USA TODAY: Smoking News and Trends

[gooselace]

Almost afraid to ask, but where is smoking currently allowed on Celebrity? I am deciding between it and HAL, where smoking areas have been reduced somewhat, but it is still allowed on verandas, some small areas in a couple of lounges, one open deck, and the aft area of the lido.

[C 2 C]

Another bit of news to show the trend in traditional smoky places..

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/ap_on_re_us/atlantic_city_smoking

[WELSH WIZARDS]

. As with most things in life, I believe with some effort it is possible to give both sides of an issue what they want. Given human nature, if smoking were completely banned tomorrow, it would not be long before there would be a popular cause that we would want to enforce in mass. Sooner or later, this mentality will narrow the scope of freedoms we take for granted, it would just be a matter of time before someone would want to ban something that we now enjoy, for my own good and yours of coarse.

========================================================

Once upon a time people were free to drink as much as they liked and then drive, they were also free to not wear a seat belt, drive anywhere at what ever speed they liked.

I could gone on ad infinitum about the many , many freedoms people used to have and have now had taken away from them for the safety of other people.

Not everyone was then , or is now , happy about not being allowed to do what they want . when they want, but can you honestly say that freedom for all to do as they please is a sensible argument to use?

Smoking will never be banned completely, they tried that avenue with Prohibition. Recreation and hard drugs banning has had the same results.

However it is only sensible for safety and health reasons, for smoking to be discouraged and marginalised in future as much as possible, for all our children and grand children's sakes.

[C 2 C]

I believe in freedom for all to do whatever they want in their own "space" as long as it does not interfere with the same right of every other individual to do the same.

As soon as what someone else does affects the health, the safety or enjoyment of life of another individual those rights conflict and there is of course a difference of opinion on whose rights are more important.

[greeneg]

The real sticking point comes when your exercise of your "freedom" impinges on the space of someone else. Seat belts are fairly universally required because they keep you in the car ( hopefully), allowing you at least chance to avoid hitting something, or at worst, reducing the injury to yourself and the public purse. Drinking and drive, but you increase the risk of death and injury to those around you who may not be able to get out of the way quickly. Illegal drugs are just that: illegal. Societies have to have rules governing the behavior of individuals within those societies, and have to insist that those individuals follow those rules. Otherwise, what you have is Anarchy.

 

Smoking is really no different. It is harmful to the individual who smokes and it increases risks to those persons in the vicinity of the smoker. At the same time, I recognise that it is your "right" to smoke if you so choose. What I will insist on, however, is that I have an equal "right" not to be exposed to the consequences of your addiction. I will do my part by avoiding the designated smoking areas on the ship as though they were smitten with the plague; I expect you to do your part by staying in those areas. I expect the Cruise Line to do its part by seeing that you do so.

 

Not surprisingly, I support the idea of increasing the restrictions on where smoking can be done. Given my preferences, I would limit smoking to certain decks, one side of the ship, cigarettes only. The smoking decks would be published in advance ( so that I can do my part by avoiding them--and yes, given the option, I would not book a cabin anywhere near a smoking area.) I would support whatever action the Cruise Line deemed necessary to enforce the policy, up to and including waving "good-bye" as you sit on a dock with your luggage as the ship sails into the Sunset.

 

I vote for Clearly Stated Rules and Effective Enforcement of those rules. By and large, when people understand what is expected of them, and they also understand the consquences that they may face, most tend to behave responsibly. The exceptions I can do without anyway.

 

There is no question that we can all get along together, but it takes positive action on everyone's part to make that happen. I'll do my part, how about you?? :)

[Pontius Navigator]

I've not read the posts because I am sure that they are the same as the same thread on P&O.

 

In UK the Government is consulting on a ban in UK waters on ALL ships. And a ban world-wide on all UK flagged ships.

 

In the US some states have smoking laws, in particular Florida and California and a similar rule might apply there too.

