E-cigs?

[Fish Lover]

Beth, you say you're not sure why you find ecigs offensive. I explained in an earlier comment exactly why. You're offended by the behavior of someone recreationally inhaling something for pleasure. Has nothing to do with much else and it isn't about the children either, we have fruity flavored liquor and no one ever suggested banning alcohol with fruity flavors so it wouldn't appeal to kids. These are all just excuses. No one ever questions fumes and vapors from cleaning solutions, colognes, perfumes and a whole host of other sources if potentially dangerous vapors, no of course not because they aren't being used like a taboo social behavior. Ecigs will go down in history as the only thing ever to be banned prior to knowing whether they might be harmful or not, everything else gets put into use until proven otherwise then its banned or regulated. And even if official reports came out tomorrow saying they are 100% safe, people would still find a way to object to them. Let's not try to kid ourselves here.

 

I find this to be a very specious argument. Cigarette smoke is absolutely offensive (and I am a former smoker for many years). It stinks and it lingers to your hair, your clothes, the furniture, curtains, rugs etc. I also find strong perfumes, disinfectant, ammonia, and chlorine offensive odors. However, with the exception of perfume, the smells don't linger and they at least are associated with cleanliness. E-cigarettes have a smell. Smokes can't smell it because their general sense of smell is ruined and they (as the commercial says) have gone nose-blind.

 

I really don't care if someone is sucking on something. I find loud gum chewing more offensive in that regard.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Fish Lover

[ghstudio]

Per the Celebrity contract, you actually could be put off the ship at the next port...with no refund and no help to get home. Not a big chance of this happening, but you just never want to be the first....

[excitedofharpenden]

The question has been asked and answered as per Celebrity policy. Time for this thread to be locked.

[Rustybuttons123]

Well I would agree with the policy if there was good reasoning, so far there isn't other than people just not liking being around people doing it because its visually offensive more so than anything else. Not one valid reason, it doesn't have a strong smell as some are claiming, that's a wild exaggeration. Vaping is relatively odorless, and 'relatively' is the key word here, there's a slight smell but compared to perfumes, colognes, body sprays or even someone chewing gum is far less noticeable than those. Then someone will claim that those smell good, well but that's subjective, I can tell you of some occasions of some gut wrenching personal scents people apply that permeate the air and draw into your clothes. But the key here is that different rules are being applied to an insignificant vape smell when there's much stronger and offensive smells that are acceptable.

 

Then the argument is 'we don't know if they're harmful', well name one thing banned before undergoing 20 years of lab testing to ensure its 100% safe, again different rules being applied. But what we do know is the only objectionable ingredient is nicotine, but no one has ever become addicted to 2nd hand smoke, no one has ever proven that nicotine by itself is carcinogenic, injecting lab animals with mass quantities hasn't produced cancer, yet there's been found positive qualities as I mentioned reducing risks of some neurological diseases and nicotine is used as a treatment....so actually what we know now is that being exposed to trace amounts of nicotine without getting addicted to it may actually be beneficial, and at the worse just benign.

[need2bespoiled]

Well I would agree with the policy if there was good reasoning, so far there isn't other than people just not liking being around people doing it because its visually offensive more so than anything else. Not one valid reason, it doesn't have a strong smell as some are claiming, that's a wild exaggeration. Vaping is relatively odorless, and 'relatively' is the key word here, there's a slight smell but compared to perfumes, colognes, body sprays or even someone chewing gum is far less noticeable than those. Then someone will claim that those smell good, well but that's subjective, I can tell you of some occasions of some gut wrenching personal scents people apply that permeate the air and draw into your clothes. But the key here is that different rules are being applied to an insignificant vape smell when there's much stronger and offensive smells that are acceptable.

