While I have no problem with the policy - it will be a mess to enforce. Didn't Carnival learn the hard way with the Paradise? I also don't care for this type of social engineering where guests are "encouraged" to join the wellness program. I go on a cruise to eat, drink, and bum around. I'm not interested in drinking wheatgrass slurpees and exploring the world of tofu.
I can still remember my wife's first cruise. She was fascinated with the exercise facilities. She asked one poor soul sweating profusely on a treadmill if he was being punished for something. Dave, you are right on target with the "social engineering" assertion. Today, their taking away smoking. Next, it will be chocolate and trans fats. Then, they take away alcohol. Finally, there goes the Tortuga rum cakes. I am curious if the cruise line is still going to push the duty free cigarettes on board as much as they do now.
It is a true adage that what is someone's junk is another person's treasure. What is social engineering to one person is an "its about-time" event to another.
I like the idea of banning smoking in all public areas..except for the one lounge... and that one lounge should be in the forward bilge area
Banning it in all staterooms at first seemed a little harsh, and maybe they can amend that when, and if, they can come up with a way to completely and effectively deodorize a room in the few hours they have between disembarking and embarking.
I have no trouble with the cruise line selling cigarettes. Heck, I have no problem with them selling marital aids...I just don't want to see them used in public rooms either.
I don't see a problem with the new policy. Hotels do it. For safety reasons- I can't have my iron so why should someone be able to have lighters and matches?
It also is a problem for asthmatics to go into a room- esp one with no venilation after a smoker has been there...sometimes even weeks later.
I don't see a problem with limiting areas- here we don't have any smoking in public places (including all rest.) except for bars. I also like the smoke free lounge- because I would definately choose that over a smoke filled one.
I don't think they should ban smoking because that would be unfair...but these limits are acceptable and a good compromise.
__________________
Carnival Fantasy 6/05
RCCL Sovereign of the Seas 4/07
RCCL Navigator 12/07
RCCL Navigator 11/08
RCCL Liberty 7/4/09
I don't see anything about banning lighters and matches. And the new policy allows smoking on balconies - it doesn't say the doors have to be closed. Thus I return to my original note - this will be a mess to enforce and the rooms will still get smoke in them.
I am not a smoker but both of my parents are. That being said, you don't have to smoke to smell like you've smoked a carton. If someone smokes in a bar and goes home, guess what, everything will still smell like smoke. The aroma gets in your clothes, your hair, etc. etc. You can stop smoking in the rooms as a fire prevention but you aren't going to stop the room smelling like smoke as long as it is occupied by a smoker. As previously mentioned, I do not smoke by choice, but this constant persecution of smokers is senseless use of bureaucratic power.
I don't see it as a persecution but as a courtesy. It is not like alcohol- if drunken in moderation affects no one but the consumer. Cig. however effect everyone around with the first drag. I think - especially in a confined area like a ship, or even in a crowded park, gathering... smokers should be courteous to nonsmokers and attempt to not offend. Especially when children are present. I have on many occasions passed by groups of smokers and had them blow smoke directly into the face of my small children.
I don't think it is much to ask for someone to walk away from the "action" for 5 minutes each hour or so to smoke away from others.Definately not a persecution.
__________________
Carnival Fantasy 6/05
RCCL Sovereign of the Seas 4/07
RCCL Navigator 12/07
RCCL Navigator 11/08
RCCL Liberty 7/4/09
I agree that it is not persecution…simply good sense. If the comfort of the majority of passengers were not enough, consider the fact that limiting smoking could help control cruise line costs and, as a result, the fares that all passengers pay. In designing ships, ventilation costs could be reduced … as requirements for outdoor air are two to three times higher in areas permitted for smoking...and filters must be changed much more often. General maintenance costs are reduced as well…furniture (cigarette burns) and drapes last longer and have to be cleaned less often in non-smoking rooms.
And who can forget the pictures of the Star Princess arriving in Montego Bay last year after a fire swept through the ship…damaging 150 staterooms on four decks, resulting in one death and leaving nearly a dozen other passengers severely ill from smoke inhalation. The final report from the investigating agency confirmed that the likely cause of the fire was someone smoking on their balcony.
In addition to the terrible human toll that fire took, the financial impact of repairing those rooms, providing hotel accommodations to the patrons of those 150 staterooms, flying passengers home from Montego Bay, paying out refunds and defending the wrongful death lawsuit is good incentive to limit smoking.
The North American cruise industry has reported that (in addition to the Star Princess) there have been 33 other fires aboard ships over the past 15 years (an average of a little over two a year) that has resulted in six deaths and 200 injuries. Sixteen of those fires were onboard Florida based ships. I have no idea of the origin of those 33 fires,but it certainly points out that the cruise industry has ample incentive to take all precautions to limit the potential of fire at sea.
But I suspect that it is the Star Princess fire that is driving the recent crackdown on smoking in staterooms.
I would argue that the steps the cruise industry are taking are not senseless abuses of power,but are legitimate and reasonable steps that ultimately benefit all passengers - smokers and non-smokers alike.
Linear Mode
