USA TODAY: Smoking News and Trends

[raudacruise]

Just a little numbers drill. While only 27% (+-4) Americans smoke that doesn't accurately reflect cruise line targets, which is families. In many cases, only one of the family members smoke but that person might be the make/break on determining vacation plans.

 

I know several folks who smoke, SO doesn't and obviously the kids don't. They are considerate and only smoke outside and try to keep out the kids sight although its obvious that they have a smoke smell on them.

 

The problem is, if Mom or Dad smoke, they are not going on a cruise that would totally ban it or severely restrict it. Add the kids to that (who are cream of the crop to cruise lines since even at half price its found money) and thats a pretty large proportion of cruise customers (not a majority, but large and more than 27% (+-4)).

 

Go look at Disney's smoking FAQ:

 

http://disneycruise.disney.go.com/dcl/en_US/help/overview?name=HealthAndSafetyFAQLandingPage#5

 

Its even less restrictive than Celebrity's. Anywhere outside is fair game, none of the port/starboard restrictions. They are obviously trying to make sure the demographics I described above are welcome.

 

The bottom line is the bottom line. As mentioned in previous posts, they need to keep the rooms filled.

[Pontius Navigator]

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.

 

Not specious at all. And it is not just the risk of death that keeps me away from the smoking room.

 

As I sit here, short of breath, with a viral chest infection, it is no choice that I am not in a smoking room - and I am not on a cruise, I just returned.

[Stock Cop]

Hi Arno,

 

You really stirred up the wasp nest with this topic.

 

I am still steamed about Michael's Club (nee CIGAR BAR)

being turned into a piano bar.

 

Now I just find a nice secluded aft deck to burn my cubanos.

But that is OK. I enjoy watching the wake with a cold drink anyway.

 

Rich :cool: :cool:

[rebeljohn]

I am still steamed about Michael's Club (nee CIGAR BAR)

being turned into a piano bar.

Rich :cool: :cool:

 

Yeah.............Michael's Club was our second home in the evening. We met a lot of good folks there, some that we still cruise and talk with.....................

[beachdogboarder]

As a non-smokers I thought Michaels Club was a nice place for the cigar smoker.I guess it wasn't profitable

[Pontius Navigator]

I am still steamed about Michael's Club (nee CIGAR BAR) being turned into a piano bar.

 

We really enjoyed the piano bar; we would not have ventured in had it been the cigar bar.

 

Now I just find a nice secluded aft deck to burn my cubanos.

But that is OK. I enjoy watching the wake with a cold drink anyway.

 

Rich :cool: :cool:

 

Port side of course. We used the smoke free starboard side :)

 

BTW, it wasn't you who left the cubanos stub in the ash can outside the Video Arcade room was it? :) It had been there 4 days!

[Stock Cop]

We really enjoyed the piano bar; we would not have ventured in had it been the cigar bar.

 

 

 

Port side of course. We used the smoke free starboard side :)

 

BTW, it wasn't you who left the cubanos stub in the ash can outside the Video Arcade room was it? :) It had been there 4 days!

 

 

NO, not I. I put my expired butts in the garbage. I would toss them overboard but that is a no-no.

 

I really enjoyed the original Michael's Club conceot. Have a glass of wine and enjoy a cigar with like minded folks.

I understand why they killed the concept--it was difficult to keep the furniture and drapes, etc. clean. Or,so I was told by X staff.

 

Rich :cool: :cool:

[geoherb]

I'm another who wishes the cruise lines would enforce the smoking policies they already have in place. It's funny how every smoker on these boards is a considerate smoker, only lighting up where it's allowed. I've run into way too many smokers who obviously don't care and cruise staff who ignore the problem.

 

The USA Today's poll, however, doesn't give enough choices. The three choices are (1) ban smoking entirely, (2) allow smoking only on cabin balconies, or (3) not to ban smoking on cruise ships.

 

I would ban smoking from cabins and cabin balconies, still allow it in a few designated outside places that were away from railings (because there's always going to be an idiot who tosses a butt over the railing), and maybe allow it in a few designated indoor places. And then hire staff with the guts to enforce the rules.

