Smoking on QM2

[guernseyguy]

[quote name='pnhmrk']A very helpful site. I wonder how reliable they are?[/quote]

Who? The politicians, or the site?:rolleyes:

[patwell]

Quote Malcolm " It is much nicer though to travel in style on the surface of the earth rather than above it!"

AMEN!!! Now if I could only convince my husband that a crossing on QM2, followed by a Norwegian fjord cruise, followed by another crossing is the perfect way to get me back on Norwegian soil to revisit my ancestry. Does this sound like I don't fly???You bet!! :o

Quote Guernsey Guy "Who? The politicians, or the site?"
Do you mean that your politicians can't be trusted either?? :eek: I'm shocked!!;) Cheers, Penny

[PRINSENDAM]

[INDENT][quote name='pnhmrk']Where are you finding cigarettes at only 6 Australian Dollars a pack? Think about $9.00 per pack and you're getting closer to the prices over here:([/quote]


No, not AUS$6.... I was thinking Bermuda $6.

It has been EIGHT years ;) since I last purchased 'twenty' so I'm not fully up to date with current pricing. I noticed that they were charging something like $60 for 200 at the supermarket the other day. Highway robbery.

Stephen
[/INDENT]

[mtbny7]

Good heavens! I didn't realize how much smoking has become an issue. This topic is 3 pages.

People smoke cigarettes a lot; for example I always fill the cigarette boxes in my apartment when I have parties and they seem to disappear. I myself smoke.


The last time I was on the QM 2 was w/b late August 2005 - I didn't notice any kind of smoking issues.

-Michael

[david,Mississauga]

[quote name='pnhmrk']I don't have any problem with logical argument, the problem is the number and volume of illogical arguments!

Smoking is legal - you therefore have a right to choose if you smoke or not, if you want to work in an area where smoking is permitted or not. Nobody has the right to say that you will not smoke in any enclosed public space.[/QUOTE]

Oh really? You had better start paying attention to news reports. For years, most smokers, even those fine people who go to sea, didn't give a fig about the health of those who chose not to. Now that the tables are turned, they don't like it. Tough, I say.

This comment isn't directed just to the above poster, but to all those who equate involuntary smoking with deliberate consumption of health-damaging food and drink: the heart and lungs aren't the only organs to be damaged by smoke - the brain is apparently the first to go.

[pnhmrk]

[quote name='david,Mississauga']Oh really? You had better start paying attention to news reports. For years, most smokers, even those fine people who go to sea, didn't give a fig about the health of those who chose not to. Now that the tables are turned, they don't like it. Tough, I say.

This comment isn't directed just to the above poster, but to all those who equate involuntary smoking with deliberate consumption of health-damaging food and drink: the heart and lungs aren't the only organs to be damaged by smoke - the brain is apparently the first to go.[/quote]

David - Are you spoiling for an argument? So far all the posts have been quite polite and respectful to others regardless of whether they were pro-choice or anti-smoking. Your post implies that we must accept what you want or "Tough"!

You are wrong - passive smoking is not something that has an effect on the health of most people; other people's consumption of fatty foods and alcohol is something that affects my everyday life. I am not going to tell you that you can't eat beef burgers and get very drunk, although I might complain if your actions repeatedly cause me problems. I do not expect you to try and tell me if I can smoke or not in a public area. I do not go into non-smoking venues because I do not feel at ease there, if you don't want to go into smoking venues that's up to you.

I think that your comment is one of the "illogical arguments" I have a problem with.

[ladymacwilly]

Damn...I just lit up a cigarette and forgot what I was going to say...

(*muffles laughter*)

Never mind....

[david,Mississauga]

[quote name='pnhmrk']David - Are you spoiling for an argument? So far all the posts have been quite polite and respectful to others regardless of whether they were pro-choice or anti-smoking. Your post implies that we must accept what you want or "Tough"!