 

Bermuda where both Celebrity and P&O are both flagged is not subject to UK legislation on smoking but is considering introducing its own rules.

 

How do you police both an inshore waters ban and a deep sea ban?

 

1. With difficulty.

2. With spies.

 

I would hazard a guess that there are now less smokers than non-smokers however lets say 50-50. That mean upward of 1000 potential reporters. You only need two, with evidence, for a case to be brought against the company.

 

In UK if one of my workers is caught smoking he gets a £50, an offer from the company of a smoking cessation course and an official warning. If I turned a blind eye to his offence I get a £2000 fine and so does my manager! Go figure.

 

Here is my post from the P&O Forum:

 

I found this:

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/...smoking?page=1

 

It seems that it may not be illegal to smoke in English waters but it may be in Scottish waters.

 

In the US there appear to be individual state bans:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

 

Note that Florida, and California especially, have bans. If legislation is extended, as UK is proposing, to ships in territorial waters it will soon be easier for companies to have a permanent ban - at least below decks.

 

It appears that Bermuda plans to ban smoking in public places although cruise ships are not mentioned.

 

http://plp.bm/about/accomplishments

 

 

 

Did you know that ships officers are now forbidden to drink at sea? Even off watch they are to be sober so that they can return to duty in emergency. The crew however are allowed to drink in moderation when off duty.

[shofer]

I think a cogent point in the article is the fact that Europeans still smoke heavily and Celebrity markets strongly in Europe. They may have to keep smoking/non-smoking rooms for those passengers.

 

Problem is when they are mostly in the States, the non-smokers will outnumber the smokers and who wants to be stuck in a stinky room? Getting that smell out of the walls, carpeting, couches and chairs is a big project and not feasible for each cruise.

 

Carnival tried a wholly non-smoking ship w/Paradise and it was a dismal failure as it did not generate enough $$$ in the bar and casino areas where smokers gather. The cruise lines are treading a fine line trying to please everyone and still increase their passenger totals outside the US.

[C 2 C]

Did you know that ships officers are now forbidden to drink at sea? Even off watch they are to be sober so that they can return to duty in emergency. The crew however are allowed to drink in moderation when off duty.

 

Wow, when did that come about? Is that just bridge officers or all including desk and hotel officers?

Does the "flag" of the ship have any bearing?

[Stock Cop]

This may well have a good bit of truth to it.

One of the HAL ship captains has a blog and he mentioned there

that he was beginning his "dry" period when he checked in for his

new duty.

 

Rich :cool: :cool: see: http://www.avidcruiser.com/albert/

mentioned in post of 9 Sept 2007 Joining in New York

[Drew B]

I believe in freedom for all to do whatever they want in their own "space" as long as it does not interfere with the same right of every other individual to do the same.

As soon as what someone else does affects the health, the safety or enjoyment of life of another individual those rights conflict and there is of course a difference of opinion on whose rights are more important.

 

I think you are on very solid ground with the health and safety arguments, but you get onto shaky ground with the enjoyment of life argument. When two individual's attempts to enjoy their lives thwart one another, whose interests should take precedence? I don't know...

 

To give you an example of why "enjoyment of life" may not be enough to stop somebody from doing what they love, take me: I am vegetarian for ethical reasons, and I find that sitting at a table with animal carcasses on it definitely hinders my "enjoyment of life". Should my tablemates be forbidden to eat meat because it affects my enjoyment of life? HECK, NO! I am responsible for my own happiness, and as long as you are not causing me actual harm, it is my responsibility to suck it up and allow you the freedom to enjoy YOUR life in the way you see fit. See what I'm saying?

 

Greeneg, as a smoker, I agree with everything you say. If smokers and non-smokers simply respected the rules (whatever they may be), we wouldn't need to have any arguments.

[C 2 C]

you get onto shaky ground with the enjoyment of life argument.

 

Should I have said "the pursuit of happiness?"

