NCL changes smoking policy too!

[Adayatatime]

I'm glad you understand that bad habit, since you practice it here SO often yourself! :rolleyes:

 

Your roll eyes icon must be worn out. :p

[LetsGetWet!]

Your roll eyes icon must be worn out. :p

And the evidence keeps mounting about how much you practice that bad habit of being derogatory to others! Haha, thanks! :D

[Adayatatime]

And the evidence keeps mounting about how much you practice that bad habit of being derogatory to others! Haha, thanks! :D

 

 

You're very welcome.

[NemoCrownie]

I've tried to avoid the smoking/nonsmoking/ecig forums like the plague but I just can't resist at the moment. I was discussing the advent of ecigs with my primary care physician and was interested in his thoughts on them as a medical professional. He said he has been intrigued by ecigs for the last 6 years since he had his first hard core smoker successfully quit after 50 years of a 2+ pack per day habit. He said to look carefully at who is funding the studies, and there have been a lot of them. The problem is that governments have gotten very dependent on tobacco taxes but the number of smokers are declining, with a rapidly increasing number switching to ecigs. Government has to figure out how to tax ecigs but big pharma closed the most likely mechanism by making nicotine replacement therapies an OTC drug with patches, lozenges, gum, etc. so if government can't tax the nicotine how do they generate revenue from these replacements? Long and short of it is that he is a huge proponent of ecigs as the juice is made of food grade products, the vapor has not proven to have any adverse affects on anyone in close proximity of the vapor , health of the user seems to be in line with a non-smoker, etc. His only concern is that the devices are new enough that the long term impact on the user is not known and won't be known for years to come. He has no concerns regarding breathing in the exhaled vapor. He did address scent sensitivity to some of the flavorings by some people. For me, I won't worry about ecigs around me until there is a reptable study not backed by anyone with a special interest, especially a taxing interest.

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk

[Aquahound]

And the evidence keeps mounting about how much you practice that bad habit of being derogatory to others! Haha, thanks! :D

 

True. I'm still waiting to hear what "lack of knowledge" we have to explain our belief that ships will at some point ban casino smoking and eventually go entirely smoke free.

[Adayatatime]

I've tried to avoid the smoking/nonsmoking/ecig forums like the plague but I just can't resist at the moment. I was discussing the advent of ecigs with my primary care physician and was interested in his thoughts on them as a medical professional. He said he has been intrigued by ecigs for the last 6 years since he had his first hard core smoker successfully quit after 50 years of a 2+ pack per day habit. He said to look carefully at who is funding the studies, and there have been a lot of them. The problem is that governments have gotten very dependent on tobacco taxes but the number of smokers are declining, with a rapidly increasing number switching to ecigs. Government has to figure out how to tax ecigs but big pharma closed the most likely mechanism by making nicotine replacement therapies an OTC drug with patches, lozenges, gum, etc. so if government can't tax the nicotine how do they generate revenue from these replacements? Long and short of it is that he is a huge proponent of ecigs as the juice is made of food grade products, the vapor has not proven to have any adverse affects on anyone in close proximity of the vapor , health of the user seems to be in line with a non-smoker, etc. His only concern is that the devices are new enough that the long term impact on the user is not known and won't be known for years to come. He has no concerns regarding breathing in the exhaled vapor. He did address scent sensitivity to some of the flavorings by some people. For me, I won't worry about ecigs around me until there is a reptable study not backed by anyone with a special interest, especially a taxing interest.

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk

 

This sounds like a very sensible post. I'm a non smoker but I have seen very good friends of mine successfully change to ecigs and maybe then eventually they can drop the ecigs.

 

I also get the scent sensitivity as my Hubbie is very sensitive to strong perfumes (not allergic but will sneeze and his nose gets blocked). I know its not the same thing but that makes sense too.

[sammee]

I've tried to avoid the smoking/nonsmoking/ecig forums like the plague but I just can't resist at the moment. I was discussing the advent of ecigs with my primary care physician and was interested in his thoughts on them as a medical professional. He said he has been intrigued by ecigs for the last 6 years since he had his first hard core smoker successfully quit after 50 years of a 2+ pack per day habit. He said to look carefully at who is funding the studies, and there have been a lot of them. The problem is that governments have gotten very dependent on tobacco taxes but the number of smokers are declining, with a rapidly increasing number switching to ecigs. Government has to figure out how to tax ecigs but big pharma closed the most likely mechanism by making nicotine replacement therapies an OTC drug with patches, lozenges, gum, etc. so if government can't tax the nicotine how do they generate revenue from these replacements? Long and short of it is that he is a huge proponent of ecigs as the juice is made of food grade products, the vapor has not proven to have any adverse affects on anyone in close proximity of the vapor , health of the user seems to be in line with a non-smoker, etc. His only concern is that the devices are new enough that the long term impact on the user is not known and won't be known for years to come. He has no concerns regarding breathing in the exhaled vapor. He did address scent sensitivity to some of the flavorings by some people. For me, I won't worry about ecigs around me until there is a reptable study not backed by anyone with a special interest, especially a taxing interest.