You are wrong - passive smoking is not something that has an effect on the health of most people ...[/QUOTE]

Although I clicked on a "smiley face" it didn't come out in my message, which unfortunately negated the intended whimsical nature of my comment which came across as nasty. That clearly was not my intention.

However, passive smoking has been proven in studies in the US and Canada to cause harm and even death in innocent victims. Studies by the tobacco cartels will show the opposite, of course, but these are conducted under the control of executives who have given sworn evidence before the US government that they had no idea tobacco is addictive.

Actually, I have no problem with designated smoking areas provided they are totally enclosed. I well remember our several cruises aboard P&O's lovely Canberra, where the classical concerts were held in a room divided: port side smoking, starboard non-smoking. It was a joke. The dining rooms were also so divided, but as they were large and we sat well over into the non-smoking side, mercifully that wasn't a problem.

Some very severe non-smoking laws have recently been enacted in parts of Canada. A casual restaurant I frequent in Toronto had a separately ventilated and completely enclosed smoking section. It never bothered the majority of people at all, but they had to get rid of it this summer. I thought that was going too far. But considering that when smokers were in the majority they called the shots, so I guess it was inevitable that the non-smokers, now in a huge majority, will get their revenge.

[mufi]

[quote name='pnhmrk'] Nobody has the right to say that you will not smoke in any enclosed public space.[/QUOTE]

This is of course not so. Paliarment has the right and and has exercised it to do just that.

David.

[pnhmrk]

[quote name='david,Mississauga']Although I clicked on a "smiley face" it didn't come out in my message, which unfortunately negated the intended whimsical nature of my comment which came across as nasty. That clearly was not my intention.[/quote]

One needs to be so careful about causing offence when a language is written rather than spoken, when it is a language used by two different nationalities and when discussing a subject where feelings run high.

[quote name='david,Mississauga']However, passive smoking has been proven in studies in the US and Canada to cause harm and even death in innocent victims.[/quote]

A lot of those "proven" studies have been disproven.


[quote name='david,Mississauga']Actually, I have no problem with designated smoking areas provided they are totally enclosed.[/quote]

As I have no problem with designated non-smoking areas provided they are also totally enclosed:p

[quote name='david,Mississauga']Some very severe non-smoking laws have recently been enacted in parts of Canada.[/quote]

As has happened in Ireland and Scotland. I disagree with such nanny-state legislation (whatever it's about) and am very worried about its enactment in England this winter. I hope that there can be enough (peaceful) disquiet caused to make our parliament rethink its decision.

[quote name='david,Mississauga']Considering that when smokers were in the majority they called the shots, so I guess it was inevitable that the non-smokers, now in a huge majority, will get their revenge.[/quote]

I disagree with your thinking - smokers never forced anyone to smoke if they didn't want to - Anti-smokers are forcing smokers to stop. A law was never passed anywhere to say that you must smoke in public - lots of countries are passing laws that say you mustn't. Non-smokers might be in the majority, however, given that about 25% of the world's adult population smoke they are a very sizable minority.

To keep on topic for Cunard, I think that it is quite wrong for an authority to legislate saying that you may not enjoy a lawful activity on a boat in that authorities waters (or anywhere else for that matter). It is up to the boat owners to say if they want people to engage in that activity.

[mtbny7]

Hi!

I've been looking all over the internet for information.

The hub-bub about second-hand smoke ("passive smoke") seems rather foolish to me........

If second-hand smoke were really dangerous wouldn't we all be dead/sick right now considering the amount of smoking that went on all around us in the past when almost everyone smoked, and did it everywhere?

I'm not a scientist or an air quality specialist - but I do have common sense and I try to be social gracious at all times - therefore I see no problem with cigarette smoking.