 

Who gets precedence when one person conflicts with another..

as soon as one person does something in their space that affects the space of another they are in conflict of the "Golden Rule"

As a vegetarian you can choose to sit with other vegetarians or a table for two or one. A smoker or a person with BO or strong perfume cannot be allowed to affect space that is not theirs. A lover of loud techno music can enjoy it in a soundproof room (not on an open deck Donnel Davis :( ).

And illegal drugs or illegal anything is the result of people ...oops... that would lead to "discussions" that would get a lot of people upset and getting a thread closed in a hurry..

[Drew B]

Who gets precedence when one person conflicts with another..

as soon as one person does something in their space that affects the space of another they are in conflict of the "Golden Rule"

As a vegetarian you can choose to sit with other vegetarians or a table for two or one. A smoker or a person with BO or strong perfume cannot be allowed to affect space that is not theirs. A lover of loud techno music can enjoy it in a soundproof room (not on an open deck Donnel Davis :( ).

And illegal drugs or illegal anything is the result of people ...oops... that would lead to "discussions" that would get a lot of people upset and getting a thread closed in a hurry..

 

 

There is a flip side to each of those things, too. A person can enjoy silence in a soundproof room without impeding upon the loud-techno-lovers enjoyment of their music... I'm with you that I'd prefer silence to loud techno, but that doesn't necessarily mean that my choice should take precedence if there are others who enjoy the loud techno...

 

And the issue of "whose space is it" is also complicated. Smoke is allowed in smoking areas. Balconies are at this time considered smoking areas. If smoke from a smoker's balcony drifts to a non-smoker's balcony, it is still technically within a smoking area. If non-smokers choose to venture out onto their own balcony, they are entering an area where smoking is permitted...

 

Do I think it SHOULD be this way? No. I don't smoke on my balcony (partly out of consideration for others), and I'm all for banning smoking on balconies on one side of the ship. However, it is X's right to call all balconies smoking areas, and that is, in fact, the scenario as it exists right now.

[Pontius Navigator]

Wow, when did that come about? Is that just bridge officers or all including desk and hotel officers?

Does the "flag" of the ship have any bearing?

 

It was in my Institute journal about a year ago. It certainly applies to deck and engineering officers but there would be good reasons to extend his to hotel staff too as they have the crucial role of passenger handling.

 

I believe it is one of the International Maritime Organisation rules. Probably arose from the number of collisions as too many crew were dead-heading and the helmsman or lookout was too tired as well.

 

A quick Google search threw up this from 1989 - Exxon Valdez

 

http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV85.html

 

This link, 1985, includes a no drink 6 hrs for before duty

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ANZMLJ/1988/3.pdf

 

but does not allow for the possibility of being required for immediate duty hence the complete ban.

 

And this one:

 

http://www.shiptalk.com/newsletter.html#dying

 

the extract is as follows:

 

Navigating Under The Influence

When the ONS study of drink related deaths painted seafarers so highly on the list of those most likely to die from alcohol abuse, it seemed to capture a by-gone age where drink, drunks and ships all went together quite comfortably.

Things are very different today, and it is easy to think that drink has been banished from most vessels. This has had a catastrophic affect on the social life at sea, but does go some way to make ships safer…if the rules are observed.

It seems though that for all the rules in place drinking does still go on, and perhaps has been driven sadly “underground” into the realms of the “secret cabin drinker”. It also seems likely that this furtive drinking culture was to blame for the collision last month of a ship in the North Sea with an unmanned Gas platform.

The vessel in question, “Jork” somehow contrived to collide with a large, well lit and properly charted structure. This takes some doing, and while the consequences were thankfully limited, it could well have had some horrendous fallout, both in terms of casualties and economic loss.

It is natural to ask how a ship could indeed manage to hit such a structure and when the Master later appeared in a British court accused of being drunk in charge of the cargo vessel we perhaps got our answer.

Captain Zbigniew Krakowski, 56, was allegedly three times over the legal alcohol limit when he took charge of the vessel and its seven crewmembers. He did not enter a plea and was remanded in custody to face the same court on 10 September.