 

Then the argument is 'we don't know if they're harmful', well name one thing banned before undergoing 20 years of lab testing to ensure its 100% safe, again different rules being applied. But what we do know is the only objectionable ingredient is nicotine, but no one has ever become addicted to 2nd hand smoke, no one has ever proven that nicotine by itself is carcinogenic, injecting lab animals with mass quantities hasn't produced cancer, yet there's been found positive qualities as I mentioned reducing risks of some neurological diseases and nicotine is used as a treatment....so actually what we know now is that being exposed to trace amounts of nicotine without getting addicted to it may actually be beneficial, and at the worse just benign.

 

First, all those other things are not exhaled, and blown over towards you, or away from the body to be carried away from the person. The DO smell. I can smell it. It does bother me.

 

Second, you sound like your making the same argument, 50 years ago why we shouldn't ban cigaretts.

 

We learn from experience. We know nicotine has harmful side effects. You can argue against the research all you want, but it is pretty clear. You say it is used for health treatments but so is Opiods and we don't go around letting just anyone use those either. Finally, because ANY substance can be mixed into the liquid put in these devices, without those around knowing what they've added, they all get banned. There is no other easy way to deal wit them. You can still use them, in the designated areas, if you don't like the rules, find another cruise ine OR take the consequences of getting caught. The cruise line has the right, on their property, within the governing laws to limit what they wish, just like gambling (Casino), Swimming (pool), bathing (showers and bathruds) and sex (um, well, you know). They also limit plenty of other thinsg that are probably not harmful to anyone from exension cords, tea kettles, and even bringing your own wine to dinner. None of these things harm others when done, even in public, but the cruise line still limits where than can be done. Their ship, their rules, whether you agree or not.

 

Happy sailing,

Jenna

[ChucktownSteve]

Well I would agree with the policy if there was good reasoning, so far there isn't other than people just not liking being around people doing it because its visually offensive more so than anything else. Not one valid reason, it doesn't have a strong smell as some are claiming, that's a wild exaggeration. Vaping is relatively odorless, and 'relatively' is the key word here, there's a slight smell but compared to perfumes, colognes, body sprays or even someone chewing gum is far less noticeable than those. Then someone will claim that those smell good, well but that's subjective, I can tell you of some occasions of some gut wrenching personal scents people apply that permeate the air and draw into your clothes. But the key here is that different rules are being applied to an insignificant vape smell when there's much stronger and offensive smells that are acceptable.

 

Then the argument is 'we don't know if they're harmful', well name one thing banned before undergoing 20 years of lab testing to ensure its 100% safe, again different rules being applied. But what we do know is the only objectionable ingredient is nicotine, but no one has ever become addicted to 2nd hand smoke, no one has ever proven that nicotine by itself is carcinogenic, injecting lab animals with mass quantities hasn't produced cancer, yet there's been found positive qualities as I mentioned reducing risks of some neurological diseases and nicotine is used as a treatment....so actually what we know now is that being exposed to trace amounts of nicotine without getting addicted to it may actually be beneficial, and at the worse just benign.

 

So do you actually believe a logical argument on cruise critic is going to make Celebrity change their rules?

 

BTW you forgot to mention body odor as offensive in your list. :D

Edited October 3, 2016 by ChucktownSteve

[Rustybuttons123]

First, all those other things are not exhaled, and blown over towards you, or away from the body to be carried away from the person. The DO smell. I can smell it. It does bother me.

 

Second, you sound like your making the same argument, 50 years ago why we shouldn't ban cigaretts.

 

We learn from experience. We know nicotine has harmful side effects. You can argue against the research all you want, but it is pretty clear. You say it is used for health treatments but so is Opiods and we don't go around letting just anyone use those either. Finally, because ANY substance can be mixed into the liquid put in these devices, without those around knowing what they've added, they all get banned. There is no other easy way to deal wit them. You can still use them, in the designated areas, if you don't like the rules, find another cruise ine OR take the consequences of getting caught. The cruise line has the right, on their property, within the governing laws to limit what they wish, just like gambling (Casino), Swimming (pool), bathing (showers and bathruds) and sex (um, well, you know). They also limit plenty of other thinsg that are probably not harmful to anyone from exension cords, tea kettles, and even bringing your own wine to dinner. None of these things harm others when done, even in public, but the cruise line still limits where than can be done. Their ship, their rules, whether you agree or not.