-Michael

[Shellie1964]

[SIZE=4][COLOR=blue]Hi All[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]This is not intended to 'bash' anyones previous posted opinions; BUT....[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]Roy Castle (a famous personality in the UK) and others have died as a direct result of developing lung cancer through 'passive smoking' whilst working in clubs and pubs. Roy himself never, ever had a cigarette, never drank alcohol, exercised regularly, had an healthy diet. In Roy's case there was no previous family history of cancers either.[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]In addition, it is recommended (in the UK at least) that parents and carers of babies and young children (who can not mobilise themselves to avoid passive smoke) do not smoke in the same room; as it has been proved that if they did, incidents of childhood respiritory illnesses increased. [/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]Lastly, I think we are all aware of the effects of expectant mothers smoking on the developing baby and is considered a no-no. [/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]No offence intended[/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]Shellie;) [/COLOR][/SIZE]

[KenC]

[quote name='mtbny7']Hi!

I've been looking all over the internet for information.

The hub-bub about second-hand smoke ("passive smoke") seems rather foolish to me........

If second-hand smoke were really dangerous wouldn't we all be dead/sick right now considering the amount of smoking that went on all around us in the past when almost everyone smoked, and did it everywhere?

I'm not a scientist or an air quality specialist - but I do have common sense and I try to be social gracious at all times - therefore I see no problem with cigarette smoking.

-Michael[/QUOTE]

Michael

with all respect I think you have to be in a high state of denial to make the above statement. Would any government on earth be willing to risk electoral (unpopular with smokers) or fiscal (lost tobacco revenue) suicide by trying to cut down smoking if they weren't convinced of the loss in human life and wasted health care resources caused by cigarette smoking?

[pnhmrk]

[quote name='Shellie1964']

[SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]Roy Castle (a famous personality in the UK) and others have died as a direct result of developing lung cancer through 'passive smoking' whilst working in clubs and pubs.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/quote]

In 1992, the EPA report "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," based on a meta analysis of 11 separate studies, uses 3,000 deaths per year attributable to environmental tobacco smoke. Federal judge William Osteen, the very same judge who had earlier ruled that the FDA should control tobacco, overturned the EPA's fraudulent report. He said that the EPA "publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun... disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its own Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; left significant questions without answers... produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer." In short, the report was faked.

In 1995 the Congressional Research Service (a 741 person, $62 million per year think tank that works exclusively for Congress) rejects EPA and 3 other studies as not statistically significant and tainted by poor research and analysis. After 20 months and several million dollars, the CRS stated: [I][B]"It is very possible that no deaths have been caused by environmental tobacco smoke.[/B][/I][B][I]"[/I][/B] It found no basis for a proposed OSHA smoking ban in federal workplaces.

In 1998, the World Health Organization study on environmental tobacco smoke, purportedly the largest such ever undertaken, comprising 20 years in 38 centers in 21 countries was denounced by anti-smoking activists because it minimized the allegedly detrimental effects of environmental tobacco smoke. It actually showed no statistically significant increase (1.16) in lung cancer in non-smokers who had lived and worked with smokers for 40-50 years. WHO didn't release the study at all until it was leaked to a newspaper.

I'm not going to bother to find research that would clarify your other statements, Suffice to say that Roy Castle could have been wrong.

[Shellie1964]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=blue]Hello Malcolm[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]I do not wish to get into a 'bashing arena' with you or any one else.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]However, as with every thing there are arguments (and suposed evidence) for and against any issue. As you know, smoking in public places is legislatively being prohibited, both in some states in the US and in the UK. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]It has been reported that WHO's research was 'highly misleading' (see link below)[SIZE=2][COLOR=#000000] [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]Here is some evidence for the other side;) [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/63278.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/63278.stm[/URL]

[URL="http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html"]http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact08.html[/URL]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=blue]Shellie x[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Sheby]

I think it has a lot to do with your diet. Eat crappy food and it will make it hard for your body to defend against any type of disease. You should still try and stay clear of known hazards, like inhaling diesel exhaust from the truck in front of you and other toxins.

