Casino Smoke

[Don'tNeedAName]

22 hours ago, kiska said:

No one has to work in those conditions. Employees are always making a choice where they work, the same goes for all the bar staff and cleaners. They can choose to go work somewhere else, whether it is a different cruise line, or land based something or other. No one is forcing them to work on the ships, they are choosing it. Why should they be dictating to their employers how the place of employment is run? I have to work Monday-Friday, 8 hours a day. Would you defend me if I complained that I don't like the work schedule and prefer to work Wednesday-Friday 4 hours a day? I realize it's the same argument that was used for waitstaff when restaurants went smoke free, but my argument still applies there - you don't like to work in a smoking restaurant, find another line of work, it's really not a complicated matter.

 

No doubt, Biker's post a few back about beating a dead horse is right on, but I'm sorry... this post is just wrong.

 

First off, many people working in these types of environments may not always find it as easy as you suggest to "go work somewhere else."  Furthermore, your attempted analogy to not liking your work schedule is erroneous.  For most lines of work, an employee's schedule is not a matter of safety.  For lines of work that involve safety concerns related to employee schedules, timing regulations do exist (e.g., air traffic controllers, truck drivers).

 

The real problem, isn't simply that people don't like second hand smoke; it is that second hand smoke is irrefutably dangerous to be around.  I don't think you would suggest that all workplace health and safety regulations are wrong... would you?  Employers should take reasonable steps to ensure that employees and customers alike are fostering a safe and healthy work environment.  Permitting smoking is antithetical to that proposition.  Requiring smokers to take it outside is undeniably reasonable when the other option is to put the health of others at risk.

 

There is also a consistency problem with the "go work somewhere else" suggestion.  If it were just a matter of working somewhere else, and all workplaces applied that rule, then ultimately people wouldn't have a place they could work because people would be smoking inside everywhere.

[katrina915]

The problem with the smoking in the casino is that you can't just avoid the casino to avoid smoke. It permeates to the next room which is the cinema on some ships and the atrium. 

Why can't the casino be enclosed? People just need to open a door to gamble and the smokers get more smoke recirculated which should make them happy.  I have not heard of a reasonable reason for not being able to do this.

I haven't been on a royal Caribbean ship in a few years. If smoke is bad on the radiance this summer, I am going back to celebrity. Princess didn't always allow smoking in the casino so the smoke wasnt too bad there either.

[Ned49]

We are very lucky in Australia, no smoking indoors anywhere on the Ship, wish it included outdoors as well.

[Wrighty79]

On 1/21/2018 at 11:54 AM, davekathy said:

Nope. Smoking is still allowed in the Casinos on all RC ships.

 

Not in Australia.

[sellwingri]

2 days ago, I was playing my favorite slot machine on Jewel and a woman came up and sat next to me and proceeded to hold her cigarette right next to me and blow her smoke right toward me.  When I asked her politely if she could blow the smoke  the other way, she told me I was in the smoking section and I could go to the non smoking section if I didn’t like her smoke.  I’m still angry!  I play cards 95% of the time and we haven’t had any smokers at our table so that’s a plus.  I’ve also sat with other smokers in the past who will be thoughtful and not smoke if it bothers you but she takes the cake for rudeness.

[sunlover12]

I wish Royal Caribbean would make the entire ship smoke-free.  Having a non-smoking section in the casino is not good enough. I wrote it on my post-cruise survey. I was recently on Serenade and could not enjoy my glass of wine in Vintages because the cigarette smoke from the casino was drifting through.  It was awful. 

There are other cruise lines that prohibit smoking in all areas of the ship including the casino. Royal Caribbean should follow if they want to remain competitive. 

[The Sunset Glow]

On 3/8/2019 at 3:41 PM, kiska said:

No one has to work in those conditions. Employees are always making a choice where they work, the same goes for all the bar staff and cleaners. They can choose to go work somewhere else, whether it is a different cruise line, or land based something or other. No one is forcing them to work on the ships, they are choosing it. Why should they be dictating to their employers how the place of employment is run? I have to work Monday-Friday, 8 hours a day. Would you defend me if I complained that I don't like the work schedule and prefer to work Wednesday-Friday 4 hours a day? I realize it's the same argument that was used for waitstaff when restaurants went smoke free, but my argument still applies there - you don't like to work in a smoking restaurant, find another line of work, it's really not a complicated matter.