 

Happy sailing,

Jenna

 

Thank you for proving my point. Notice you focused on the delivery method "exhaled", what difference does it make for a substance to get into the air? Whether its exhale or spray or just evaporates and emits? None.

 

50 years ago reports were coming out that tobacco smoking was harmful to ones health and we've learned a lot more since then. However, there's yet to be a study that links nicotine by itself to cancer. So please feel free to provide us your "research" to the contrary, you can't. Opiods aren't a treatment, they're pain killers, meaning they kill pain, they don't do anything to help the disease itself....apples and oranges comparison. And finally, anyone can put any substance into anything, not just a vape apparatus, if you're foolishly suggesting it being used for nefarious purposes that one wouldn't seek other methods, that's just absurd to ban something for that reason. For crying out loud, ignorance is incredible.

[sunpsyche]

 

 

The most important roles that science can play in the current ECIG debate are to identify and then fill the substantial knowledge gaps that exist today. The review of the literature presented here highlights clearly that very little is known about the acute and longer-term effects of ECIG use for individuals and the public health, especially given the dramatic variability in ECIG devices, liquids, and user behavior. For example, the few published studies examining ECIG toxicant content, yield, delivery, and effects on users involved a very limited set of devices and liquids; detailed analysis of user behavior (e.g., puff topography) has been absent. Similarly, the few published clinical trials have used ECIG device/dose combinations that likely did not deliver cigarette-like doses of nicotine to participants, and also did not provide instructions to participants on how to extract nicotine effectively (whatever those instructions might be). No existing studies address the extent to which the inhalation of ECIG vapor hundreds of times every day over a period of multiple years influences human health, particularly pulmonary function. The extent to which tobacco cigarette smokers use ECIGs as a supplement or substitute for combustible tobacco has been addressed only recently, and, again, the extant data do not address the variability of products and populations. Thus, any generalizations of the small body of work reviewed here to the entire ECIG landscape and to the long-term effects in individuals and to public health are premature.

 

One major factor in our choosing Celebrity is their smoking policy. I would hate to see that change to allow e-cigs since they haven't been around long enough to determine the long-range effects.

 

Beth

 

Thanks for posting this Beth. I've read similar findings several years ago. I smell and am bothered by the ecigs as others have mentioned.

[Charles4515]

Thank you for proving my point. Notice you focused on the delivery method "exhaled", what difference does it make for a substance to get into the air? Whether its exhale or spray or just evaporates and emits? None.

 

 

 

50 years ago reports were coming out that tobacco smoking was harmful to ones health and we've learned a lot more since then. However, there's yet to be a study that links nicotine by itself to cancer. So please feel free to provide us your "research" to the contrary, you can't. Opiods aren't a treatment, they're pain killers, meaning they kill pain, they don't do anything to help the disease itself....apples and oranges comparison. And finally, anyone can put any substance into anything, not just a vape apparatus, if you're foolishly suggesting it being used for nefarious purposes that one wouldn't seek other methods, that's just absurd to ban something for that reason. For crying out loud, ignorance is incredible.

 

 

 

The aerosol contains other products besides nicotine. I think you know that. The safety of the aerosol has not been established one way or the other. But there are toxins in it. It might very well be safe but it is prudent, not ignorant, to restrict it until it is proven safe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited October 3, 2016 by Charles4515

[johhnnyt]

We all know they are bad for you, and since most are manufactured in China they have no quality control or regulation on what's inside them. Bottom line is no one knows what the short or long term health effects will be until we get a generation or two of lungs to look at. Just like the old days with cigarettes, just nicer packaging to appeal to a new generation

[ReneeFLL]

There's no way for them to know you're vaping in your cabin, unless they have it bugged with cameras, ecigs leave no odor or any trace they've been used. So vape away, I do it all the time. I even stealth vape in restaurants, no one is the wiser.

OMG! You can't even go 1 hour without vaping?

 

Their ships, their rules. Don't like it choose another line.

Exactly.