Norwegian Cruise Line Bans Smoking on Balconies

[Beaver1975]

So, if the decision is nased on dollars (insurance/revisions to balconies) you are happy for NCL, in order to let smokers retain the priviledge, pass on the exorbinant costs to EVERYONE? Yeah, right.

 

Sometime devisions are made that have more that seen to the eye.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree completely. Why doesn't NCL fess up to the real reasons behind many of their decisions? It would cause a lot less ill informed speculation. But, where is the fun in that?

[DMH15]

This is exactly why we are getting to be a dumber society and dumb species will eventually get wiped out ... thats nature selection! When made up statements and science are given equal weightage and equal platforms the louder uninformed voice wins out.

 

 

How about the fact that one segment (smokers) does infringe on the air space of another? It goes back to that old adage you can swing your fist all you want but not when it meets my face. Smokers use the heavily perfumed person as a rebuttal but I have never seen a person walking around spraying said perfume in someone's eyes and nose. A person wearing too much perfume is equivalent to someone who has smoked and carries the scent... Not one actually in the act.

 

That being said I am. 100% behind the right of smokers within the rules. And Those following the rules deserve respect.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Beaver1975]

Global warming is real! By keeping on denying it and mocking it .... you are simply harming your own world and the survival of your own species. Again as I said .... when you give equal platforms to facts and debunked talking points. The loud uninformed voices win out. Science is a great equalizer ... eventually the species which fought against facts gets wiped out. So do consider the consequences of your actions.

 

...and I seem to remember all the hype about the second coming of an Ice Age back in the 70's.

[DMH15]

I agree completely. Why doesn't NCL fess up to the real reasons behind many of their decisions? It would cause a lot less ill informed speculation. But, where is the fun in that?

 

 

LIKE. :)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rics321]

How about the fact that one segment (smokers) does infringe on the air space of another? It goes back to that old adage you can swing your fist all you want but not when it meets my face. Smokers use the heavily perfumed person as a rebuttal but I have never seen a person walking around spraying said perfume in someone's eyes and nose. A person wearing too much perfume is equivalent to someone who has smoked and carries the scent... Not one actually in the act.

 

That being said I am. 100% behind the right of smokers within the rules. And Those following the rules deserve respect.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I am agreeing with you ... not sure why you are quoting me!

[DMH15]

I am agreeing with you ... not sure why you are quoting me!

 

 

Neither do I? I am on my iphone sitting at Whole Foods waiting for a chair massage. Don't know how I quoted you. Sorry. :)

 

I have waited over an hour. :(

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[luvtheships]

Neither do I? I am on my iphone sitting at Whole Foods waiting for a chair massage. Don't know how I quoted you. Sorry. :)

 

I have waited over an hour. :(

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Time to walk out then.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[richstowe]

Good luck Geri and all those who wish to quit. It took higher life insurance premiums , a loving nagging wife,

a case of pneumonia and the ridiculously high cost of cigarettes to get me to finally quit 15 years ago.

 

Remember, if you quit your next cruise will have been prepaid on what you have saved by quitting.

[dejanewkath]

I will not go into the casino if there is smoking. I will not go near it. The smell that lingers is disgusting. The damage the second hand smoke is proven. I can not believe they even still allow it in this day & age. It is a KNOWN carcinogen.

I am glad they stopped it on the balconies. On my last cruise one of the balcony tenants was a heavy smoker & it stunk up the entire passageway.

I know this battle has waged for years, but sorry smokers, you ARE infringing on OUR health. Take it to a section & keep it there, where it does not affect others.

As far as the casinos worrying about losing business, if Vegas survived, so will the cruise ships.

Edited July 20, 2014 by dejanewkath

[Red-Sol]

The problem with second hand smoke lingering in and near casinoes on NCL is that they allow smoking in the casino. The solution is to not allow smoking in the casino. A casino smoking ban will happen. It will happen faster if second hand smoke in the casino and near the casino gets worse.

 

I don't doubt that someday there will be a smoking ban in the casinos as well. However when it does happen it will be for the same reason as the balcony smoking ban. (No doubt insurance related) NCL and all other cruise lines never make any of these changes without having a full understanding of the costs involved. Their only true public are stock holders. They truly could not care less what either smokers or non-smokers think or want. When insurance costs become such that it is time to ban it in the casinos that is when it will happen.

[CasinoCruzGirl]

I don't doubt that someday there will be a smoking ban in the casinos as well. However when it does happen it will be for the same reason as the balcony smoking ban. (No doubt insurance related) NCL and all other cruise lines never make any of these changes without having a full understanding of the costs involved. Their only true public are stock holders. They truly could not care less what either smokers or non-smokers think or want. When insurance costs become such that it is time to ban it in the casinos that is when it will happen.