 

Only an inconsiderate smoker would think this way 🙄

[HBE4]

35 minutes ago, The Sunset Glow said:

 

Only an inconsiderate smoker would think this way 🙄

 

Not really.

 

People make choices when applying for a job  All jobs come with some risk, some more than others. Would someone that is afraid of fire become a fireman? If someone is afraid of heights, should they take job that requires going up on  cherry-picker, becoming a roofer or washing windows on a sky skyscraper?

 

If someone chooses to working on an environment where smoking is still legally permitted, it is their choice. Not sure how that is inconsiderate.

 

I'm not totally insensitive to the subject however, maybe the cruise lines can make working in the casino voluntary and offer extra compensation (money, additional time off or a combination of both).

 

 

[The Sunset Glow]

4 minutes ago, HBE4 said:

 

Not really.

 

People make choices when applying for a job  All jobs come with some risk, some more than others. Would someone that is afraid of fire become a fireman? If someone is afraid of heights, should they take job that requires going up on  cherry-picker, becoming a roofer or washing windows on a sky skyscraper?

 

If someone chooses to working on an environment where smoking is still legally permitted, it is their choice. Not sure how that is inconsiderate.

 

I'm not totally insensitive to the subject however, maybe the cruise lines can make working in the casino voluntary and offer extra compensation (money, additional time off or a combination of both).

 

 

 

For those cruise ship workers it's different than for us. Many of them don't have the choices we do - they take whatever employment they can to support themselves and their families and once they get the job they can't tell their supervisor they don't want to work around smoke - they don't have job protection and their employer doesn't have to provide a smoke free environment. No doubt, come are working there by choice but most are not. You can't compare ship work to working in countries like the USA or Canada, etc. It's just not the same.

[SRF]

On 3/7/2019 at 12:36 PM, Don'tNeedAName said:

 

Banning indoor smoking is a fair solution because smokers cause harm to other people.  Second hand smoke is dangerous, and anyone's perceived right to fairness should end when they are actively putting others at risk.  Smokers would not prohibited from smoking, but would be prohibited from doing so in an enclosed environment where the risks to others are heightened.  Seems fair to me, and in fact, seems to be the only way smokers and nonsmokers can co-enjoy an area "fairly."

 

Using the casino as an example: in a non-smoking casino, a smoker who wants to smoke does not have to avoid the casino entirely because he could step outside and have a smoke, then return.  In a smoking casino, a nonsmoker who does not want to be subjected to smoke would have to avoid the space entirely.  How is forcing a choice between one's health and being able to enjoy the ship's amenities fair?  (Note, this also ignores the fact that the smoke does not actually stay within the confines of the casino.)

 

Someone brought up the alcohol comparison earlier.  Although, as has been covered already, it is a poor overall analogy, I think it can provide background for the purposes of discussing fairness here.

 

It is legal to drink, but it is illegal to drink and drive.  By drinking and driving, drunk drivers are putting innocent parties at risk.

 

It is legal to smoke, but in many places it is illegal to smoke inside, near doorways, etc.  By smoking inside, smokers are putting innocent parties at risk.

 

As a non-smoker you have the choice to not go into those locations.

 

[Don'tNeedAName]

1 hour ago, SRF said:

 

As a non-smoker you have the choice to not go into those locations.

 

Yes, I mentioned that in my post.  You originally asked about fairness, and your reply here gets to my point exactly.  To slightly rephrase your own question back to you: "But how is that fair to the [non-]smokers?  Why should it be fair for only one side?"

 

By banning indoor smoking, smokers and non-smokers alike can enjoy an area equally (i.e., the fairness you originally asked about).  Smokers do not have to avoid the area; rather they need only step outside to smoke.

[SirRedman]

It is what it is.  Period.

[HBE4]

 

How many ships still have a Cigar bar? I think by giving an indoor option to smokers is that best way to go.  If placed near the casino, that gives the option to make the casino smoke-free while still giving smokers a convenient place to do their thing. Make sure the staffers are all smokers so non-smoking staff is not subject to second hand smoke.  As 40% of cruise ship employees are smokers (source of info: our resident chief engineer), there should be plenty of personnel to choose from.

