that out to you - the actual website that you quoted says

Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of smoking bans. The majority of these government and academic studies have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with smoking restrictions and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses.

By the way, you quoted paragraphs from that site without providing the link, which is a copyright violation and a violation of CC rules also. The site you quoted - and I quoted above - is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_ban#cite_note-75][/url]