 

I think a lot of gamblers smoke. Granted not as many as years ago but a lot still do. Example I was in Atlantic city yesterday and the casino wasn't really that busy but the smoking area was packed. I hope to soon be one of the non smoking gamblers but time will tell.

[negc]

Are you also happy about the increased second hand smoke that will be lingering in and near the casinos on all ships? I guess you "win" there too huh?

 

If anyone believes that NCL will actually be able or willing to enforce a rule about only people playing can smoke I am currently selling Ocean Front property in Kansas.

 

The casinos and all other public venues nearby will stink way more than they do now...and your "win" will be a direct cause of it.

 

If your opinion turns out to be true, how long do you think it will be before public opinion as well as the financial loss experienced in the casinos by the presence of all those non-gambling smokers, will force the lines to extend their ban to casinos. If the casino starts losing revenue due to increased smoking in that venue, I think that the casino officials will be quite willing and able to enforce the rule. It shouldn't be difficult to observe which smokers are there only to smoke. If they aren't contributing to the casino's revenues why would they want them taking up space and discouraging real gamblers from entering the venue.

You seem to be taking a perverse pleasure in describing the possible negative effects of the imposition of the new restrictions. By now, you should have been able to discern the trend towards further restrictions on where passengers can smoke on board the ships.

[Red-Sol]

I think a lot of gamblers smoke. Granted not as many as years ago but a lot still do. Example I was in Atlantic city yesterday and the casino wasn't really that busy but the smoking area was packed. I hope to soon be one of the non smoking gamblers but time will tell.

 

I agree Geri that a lot of gamblers smoke. I make an occasional trip to the Casino in Niagara Falls (Seneca) and the smoking section in that casino is at least 10 to 15 times as large as the non-smoking section.

 

I wish you good luck and much success in quitting. Personally I have quit and fallen off the wagon again many times. I must admit though when I do go into a casino that the urge just overwhelms me and no pack of cigarettes is safe then! :D

[kcwingwalker]

I'm booked for another cruise in 2015 and hope it will my first non smoking cruise. Recently tried the patch again and it just was not enough. My doctor is great and never nags and is now prescribing Zyban and the patch. Will begin the program on Monday when I pick up my script.

 

Chantax is not for me for several reasons. I've tried Zyban before and can tolerate it well and hoping along with the patch it will be successful.

 

So for those who find smokers objectionable please try to remember that many, many of us do our best to quit and keep trying. We need your support and good thoughts:)

[RDC1]

Make that the 60's, but an intelligent review of the science would shame any deniers logic. By the end of the 60's the decades long falling of global temperatures was being aligned against the data of increased CO2. The 4 decades of data since then show two clear trends: global temperature increased and the level of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have significantly increased.

 

To posture that these are not fact is to be on the side of the pre-Copernicus cosmologists or being a flat Earther.

 

A more interesting question is why has the earth's temperature remained in a relatively stable zone, near the upper temperature stability point. The Vostok ice core data (covering about the last 400,000 years) shows cycles of about 120,000 years. During most of that time the temperature is at the lower stability point (about 8 degrees cooler then today). During the cycle the temperature and CO2 hit the max point (about 2 degrees warmer) then starts dropping hitting the minimum point after about 60,000 years. It then sits near that point for about 40,000 years, then takes about 20,000 to rise to the maximum. Once the maximum is hit the cycle repeats. The last cycle maximum was hit about 10-15,000 years ago. The temperature dropped 2 degrees from max and then instead of continuing to drop, stabilized at that level where it has remained for 10-15,000 years. During which mankind's primary development of civilization has occurred. The temperature is appears to be moving back to the peak point.

 

The two most interesting questions are:

 

1. Why was the cycle different this time and why did the temperature stabilize 2 degrees below the max?

 

2. What happens with each cycle at the max that causes the temperature cycle to turn downward once more.

 

If it hadn't stopped on the normal downward movement during this most recent cycle we probably would not be having this debate because the current level of civilization would most likely not have been reached.

[luvtheships]

Are you also happy about the increased second hand smoke that will be lingering in and near the casinos on all ships? I guess you "win" there too huh?

 

If anyone believes that NCL will actually be able or willing to enforce a rule about only people playing can smoke I am currently selling Ocean Front property in Kansas.

 

The casinos and all other public venues nearby will stink way more than they do now...and your "win" will be a direct cause of it.

 

Well since the trend is toward non smoking and non smokers are a vocal majority I would think that the non smokers will insist that Ncl enforce the rules they themselves put forth

 

Ncl has this responsibility especially since they put it on themselves

 

If they don't enforce it then they are a total joke.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Macadian]

And IF the new rules have been at the insistence of the insurers, said insurers will require that these rules are enforced by the cruise line.

[NLH Arizona]

Are you also happy about the increased second hand smoke that will be lingering in and near the casinos on all ships? I guess you "win" there too huh?