 

And perhaps calling it a Cigar bar is to Old World/stuffy.  Change the name to Dead Horse Smoking saloon or something like that, with artwork by Biker. Transform the space into something more modern, edgy, better lighting & sound, that will attract cigarette smokers and vaping. Sell/demo Vaping paraphernalia. Have 2, maybe 3 sets of doors to pass thru so when people go in/out of the DHS saloon, someone doesn't complain about the faint wisp of smoke a from a 1,000 feet away.

 

Royal should be paying me for these ideas.

 

[JoMoe]

HBE4,

 

Great idea, I agree.

 

Since only adults will be in this smoking saloon, they could have slot machines in there.  That way smokers could gamble and smoke.

 

Royal Caribbean - are you listening?

[HBE4]

26 minutes ago, JoMoe said:

HBE4,

 

Great idea, I agree.

 

Since only adults will be in this smoking saloon, they could have slot machines in there.  That way smokers could gamble and smoke.

 

Royal Caribbean - are you listening?

 

Thanks!  I didn't even think of putting slot machines in there. Good idea.

 

[SRF]

5 hours ago, Don'tNeedAName said:

Yes, I mentioned that in my post.  You originally asked about fairness, and your reply here gets to my point exactly.  To slightly rephrase your own question back to you: "But how is that fair to the [non-]smokers?  Why should it be fair for only one side?"

 

By banning indoor smoking, smokers and non-smokers alike can enjoy an area equally (i.e., the fairness you originally asked about).  Smokers do not have to avoid the area; rather they need only step outside to smoke.

 

Making them smoke only outside is not fair.  

 

Banning smoking for all indoors is not fair.  It is very one sided.

 

These days fair is whatever someone wants to make THEM happy. 😄

 

BTW, I am not smoker, just tired of the SJW and their idea of "fair".

[soremekun]

Solution is a Darth Vader mask for smokers that constantly blows fumes.  Maybe a CPAP type mask.  Or perhaps a smaller version that just fits into the nostrils.

If the smoke is contained just in their noses, everyone will be happy.

[Don'tNeedAName]

36 minutes ago, SRF said:

 

Making them smoke only outside is not fair.  

 

Banning smoking for all indoors is not fair.  It is very one sided.

 

These days fair is whatever someone wants to make THEM happy. 😄

 

BTW, I am not smoker, just tired of the SJW and their idea of "fair".

 

Is it fair to require someone to take a phone call outside of a movie theater instead of inside?  Would it be unfair for the theater to remove a customer who would not stop talking on his phone in the theater?  Society places restrictions on these things all the time, and it is certainly fair to ask people to take reasonable steps (such as going outside) to partake in certain activities.

 

By your un-ironic use of a term like SJW, I can tell we will likely never agree on this, and if you are insinuating that I am a SJW, you are incorrect.  Using your logic, smokers are the ones who want things their way "to make THEM happy"--forget the consequences to anyone else.

 

However, you are missing the point.  It has nothing to do with making people "happy."  Secondhand smoke is dangerous.  That is a fact.  It is absolutely fair to place restrictions on the place and manner in which people choose to engage in dangerous activities that put others at risk.

 

Racing in the wrong environment (public streets) is dangerous; if people want to race, they can take it to a track.  This allows safe enjoyment of public streets, and it is fair because it doesn't prohibit racers from using public streets.  Similarly, prohibiting smoking indoors allows for safe enjoyment of indoor common areas, and it is fair because it does not prohibit smokers from enjoying those areas where smoking indoors is prohibited.

 

Although the impact of secondhand smoke may not be as immediate as some other examples, it exists nonetheless.  Of course, another significant difference is that other dangerous activities like racing or shooting guns can be done safely.  There is no way to smoke safely.

 

 

 

[Milwaukee Eight]

6 hours ago, HBE4 said:

 

How many ships still have a Cigar bar? I think by giving an indoor option to smokers is that best way to go.  If placed near the casino, that gives the option to make the casino smoke-free while still giving smokers a convenient place to do their thing. Make sure the staffers are all smokers so non-smoking staff is not subject to second hand smoke.  As 40% of cruise ship employees are smokers (source of info: our resident chief engineer), there should be plenty of personnel to choose from.

