Smoking on QM2

[peterv]

[quote name='mufi']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.[/quote]

Better it may be, but better unfortunately does not mean unpolluted, just a bit less polluted than before.

I don't believe I've read much about Parliament guaranteeing unpolluted air for all recently or in the past for that matter.

If I am incorrect on this, please let me know as I encounter several sources of air pollution in my day to day journeys through, and around, London.

Cheers,
Peter

[pnhmrk]

[quote name='peterv']I encounter several sources of air pollution in my day to day journeys through, and around, London.[/quote]

Peter - They can't be anything like as bad as all that dreadful tobacco smoke:D (said very tongue in cheek!)

[peterv]

[quote name='pnhmrk']Peter - They can't be anything like as bad as all that dreadful tobacco smoke:D (said very tongue in cheek!)[/quote]

What I find amazing are those that simply believe this stuff. :D

The way the anti-smoking forces phrase it makes it sound as if it is the most deadly thing around. I'm not quite sure exactly what banning it from certain places achieves either, as the smoke enters the atmosphere anyway. :eek:

Ah well.

Cheers,
Peter

[2moose]

[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 you are right!!!!DEAD RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mufi]

Well this is obviously a case of differing perceptions of "air quality" Given the choice of breathing London air or what we encountered on QE2 Boat deck downwind from a guy smoking a very large fat cigar, I would choose London thank you.

David.

[pnhmrk]

I would choose London thank you.

 

A lot depends on whereabouts in London you are - it's difficult to compare Hyde Park Corner at rush hour with the middle of Wimbledon Common at night.

 

One of the big things is that we still do have the right to choose - port or starboard.

[aqhacruiser]

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. I hope that eventually smokers will not be able to smoke anywhere but inside their own homes. I love to play the slots but cruise ships casinos are the worst as far as second hand smoke is concerned. I know this is a topic that has no perfect solution for everyone, but just hearing that QM2 has smoking and non-smoking sides of the ship is good news to hear. Thanks.

Atlantic City casino's are the only places you can still smoke in NJ in a public building and smokers and non smokers are all packed together on the gaming floors and everyone seems to get along just fine. As long as tobacco is a LEGAL product I believe people should be allowed to smoke if they wish. In my opinion the new law is ridiculas and it simply does not make any sense. As long as the product is legal and the goverment is happily accepting the tax money from the sale of the product I refuse to become part of the " smoker police". I am more concerned over the chemicals they put in our food to make it look fresher and keep longer. If the majority of the public wants all smoking banned then they should put pressure on the goverments to make the product illegal as the smokers do have rights also until tobacco is banned and made illegal. I personally would prefer a polite smoker over an obnoxious drunk anyday however that will be on the next ban list soon as alcohol kills as many people as cigarettes do. Liver, heart, vascular diseases, nerve damage, etc. Not to mention how many people are killed or maimed by drunk drivers every year. Why do U.S. health insurance companies insure smokers but decline to insure people who consume excessive alchohol? Apparently people who drink too much have a risk of more serious health problems or pose a more serious risk to the public than smokers do and therefore cost the insurance companies much more money according to the underwriters. Make it illegal to sell and possess tobacco or learn to be tolerant of a person's right to use a legal product. There was nothing wrong with smoking and non smoking areas and everyone got along just fine. Now it's not unusual to see people lurking outside a building trying to hide behind something while they have a cigarette looking like common criminals or to hear non smokers make very rude comments if they see someone smoking which usually results in a nasty fight. If the goverment truely believed that cigarettes were so dangerous to the public than why hasn't tobacco been banned? That's an excellent question to ask your local and state politicians and are they voting to ban it altogether? Why not? A cruise is a lovely vacation and the ships are large enough for everyone to have a good time and I am not going to worry about who smokes and who doesn't as everyone is there to enjoy themselves. If you do not like smokers then stay out of the smoking sections on the ship and then they shouldn't offend you.

[KenC]

I think it is pretty futile to try to debate the opposing rights of smokers and non-smokers. This issue really pivots on what is and what is not socially acceptable. For instance, homosexuality was illegal in the UK until the 1960's - not because of the rights or wrongs but because it was not socially acceptable. The same in reverse can be said of all sorts of activities from bear-bating to taking narcotics. Smoking was an accepted norm for a very long time, but now is becoming increasingly socially unacceptable to a majority (especially our lawmakers anyway) - hence restrictions on where you can smoke (but not on whether you can smoke). Whether or not you think this is fair largely depends on whether you are inconvenienced or not.

 

Personally, as an ex-smoker I can clearly remember the onset of panic when I encountered somewhere I could not smoke (especially over a meal) so I can empathise with smokers - but it is an addiction after all. Only now, when I see how health can be ravaged by smoking and I appreciate fully how for years I must have stank of stale tobacco smoke, do I regret ever smoking.

 

 

Ken