Shipping has long known that “drunken sailors” are indeed bad medicine, and the industry has wrestled for centuries with the question of just what to do with them. The old folk song offers a few solutions – which range from Slinging him in the long boat till he's sober, taking 'im and shaking 'im, trying an' wakening 'im”, to shaving his belly with a rusty razor (not too sure about that one).

Perhaps, however, the modern legal system will have a more contemporary and pragmatic approach?

 

But this bulletn board discussion states it is a Companies rule:

 

http://www.cruisemates.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3507852

[Pontius Navigator]

Where can you smoke on Celebrity?

 

Not, as far as I am aware, in the restaurant cinema or theatre.

 

Elsewhere you may smoke Port Side in the public areas.

[Drew B]

Correct. Plus all staterooms and balconies.

[ssolomon56]

You mean we no longer have to use soap to get rid of the smell?;)

 

Pods :eek:, good/bad food, customer relations, traditional/personal choice dining, Captain's club perks, and how much better X non-smoking ships are than all the others.... and don't forget we can always moan about the good old days when we had something serious to moan about...:rolleyes:

 

Oh...and don't forget the (always good for lots of venting) the Dressing for Dinner debate! :D

 

Now, for my 2 cents on this issue. First, I'm a non-smoker, and I'm REALLY anti-smoking. My mother died of lung cancer....etc, etc. But, it's flatly none of my business if people choose to smoke (except folks I love, then I DO give my opinion), unless it's infringing on my rights to breathe. I vote for the closed smoking lounges and seperate smoking decks. Also, some cabins could be established as "Smoking Cabins" just as there are "Smoking Rooms" in most hotels. We have to be fair to everyone.

[Pontius Navigator]

some cabins could be established as "Smoking Cabins" just as there are "Smoking Rooms" in most hotels. We have to be fair to everyone.

 

Thanks for the reminder about smoking in cabins. As a non-smoker it was not something I was looking for.

 

As for smoking cabins that is a good idea. You could also remove the showers from the bathroom and just use the room sprinkers :D .

 

I don't know how sensitive the smoke detectors are but that is a good reason for no smoking in the cabin especially as there is a greater risk of an undetected fire in a cabin.

[C 2 C]

And the issue of "whose space is it" is also complicated. .. If smoke from a smoker's balcony drifts to a non-smoker's balcony, it is still technically within a smoking area. If non-smokers choose to venture out onto their own balcony, they are entering an area where smoking is permitted...

Under the present rules, I have to depend on luck of the draw that my space is not affected. But I understand the complexities of commerce to this point. Celebrity needs to sell space and sells cabins to both smokers and non smokers alike. We gave up smoking almost 30 years ago with the conception of our last child. ( and without the argument that A smoke free ship was not successful (want to cut that argument off))... Slowly the areas were smoking is permitted will be cut back for legal, health and safety reasons in casinos on shore and public spaces on ships. We all continue to buy our cruises knowing that this is a period of transition and that our private space will be affected. Just like hotels have smoking and non smoking rooms, cruise lines could have the same.

I really believe in the "birds of a feather" society, where like minded people can share common pursuits. Smokers should have an area for themselves that does not affect others. It's the ship's poorly designed ventilation systems in public lounges that allows smoke to drift to the other side. Designate a smoke free deck for balconies.. etc. There does not have to be a conflict of this topic if the companies were smarter in their designs.

[kazover40]

Someone on another thread came up with the idea of cruise lines renting Air purifiers to smokers. I think this is a great idea and not only for smokers it would benefit the non smokers too!

[Captain Jake]

I've enjoyed reading this thread as it shows smokers and non-smokers can have a nice discussion.The cruiselines need both to exist and its surprising that they haven't extended the smoking/non-smoking sides to cabins.Such a simple solution would make well over 90% of cruisers happy,Now if they would improve the ventilation system in casinos.We have bar with and bars without good venilation in my area and the difference in air quality is staggering.Hopefully the new Celebrity ships will have it------BT

[Pontius Navigator]

Smokers should have an area for themselves that does not affect others.