 

-Sheby, USA

[Therapst]

[quote name='Sheby']I think it has a lot to do with your diet. Eat crappy food and it will make it hard for your body to defend against any type of disease. You should still try and stay clear of known hazards, like inhaling diesel exhaust from the truck in front of you and other toxins.

-Sheby, USA[/quote]

Inhaling diesel exhaust from the truck in front of you is bad?!? ;)

[travel-to-go]

[quote name='pnhmrk']In short, the report was faked.

I'm not going to bother to find research that would clarify your other statements, Suffice to say that Roy Castle could have been wrong.[/quote]

Malcolm,

You have the right to indulge your vice, or your former vice, or the vice of others, if you so desire.
I do not need a study which spent millions of dollars and was funded by either A) R.J. Reynolds, or B) The American Cancer Society- take your pick of nasty evil doers and suspect organizations (Or the association of trial lawyers if it feels to smarmy calling ACS evil-doers) to tell me that I now (with proven lung damage and a complete respiratory failure behind me) gasp for breath around transient smoke. I avoid the smoking area outside my office (Which also happens to be the handicapped entrance to the building) because it truly takes my breath away. this is not my imagination, or a falsehood, or even hysterical reaction. It happens sometimes when I am not aware I am around smoke (like when my allergies or a cold keep me from being able to smell it)

Whether it is proven medically dangerous or not doesn't matter.

Many people find farting to be obnoxious and distasteful. It is probably not medically harmful, 10 year old jokes about lighting farts on fire to the contrary. However, even though I might enjoy the comfort that comes with release, I recognize that this is uncomfortable for others, and thus refrain while in polite (or even rude!) company.

I know that I am being ridiculous. However, here we are talking about making people walk the plank for having the audacity to wear jeans on Her Majesty's Most Highly Annointed and Respectable Ship., Queen of the Seas and All She Surveys, and yet, you feel that it is perfectly acceptible to expose others (even forcibly, in some circumstance) to fumes which they have indicated give them pause, for medically validated reasons, or just because they don't like the smell. As Ann Landers says, Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Weighing the harm against the smoker for having to contains one's passion publicly against the harm of others for not wishing to be a part of sharing that passion is a no-brainer for me. It's simply good manners!

Hmmm, Speaking of public passion, There are other things in life which one must confine to private (or at least not so public) places. Yet we manage to get along just fine that way.... Oh yes, And many of us light up a cigarette after. (I was going to say something about lighting up a fag, but thought better of it! Considering its connotations here vs. abroad... Speaking of a broad... No never mind. I go too far!<G> )

With all due respect,
Karie,
Who is ever mindful of my ignorance (bliss) in my previous life as a heavy, and, I thought, thoughtful smoke.

[pnhmrk]

[quote name='Shellie1964'][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]I do not wish to get into a 'bashing arena' with you or any one else.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

Good:) My point was that you said that Roy Castle died as a direct result of passive smoking - That is by no means proven. I see that you got your link from Ash - anti-smoking, I got my info from [URL="http://www.smokersclub.com"]http://www.smokersclub.com[/URL] - pro choice. I am sure that both sources could reveal much evidence relating to passive smoking. I don't want to start "bashing" either, I just feel that in a lot of places (not just with smoking) our freedoms are being taken away by a minority whilst the majority stays silent.

[pnhmrk]

[quote name='travel-to-go']I avoid the smoking area outside my office (Which also happens to be the handicapped entrance to the building) because it truly takes my breath away.[/quote]

As is your choice - I am not (I wouldn't dare:D ) going to make you inhale smoke if you don't want to, infact I think that the smoking area should be moved away from an entrance. However I feel that it should be moved, nor removed. If our governments want to stop smoking they must ban smoking and loose the revenue it generates, not go for a halfhearted ban that penalise you for doing something legal.

[quote]Whether it is proven medically dangerous or not doesn't matter.[/quote]

It only matters because that is being used as one of the main reasons for limiting smoking.