[Pontius Navigator]

NO, not I. I put my expired butts in the garbage. I would toss them overboard but that is a no-no.

 

I really enjoyed the original Michael's Club conceot. Have a glass of wine and enjoy a cigar with like minded folks.

I understand why they killed the concept--it was difficult to keep the furniture and drapes, etc. clean. Or,so I was told by X staff.

 

Rich :cool: :cool:

 

Actually I don't mind cigar smoke. And I love the smell of leaf tobacco.

 

At Key West it was sublime

[claud925]

It's funny how every smoker on these boards is a considerate smoker, only lighting up where it's allowed.

 

Yeah, reminds me of every parent on these boards who post that their children are all well-behaved . . . :rolleyes:

 

In all seriousness - only a tiny fraction of cruise ship passengers (roughly 10%) are members of these boards, and therefore do not represent the majority of any demographic.

 

As a result it very well may be that smokers on these boards are considerate, as they have become quite sensitve to the feelings of fellow posters who so eloquently (and often quite forcefully) state their opinions on threads such as these.

[Stock Cop]

Yeah, reminds me of every parent on these boards who post that their children are all well-behaved . . . :rolleyes:

 

In all seriousness - only a tiny fraction of cruise ship passengers (roughly 10%) are members of these boards, and therefore do not represent the majority of any demographic.

 

As a result it very well may be that smokers on these boards are considerate, as they have become quite sensitve to the feelings of fellow posters who so eloquently (and often quite forcefully) state their opinions on threads such as these.

 

I would agree that the smokers on this board are probably more aware of the smoking rules than those passengers who have not seen both sides of the issue.

 

Rich :cool: :cool:

[Pontius Navigator]

In all seriousness - only a tiny fraction of cruise ship passengers (roughly 10%) are members of these boards, and therefore do not represent the majority of any demographic.

 

Actually I think 10% is a larger than average sample from which to draw a conclusion. I once needed a poll for a particular purpose. After about 5% the remaining results had no significance.

 

Within CC therefore I would say that those who have responded would be an accurate sample but only within the CC population. We cannot assume that the other 90% who are unaware of CC would have the same opinion if they were. Maybe a demographer would care to comment?

[Il navigante pazzo]

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

 

My wife an idea recently spent a week in Vegas and - thanks to the excellent ventilation in all casinos - there was no smoke odor even with my wife smoking close to me. Seems to me that improved ventilation (and filters) would do much to alleviate the smoke problem in public areas.

[greeneg]

I would agree that the smokers on this board are probably more aware of the smoking rules than those passengers who have not seen both sides of the issue..

 

Rich, my friend, the fallacy here is the assumption that there are, in fact, two sides to the argument: when there really aren't.

 

And yes, I also remember Michael's club when the smoke and stench came rolling out into the hallway and made the Library and the Card Room uninhabitable.

 

I do think that there is a point to be made about increased ventilation perhaps mitigating some of the issues, but the fundamental truth is still smoking is bad; bad for you ( your problem) and bad for others ( my problem).

[Stock Cop]

I see and read many of your posts and I respectfully want to disagree with your prior post.

 

In your eyes there may be only one side to the issue but in the real world there are still two sides: smokers and non-smokers.

There remains a large gap between the two and will probably remain so.

 

I try to be respectful of others but I expect the same in return.

 

I suggest you NOT sail any of the lines in Europe. The smokers there far outnumber the non-smokers and they don't really give a flip about others when it comesd down to their tobacco habit.

 

Rich :cool: :cool:

[WELSH WIZARDS]

I see and read many of your posts and I respectfully want to disagree with your prior post.

I try to be respectful of others but I expect the same in return.

I suggest you NOT sail any of the lines in Europe. The smokers there far outnumber the non-smokers and they don't really give a flip about others when it comes down to their tobacco habit.