 

 

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk

 

And the individual states are already prepping to try and sneak this is. And I'm sure NJ & NY will be sighting Jenkins or Jones act, (can't remember the name), to nail online purchases like they pulled on cigarette buying. This totally ticks me off. Government tells us how bad tobacco/smoking is. Why isn't it banned across the country. Like you said tax interests/losses. I'm using an ecig right now to help me quit. Stores are cropping up all over, no need to order online, but a tax that they are hinting at could put quite a few out of business.

[jstraw20]

I'm one who doesn't really care if you "vape" on your balcony. But I've never heard anything about what you claim above. Care to supply some links showing locales where that's actually illegal?

 

Did a little hunting for it and have found that since I read the initial article the law has been amended. It was in Spain and the way the law had been written it conflicted with other anti-smoking laws as at the time e-cig users were legally considered to be non-smokers.

[LetsGetWet!]

I've stated this in another thread but I think it's worth repeating: forcing users of E-cigs into smoking areas is actually illegal in many locales because they aren't smokers. I think the current policy should be re-visited at some point.

I'm one who doesn't really care if you "vape" on your balcony. But I've never heard anything about what you claim above. Care to supply some links showing locales where that's actually illegal?

Did a little hunting for it and have found that since I read the initial article the law has been amended. It was in Spain and the way the law had been written it conflicted with other anti-smoking laws as at the time e-cig users were legally considered to be non-smokers.

Thanks... So your initial claim, which you said was "worth repeating", was that it was "actually illegal in many locales" but when pressed, you come up with ONE locale, in a foreign country, where it USED TO BE illegal, due to a conflict in laws which has since been amended/fixed.

 

It would appear that your false claim wasn't really "worth repeating" after all, huh? :rolleyes:

Edited July 22, 2014 by LetsGetWet!

[jstraw20]

It would appear that your false claim wasn't really "worth repeating" after all, huh? :rolleyes:

 

Ummm... no... The law was amended. My claim wasn't false, it was out of date.

[LetsGetWet!]

Ummm... no... The law was amended. My claim wasn't false, it was out of date.

No, your claim that:

forcing users of E-cigs into smoking areas is actually illegal in many locales because they aren't smokers.

would definitely appear to be false at this point.

[jstraw20]

Fine, I stand corrected.

Edited July 22, 2014 by jstraw20

[Reijo]

Does anyone know what the policy is IF you decide to smoke on your balcony when it is a smoke free zone? I'm a non-smoker but have a relative that is planning on a cruise and says that he will on the balcony regardless!!!! How ridiculous! Will there be a fine? Put off ship? Would just love to relay the proper info.

[Clarea]

Does anyone know what the policy is IF you decide to smoke on your balcony when it is a smoke free zone? I'm a non-smoker but have a relative that is planning on a cruise and says that he will on the balcony regardless!!!! How ridiculous! Will there be a fine? Put off ship? Would just love to relay the proper info.

The fine is $250 per occurrence.

Edited July 22, 2014 by clarea

[negc]

There is a fine of $250 associated with the first offense. Not sure what they will do if someone is a repeat offender but I would hope the initial fine would be sufficient to deter someone from repeating.

[steveru621]

Does anyone know what the policy is IF you decide to smoke on your balcony when it is a smoke free zone? I'm a non-smoker but have a relative that is planning on a cruise and says that he will on the balcony regardless!!!! How ridiculous! Will there be a fine? Put off ship? Would just love to relay the proper info.

 

Probably first a warning. Then it would escalate.

[StarSong2001]

No, your claim that:

 

would definitely appear to be false at this point.

 

Good grief, give it a rest. All that was missing was "neener neener":p

[Reijo]

Thanks for your response. I'll be happy to pass this along! Some people just will NEVER conform! :mad:

[LetsGetWet!]

Good grief, give it a rest. All that was missing was "neener neener":p

Sorry, what I'd like to see "given a rest" are trumped-up claims like that - which all too often are posted as fact here and turn out to be complete fiction.

[LetsGetWet!]

Thanks for your response. I'll be happy to pass this along! Some people just will NEVER conform! :mad:

I believe the "put off the ship" penalty would be very unlikely for the first offense, but MUCH MORE likely if he/she beliggerantly continues to smoke there even after being caught & told to cease & desist by ship security/staff.