 

As I said before, here or elsewhere, on one ship there was a replica of a typical bar with wooden beams, bar stools etc. It was a smoking area and there was no similar non-smoking bar.

 

In other words I was excluded from a part of the ship. On the other hand the smoker could go everywhere but his activities were curtailed. There is a difference.

[Drew B]

Just like hotels have smoking and non smoking rooms, cruise lines could have the same.

I really believe in the "birds of a feather" society, where like minded people can share common pursuits. Smokers should have an area for themselves that does not affect others. It's the ship's poorly designed ventilation systems in public lounges that allows smoke to drift to the other side. Designate a smoke free deck for balconies.. etc. There does not have to be a conflict of this topic if the companies were smarter in their designs.

 

I agree almost 100%

 

I just fear that having a smoking DECK doesn't segregate as well as having a smoking side. If a non-smoker is directly above a smoker, the smoke is sure to travel up there. If they are on opposite sides of the ship, it should never cause a problem.

[Drew B]

In other words I was excluded from a part of the ship. On the other hand the smoker could go everywhere but his activities were curtailed. There is a difference.

 

 

That is such a specious argument. Unless you have a medical condition where you will keel over dead if you come in contact with any smoke, you COULD go there. You chose not to. You may have had very strong and compelling reasons for that choice, but it was still a choice. The cruiseline was not "excluding" you!

 

Likewise, a smoker can choose to visit an area where he/she is not allowed to indulge his/her habit. Or he/she can choose to stay in places where smoking is permitted. In every case, it is a CHOICE.

[Shirley and Les]

...Also, some cabins could be established as "Smoking Cabins" just as there are "Smoking Rooms" in most hotels. We have to be fair to everyone...

I don't think the cruise lines would ever implement this plan. Typically, hotels aren't at full occupancy evey night. Cruise ships like to sail at 100% capacity on evey trip. Hotels are willing to bend the rules a bit about putting smokers in "non smoking" rooms. They will offer non-smokers a "smoking" room if they run out. Can you imagine the uproar a cruise line would get if they told someone at boarding time their smoking prererence could not be accommodated? Ship corridors are so narrow and the cabins so compressed that all your neighbors would know a rule was being violated. There would be a complaint line a mile long at the guest relations desk. Cruise critic would not have the bandwidth to accomodate all the threads about "I had a smoker in the non smoking section."

I don't think this will happen.

Les

[dkjretired]

I don't think the cruise lines would ever implement this plan. Typically, hotels aren't at full occupancy evey night. Cruise ships like to sail at 100% capacity on evey trip. Hotels are willing to bend the rules a bit about putting smokers in "non smoking" rooms. They will offer non-smokers a "smoking" room if they run out. Can you imagine the uproar a cruise line would get if they told someone at boarding time their smoking prererence could not be accommodated? Ship corridors are so narrow and the cabins so compressed that all your neighbors would know a rule was being violated. There would be a complaint line a mile long at the guest relations desk. Cruise critic would not have the bandwidth to accomodate all the threads about "I had a smoker in the non smoking section."

I don't think this will happen.

Les

 

Les:

 

Good comments, below is a quote from a cruise critic article on smoking on cruise lines and it pretty much echos what you said.

 

"It's an issue of "spoilage" (the industry's lingo for unsold cabins) that keeps them from dedicating non-smoking rooms on ships. "It would present an inventory mess," says a spokesperson for CLIA, the cruise industry's official trade association. "The cruise lines' yield management people want the ships to sail full at all times; you can't do that if you set aside non-smoking rooms."

 

 

Below is a link to the article which was updated 7/25 so there may be some changes in it as I know some lines made policy changes over the summer...

 

http://www.cruisecritic.com/features/articles.cfm?ID=225