Rich :cool: :cool:

Speaking as a member of the European Community I would like to present some of the recent figures for smokers as a percentage of millions per population of each country. There were 15 countries at the time of this report. One country Greece had a whopping 61% of their population, in the 40 t0 50 % there were 9 countries, with most of these countries in the lower 40 s .

Five countries were in the 30 to 40 % bracket, and one country, Sweden had a very low 19%. The average %age was exactly 40% so these figures do not match your perception that in Europe smokers FAR outnumber non smokers.

Things are changing very rapidly in Europe, in the speed of change is intensifying. The European Community is considering at the moment legislation to ban smoking in all rest. etc. throughout the Community.

The whole of the UK has already had this legislation, and other countries will not be far behind. The ban here in Wales is being very well accepted, and in my condo in Spain people there are sticking to the no smoking rules.

I do not think that Europeans are any less or any more likely to disregard the law than anyone else, and most of us do indeed "give as much of a flip " for others as people anywhere.

[greeneg]

Thanks, Rich, that probably is good advice and for the present we will most probably follow it.

 

I guess that where I have the most problem is when people attempt to justify their addiction. I can easily remember when I was a smoker; in the 60's when the Surgeon General's Report was first published, I was able to argue that the results were premliminary, the data were flawed because no one could duplicate that degree of tobacco exposure, that sort of thing. In the 70's and 80's, I used the argument with myself that, " it's my life, it's one of my few pleasures, it doesn't hurt anyone else."

 

In the 90's, I quit ( June 14th, 1992 at 11:20 PM as a matter of fact. I honestly think that most smoker's who quit can still remember their last one).

 

The reason that I stated that there aren't two sides to the argument any more is that that jury is no longer out. The dangers and harm ( no longer potential, but real) to both the smoker and those around him ( or her) who are exposed are clearly and finally demonstrated by overwheliming scientific evidence. In that sense, there aren't two sides any more; the discussion really is over.

 

It is my personal opinion, that anyone who chooses to smoke, drink excessively, or jump off of their balcony into the sea, has a perfect right to do so. BUT, they do not have any sort of right to expose me to the risks that they wish to take for themselves.( You have no right to come onto my balcony, grab me and take me overboard with you.) That being the case, their risky behavior has to occur under circumstances where I am not place at risk. The greater the extent to which that happens, the less problem I have with a smoker ( or jumper for that matter).

 

I do recognize that there certainly are smokers and non-smokers, and in that sense, there could be two viewpoints. However, I hope that you can appreciate why I made my original point the way that I did.

 

Ed

[Pontius Navigator]

Where a company has introduced a smoking ban ahead of legislation their profits have been hit.

 

Where the whole market sector has banned smoking (airlines) it has had no affect.

 

Once the ban has been introduced across the country the effect has been positive with non-smokers going to the new smoke-free venues. This was apparently noticeable in Ireland where they thought the reverse would be true.

 

In London however I noticed people at outdoor dining tables smoking as others ate around them. I now resent having to pass through an outside smoke contaminated area to get the smoke free zone. I also resent not being able to sit in the open air.

 

Sorry, anti-social and distasteful .

[shakespeare]

I do not normally get involved with these smoking threads, but this one has made me curious. Can anyone provide a link to a credible study that determines how close to and the length time one needs to be exposed to second hand smoke for it to be life threatening to the non-smoker?

 

As an ex-smoker who is not bothered by smoke....I find it hard to believe that a few whiffs of smoke can be as dangerous as claimed by some posters. Granted, some find it extremely irritating and very unpleasant, but I'm just not buying the extreme danger of being outdoors and having some second hand smoke blow your way.

 

The cruiselines may eventually make all ships smoke free...but until then, as long as a smoker is not smoking in a prohibited area...people who find it unbearable should just go to the non-smoking areas and stay away from the smoking areas. But do not harrass the smokers with the ridiculous and childish hand waving and nasty comments.

 

Anyone interested in quitting smoking should give Chantix a try....it worked for me and I was a very addicted smoker.:)

[Pontius Navigator]

Hi Shakespear, I would certainly not try and claim the amount of passive smoke to which I am now subjected is dangerous, or ever was, although we have had a particular non-smoking entertainer who died of lung cancer but that is another story.