[RDC1]

I've tried to avoid the smoking/nonsmoking/ecig forums like the plague but I just can't resist at the moment. I was discussing the advent of ecigs with my primary care physician and was interested in his thoughts on them as a medical professional. He said he has been intrigued by ecigs for the last 6 years since he had his first hard core smoker successfully quit after 50 years of a 2+ pack per day habit. He said to look carefully at who is funding the studies, and there have been a lot of them. The problem is that governments have gotten very dependent on tobacco taxes but the number of smokers are declining, with a rapidly increasing number switching to ecigs. Government has to figure out how to tax ecigs but big pharma closed the most likely mechanism by making nicotine replacement therapies an OTC drug with patches, lozenges, gum, etc. so if government can't tax the nicotine how do they generate revenue from these replacements? Long and short of it is that he is a huge proponent of ecigs as the juice is made of food grade products, the vapor has not proven to have any adverse affects on anyone in close proximity of the vapor , health of the user seems to be in line with a non-smoker, etc. His only concern is that the devices are new enough that the long term impact on the user is not known and won't be known for years to come. He has no concerns regarding breathing in the exhaled vapor. He did address scent sensitivity to some of the flavorings by some people. For me, I won't worry about ecigs around me until there is a reptable study not backed by anyone with a special interest, especially a taxing interest.

 

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tablet using Tapatalk

 

E-cigs are clearly better that smoking regular cigarettes as far as both the user and 2nd hand impacts. That does not mean that they do not have health impacts of their own though. 2nd hand impacts are probably minimal when used outdoors, but clearly exist when used indoors

 

 

Since you brought up the "juice" the liquids primary component is propylene glycol, which is generally recognized as safe by the FDA in food applications and also used as a solvent in some drugs. However, it is not approved in any application where it is heated, vaporized, and deeply inhaled into the lungs. Probably the closest application to that is in its use in theater fog. In that application it has been found to have some negative health impacts.

 

Propylene glycol and glycerin are the main base ingredients of the e-liquid. Exposure to propylene glycol can cause eye and respiratory irritation, and prolonged or repeated inhalation in industrial settings may affect the central nervous system, behavior, and the spleen.66 In its product safety materials, Dow Chemical Company states that “inhalation exposure to [propylene glycol] mists should be avoided,”67 and the American Chemistry Council warns against its use in theater fogs because of the potential for eye and respiratory irritation.68 When heated and vaporized, propylene glycol can form propylene oxide, an International Agency for Research on Cancer class 2B carcinogen,69 and glycerol forms acrolein, which can cause upper respiratory tract irritation.70,71

 

Now none of the three quoted in this article are taxing agencies. Now usually when someone makes the claim you did about ignoring studies unless as you put it "backed by anyone with a special interest, especially a taxing interest", it usually means that they want to ignore any study counter to their view, since in one way or another pretty much anyone that funds a study does so because they have an interest and as such can be defined to have a special interest.

 

Now the bigger issue from e-cigs is with small particulates. Studies have shown that e-cigs can generate even more small particulates than regular cigarettes. This is a major reason for not using them in indoor public areas.

There is strong evidence, however, that frequent low or short-term levels of exposure to fine and ultrafine particles can contribute to pulmonary and systemic inflammatory processes and increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease and death.

 

We will probably not know all of the health impacts of e-cigs for 30-50 years when we start to get mortality data from long term users.

[Goofyisme]

Good grief, give it a rest. All that was missing was "neener neener":p

 

Don't worry about it. Socially inept people exist on every board. That's what the ignore list is for. Makes reading these threads much more enjoyable.

[Big_G]

Don't worry about it. Socially inept people exist on every board. That's what the ignore list is for. Makes reading these threads much more enjoyable.

 

...then there are those standing on the side lines throwing gas on the fire. :rolleyes:

[macropetala]

I couldn't agree with you more. As a long term heavy smoker who wanted to cut down ( because I thought quitting was impossible) , I recently purchased an e-cig. I previously had a friend offer me a vape on one of those awful real cigarette looking e- cigs and I coughed and sputtered, convinced that they weren't for me . Last week I decided to try once more after someone told me to try the kind that look nothing like a real cigarette, but one with a liquid that you refill . After a day I went from two packs to a half pack. A few days later the real cigs seemed overpowering. After a 40 year habit I'm now on day four of no real tobacco. I chose the liquid based for heavy smokers and I'm feeling satisfied. I'm hanging onto my e-cig for dear life and have ordered a couple of spare batteries . Having said that, I'm very disappointed with NCL saying that e-cigs are prohibited simply because other patrons will think that they aren't enforcing the smoking policy , since they look like a real cigarette. There is no smoke, no odor, just water vapor . If they wanted to compromise to satisfy smokers and non smokers alike , they should revise their policy. I have two cruise rewards I purchased that I must use but I'm going to let them know what I think of their policy. I don't see how they can possibly enforce banning e-cigs on the balcony though, unless you are hanging out over the rail with one in your hand and the neighbors on the other side of the partition can see you. And I DO think that non gambling smokers will play a one line penny spin in the casino to enjoy their smokes , especially in bad weather. I've always been a considerate smoker on my balcony and if the person next to me was bothered, I would go inside my cabin. I've never thrown a butt in the sea. As others have mentioned before , there are plenty of things that can be irritating on a cruise...heavy perfume, loud drunks, not waiting ones turn in line at a buffet or throwing a towel on a beach chair for hours at a time , just to name a few ,but I don't let those things bother me because I'm on vacation. Compromise is the key word for everybody getting along.