[quote]I recognize that this is uncomfortable for others, and thus refrain while in polite (or even rude!) company.[/quote]

As do most smokers in non-smoking areas. (Refrain from smoking that is, I don't know if they fart in non-smoking areas or not:p )

[quote]I know that I am being ridiculous.[/quote]

No more than those people who fabricate facts that say that passive smoking is bad and with a lot less vindictiveness.

[quote]However, here we are talking about making people walk the plank for having the audacity to wear jeans[/quote]

Not the "J" word:eek: Now we'll have to talk about people in steerage!

[quote]You feel that it is perfectly acceptible to expose others (even forcibly, in some circumstance) to fumes which they have indicated give them pause, for medically validated reasons, or just because they don't like the smell.[/quote]

NO! Nobody should be forced to be in smoke. But then nobody should be forced not to engage in a perfectly legal (at the moment) activity anywhere.

[quote]Speaking of public passion, There are other things in life which one must confine to private (or at least not so public) places. Yet we manage to get along just fine that way.... Oh yes, And many of us light up a cigarette after.[/quote]

Don't start me on the definition of a public place! For a gay man in the UK it's any building where there are more than two people present.

[quote]I was going to say something about lighting up a fag, but thought better of it![/quote]

I'm glad that you thought better - it has saved me looking for a pun about how you'd flame me <G>.

[patwell]

[quote name='pnhmrk']
Not the "J" word:eek: Now we'll have to talk about people in steerage!


Malcolm...please!! You KNOW that's the "S" word!!!:D

And thank you for your reasoned defense of smoker's rights....very rare coming from an ex-smoker. I usually find they are the most rabid...maybe because they'd really like a smoke???:o
Cheers, Penny...who is now practising lighting up on only the port side of my house...or was that the starboard??:D

[pnhmrk]

[quote name='patwel']lThank you for your reasoned defense of smoker's rights[/quote]

Penny - you're welcome:) Thanks aren't needed though. It's not just smokers I'd support, I try to look out for any minority that's being bullied by the majority for doing something that's legal.

[quote]maybe because they'd really like a smoke???:o [/quote]

Ah ....... You guessed

[quote]Who is now practising lighting up on only the port side of my house...or was that the starboard??:D[/quote]

One nice thing about cruising is that the smoking/non-smoking areas are fairly well marked. It's easy to know if you can smoke or not.

[Shellie1964]

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=blue]Fair comment Malcolm ;) [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][COLOR=#0000ff]Shellie x[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[peterv]

[quote name='judy&steve'][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]I have a right not to breathe second hand smoke. Here in the US the government recently validated the fact that second hand smoke causes cancer.[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

I'm not quite sure why you think you have the right to unpolluted air? Since unpolluted air doesn't exist in most of the industrialised world, I'm not quite sure where you could go, and even if you did find it, if the land owners decided to start something that began to pollute the air you still wouldn't have the right to unpolluted air.

In addition the US government research that you proudly point to is nothing more than a rehash of existing flawed and discredited research, there was nothing new, or even anything to think it validates it. But since you dislike smoking, anything against smoking is completely believable, but all evidence to the contrary is judged to be sponsored by the smoking lobby.

I would think that the best move would be for governments to completely ban tobacco altogether, since they don't I tend to believe that everything that they promote about smoking concerns is purely for window dressing only.

The governments, especially the US, could then start a new war on tobacco, I'm sure it would have the same inconsequential effect as the war on drugs, and all the other wars on "insert cause here" they start.

Cheers,
Peter

[mufi]

[quote name='peterv']I'm not quite sure why you think you have the right to unpolluted air? Peter[/QUOTE]

I can't speak for the US, but in UK and all of the EU countries you would not find many - public, politicions, business who would agree with that statement.

We may not always get unpolluted air, but that does not mean that we do not have the right to it.

Anyone who knew London smogs before measures were taken to sort the problem out would know that there have been vast improvements there and as I live in a "chemical town" I know how much better air quality is now from 30 years ago.

David.