 

I think my intolerance has increased as the incident of smoke exposure has reduced. I used to come home in sweaty, smoke drenched clothing, and had to undress on the door step and straight into the shower. Our aircraft also had to have regular deep cleaning and filter changes: no more.

 

Now cigarette smoke across my street is intensly irritating. When I have to walk through a smokey door way I dislike it intensely especially as there is supposed to be a 3 metre rule in UK.

[C 2 C]

some find it extremely irritating and very unpleasant, but I'm just not buying the extreme danger of being outdoors and having some second hand smoke blow your way.

 

My objection to smoking is not the extreme of my life being threatened but more in related to the unpleasant odor. To me it's like sitting next to someone with BO or someone wearing horrible perfume or aftershave. We have the misfortune of having an ethanol plant in our city and if the wind is "wrong", life outside is intolerable. I prefer the smell of diesel..:eek:

I think individuals have different sensitivities to certain odors and to me cigarette smoke is unpleasant, but not life threatening. I would no sooner want to sit next to smoker as I would next to a person who does not shower. That's the reason I'm upset with ship design. Outside "PORT" smokers have their exhaust diluted quickly by the atmosphere. In lounges, smoke always drifts to the non-smoker, and proper ventilation could control that.

[greeneg]

Here are a couple of useful links for information about Second Hand Smoke:

 

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html

 

and,

 

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

 

and,

 

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html

 

and also,

 

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

 

There are numerous other references easily available.

[shakespeare]

Greeneg...I browsed through those articles, but couldn't find anything specific about the amount of time and proximity to second hand smoke when one is outdoors that would be dangerous. Also, we all know that tests and experiments can have skewed results.

 

Arno...I agree with you about being exposed to unpleasant odors. Part of my job involves contact with the public....and I have had people in my office with offensive odors where the odor lingers for a while after the person leaves....I do not have a window in the office and have had to walk outdoors while waiting for the odor to dissipate.

 

I was just curious since so many people state that the reason being in the vicinity of a smoker is so abhorrent is due to the danger to their health that is involved and that is why they react so strongly. Posters have compared it to having to deal with heavy perfume odors or persons having too much to drink and they invariably are "shouted" down by others who say that those things aren't dangerous to your health the way second hand smoke is.

 

Having quit, I no longer have a horse in this race, but when I smoked I found the rudeness of non-smokers (while in an area where smoking was permitted) to be unacceptable. I certainly would not walk up to someone with BO or a perfume that I found obnoxious and make nasty comments to them and I really doubt that the non-smokers who harass smokers would do that either.

 

As I said, I don't generally get involved in these threads...so I'm off the soapbox and moving on:)

 

Liz

[Pontius Navigator]

Arno...I agree with you about being exposed to unpleasant odors. Part of my job involves contact with the public....and I have had people in my office with offensive odors where the odor lingers for a while after the person leaves....I do not have a window in the office and have had to walk outdoors while waiting for the odor to dissipate.

 

Have you tried burning a candle? Where the new odours are flamable the candle will burn these as well as oxygen in the room. Oxygen replacement will be quicker.

 

I was just curious since so many people state that the reason being in the vicinity of a smoker is so abhorrent is due to the danger to their health that is involved and that is why they react so strongly.

 

Not noticed this recently in UK. Could be because the battle has been won.

[greeneg]

"Not noticed this recently in UK. Could be because the battle has been won."

__________________

 

 

Seems to be less and less of an issue here in the States also particularly in Charlotte ( which is, of course, in North Carolina, where the Tall Tobacco grows). More and more restaurants and bars are going the non-smoking route and there are moves in the State Legislature ( so far blocked by rural interests) to make smoking in public places actually illegal.

 

There seems to be something about cruising that brings out a combative reaction in both smokers and non-smokers.....Don't see that in bars and restaurants so much, perhaps because the rules are clearly stated and everyone knows that they are going to be enforced. Clear, consistant enforcement might very well help to resolve a lot of the problems here.