 

If anyone believes that NCL will actually be able or willing to enforce a rule about only people playing can smoke I am currently selling Ocean Front property in Kansas.

 

The casinos and all other public venues nearby will stink way more than they do now...and your "win" will be a direct cause of it.

Unfortunately, I think you might be correct about enforcing the rules about only people playing in the casino can smoke. If the smoke gets too bad, I'll just stop going in and even though I get great deals from CAS, I'll give them up.

[NLH Arizona]

I don't think it is a sad way of thinking. It is just a fact. The smoking on cruise ships issue has been going on for many years. So many times it was stated and argued that smoking would not be restricted on cruise ships, in cabins, public areas, balconies, or whatever. That cruise lines would not want to lose the business of smokers. It's going to go the same way with casinos onboard and those that argue about them losing the gamblers revenue. Already one cruise line has banned casino smoking. Even a few weeks ago it was argued by some that NCL would not ban smoking on balconies. Yet this thread is titled "Norweigian Cruise Line Bans Smoking on Balconies". Those of us who argued for restricting onboard smoking have won.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is wonderful, as a non-smoker, that there is no smoking on the balconies anymore, I just don't look at it as a win or lose situation for anyone....sorry if you disagree. Yes, I also cruise on Celebrity and they have had non-smoking in their casinos for some time and I think it is great, I also believe that another cruise line has non-smoking nights in the casino. Edited July 20, 2014 by NLH Arizona

[Red-Sol]

If your opinion turns out to be true, how long do you think it will be before public opinion as well as the financial loss experienced in the casinos by the presence of all those non-gambling smokers, will force the lines to extend their ban to casinos. If the casino starts losing revenue due to increased smoking in that venue, I think that the casino officials will be quite willing and able to enforce the rule. It shouldn't be difficult to observe which smokers are there only to smoke. If they aren't contributing to the casino's revenues why would they want them taking up space and discouraging real gamblers from entering the venue.

You seem to be taking a perverse pleasure in describing the possible negative effects of the imposition of the new restrictions. By now, you should have been able to discern the trend towards further restrictions on where passengers can smoke on board the ships.

 

It isn't as if the people that will come into the casinos just to smoke are going to take up all the machines and tables and just sit there and smoke all day (or night) long. They will come in and through..smoke their cigarette and leave. The smokers that are actually playing will be the ones that might be there for a long time.

 

I don't get any "perverse" pleasure out of the new regulations at all. I am a realist as to what will end up happening.

 

All the chest thumping and complete exaggeration by non-smokers is comical though. I completely understand the trend towards further restrictions to smoking...but more importantly I understand the real reason for it and it has nothing to do with any non-smoking crusade from those in balconies.

[EyeSeaEwe]

With over 600 posts (not counting the oens that have been purged) and 30 pages of discussion I can only imagine the uproar we will see when the cruise lines go 100% no smoking. At some point down the road it will come to pass. The fact it was tried before and did not last is not even slightly relevant, the past is the past and times change. Sooner or later all crusi eliens will be 100% smoke free and when it does happen this palce will (pardon the pun) light up!

[Neene0311]

I truly don't think if smoking was banned from casinos there would be lost revenue. The main reason I don't go to the casinos is because of the smoking. Take the smoke away and they'd now have a non smokers business. You lose some, you gain some.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[gemsm]

I truly don't think if smoking was banned from casinos there would be lost revenue. The main reason I don't go to the casinos is because of the smoking. Take the smoke away and they'd now have a non smokers business. You lose some, you gain some.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

royal Carribean tried non-smoking casino nights. They ditched them really quickly. I can only speculate that it was due to loss of revenue. The 2 ships that have no-smoking in casino (celebrity) and non-smoking casino nights (Princess) charge substantially more for a cabin. Be careful what you wish for

[Aquahound]

royal Carribean tried non-smoking casino nights. They ditched them really quickly. I can only speculate that it was due to loss of revenue. The 2 ships that have no-smoking in casino (celebrity) and non-smoking casino nights (Princess) charge substantially more for a cabin. Be careful what you wish for

 

Not quite accurate.

 

RCI still has non smoking casino nights on formal nights. They just don't do it on the short cruises anymore. Plus, Oasis Class casino is split into 2 identical halves...smoking and non smoking. They're doing just fine.

 

Also, Celebrity does not only have 2 ships with non smoking casinos. Smoking is banned in ALL Celebrity casinos.

[Beaver1975]

With over 600 posts (not counting the oens that have been purged) and 30 pages of discussion I can only imagine the uproar we will see when the cruise lines go 100% no smoking. At some point down the road it will come to pass. The fact it was tried before and did not last is not even slightly relevant, the past is the past and times change. Sooner or later all crusi eliens will be 100% smoke free and when it does happen this palce will (pardon the pun) light up!

 

Sanitized for your protection. <grin>