 

And perhaps calling it a Cigar bar is to Old World/stuffy.  Change the name to Dead Horse Smoking saloon or something like that, with artwork by Biker. Transform the space into something more modern, edgy, better lighting & sound, that will attract cigarette smokers and vaping. Sell/demo Vaping paraphernalia. Have 2, maybe 3 sets of doors to pass thru so when people go in/out of the DHS saloon, someone doesn't complain about the faint wisp of smoke a from a 1,000 feet away.

 

Royal should be paying me for these ideas.

 

Why do you think smokers are entitled to an indoor smoking area? I don’t. 

[CDNCRUIZR]

On our last cruise in Dec 2018 on Adventure, smoke smell was so bad in the Casino that DH didn't want to spend any time in there. Great on our bank account but not so great for RCCL. It was the cruise where DH spent the least amount of money/least amount of time in the casino due to the awful smoke smell. Would love if RCCL would make the casino a smoke-free area on all their ships.

[HBE4]

49 minutes ago, Milwaukee Eight said:

Why do you think smokers are entitled to an indoor smoking area? I don’t. 

 

For the same reason you think people  are entitled to a non-smoking casino. 

[LMaxwell]

14 hours ago, SRF said:

 

Making them smoke only outside is not fair.  

 

Banning smoking for all indoors is not fair.  It is very one sided.

 

These days fair is whatever someone wants to make THEM happy. 😄

 

BTW, I am not smoker, just tired of the SJW and their idea of "fair".

Sure it's fair. 

 

Just came off BPCL Grand Celebration - No smoking permitted anywhere in ship.  I actually gambled in casino.  NO smoke.  Many positive comments about it.  Amazing to walk through a ship that did NOT smell like an ashtray. 

 

How was this unfair to anyone? 

 

Oh, I see, trigger phrases like 'SJW', turn off the TV and open your eyes. 

[Oceans4]

On 3/5/2019 at 2:23 PM, Mikew0805 said:

I understand that is bothers people, but hey at least they are following the rules and smoking in the casino vs. breaking the rules and hanging clothes on the balcony. There are a ton of other places that I, or anyone else can go, and not be around smokers. 

To clarify....not hanging clothes on the railing - clothes are clipped to the back of the lounger or chairs on the balcony, so nobody could see them at all, and it's how I dry bathing suits and our washed gym clothes.  You are  not comparing apples at all with that statement!    And it's a double-edged sword - if my clothes didn't reek of cigarette smoke, I wouldn't have to put them outside at all!   

[Sitzmark]

14 hours ago, HBE4 said:

 

For the same reason you think people  are entitled to a non-smoking casino. 

Health and safety?

[SRF]

17 hours ago, Don'tNeedAName said:

 

Is it fair to require someone to take a phone call outside of a movie theater instead of inside?  Would it be unfair for the theater to remove a customer who would not stop talking on his phone in the theater?  Society places restrictions on these things all the time, and it is certainly fair to ask people to take reasonable steps (such as going outside) to partake in certain activities.

 

By your un-ironic use of a term like SJW, I can tell we will likely never agree on this, and if you are insinuating that I am a SJW, you are incorrect.  Using your logic, smokers are the ones who want things their way "to make THEM happy"--forget the consequences to anyone else.

 

However, you are missing the point.  It has nothing to do with making people "happy."  Secondhand smoke is dangerous.  That is a fact.  It is absolutely fair to place restrictions on the place and manner in which people choose to engage in dangerous activities that put others at risk.

 

Racing in the wrong environment (public streets) is dangerous; if people want to race, they can take it to a track.  This allows safe enjoyment of public streets, and it is fair because it doesn't prohibit racers from using public streets.  Similarly, prohibiting smoking indoors allows for safe enjoyment of indoor common areas, and it is fair because it does not prohibit smokers from enjoying those areas where smoking indoors is prohibited.

 

Although the impact of secondhand smoke may not be as immediate as some other examples, it exists nonetheless.  Of course, another significant difference is that other dangerous activities like racing or shooting guns can be done safely.  There is no way to smoke safely.

 

I am just saying, that these days, everything is NOT FAIR, if it does against what THAT person wants.

 

I am not saying that smokers can smoke anywhere.  But that making the ONLY place to smoke being outdoors is not fair to THEM.