Norwegian Cruise Line Bans Smoking on Balconies

[luvtheships]

I believe you're probably right but I think it will take more than a few years. The ship's casino will be the last public area on a ship to go smokeless IMO. Take a look at Las Vegas or AC as examples. The casinos of hotels are pretty much the last bastion for smokers (with a few bars thrown in). Smoking, drinking and gambling have high correlations with each other. It's certainly not a direct causal relationship but there is clearly a similarity in habit-forming behaviors. Casinos are extremely reluctant to go completely smoke-free because they are almost certain that it would lead directly to decreased revenue.

 

They really just need to wall off casinos into 2 areas to solve the problem

 

Would it really hurt the ships or the land casinos to do this? No

 

If the can have multi revenue producing restaurants on a ship they can have multi casinos

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[johnql]

They really just need to wall off casinos into 2 areas to solve the problem

 

Would it really hurt the ships or the land casinos to do this? No

 

If the can have multi revenue producing restaurants on a ship they can have multi casinos

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Of course it would hurt the casinos to do this. Any space that is designated as smoke-free will see a decrease in revenue. The larger the space, the higher the decrease. Mind you, this might eventually level off and/or even go away completely as people adjust to the smoke-free environment. However, I just don't see casinos being willing to go through an adjustment period during which they will lose money.

 

As I see it (my opinion completely), casinos (on land, at least) will only go smoke-free as a result of legislation. I don't see them ever doing it willingly.

[triptolemus]

As I see it (my opinion completely), casinos (on land, at least) will only go smoke-free as a result of legislation. I don't see them ever doing it willingly.

 

Back in 1991, one casino on the strip -- the Silver City Casino -- went 100% smoke-free. If I recall correctly, the smoke-free rule lasted less than 1 year. The revenue drop was huge. No casino has tried it since, but there are a number of smoke-free areas within the large casinos there. Obviously, they have much more real estate than a cruise ship does, so revenue drops in those areas have a significantly lower impact on the bottom line...

[JulieAF]

Back in 1991, one casino on the strip -- the Silver City Casino -- went 100% smoke-free. If I recall correctly, the smoke-free rule lasted less than 1 year. The revenue drop was huge. No casino has tried it since, but there are a number of smoke-free areas within the large casinos there. Obviously, they have much more real estate than a cruise ship does, so revenue drops in those areas have a significantly lower impact on the bottom line...

 

I believe times have changed a lot since then. Like the former 100% smoke-free Carnival Paradise many years ago, they were ahead of their time. If tried again now, with so many more former & non-smokers, I believe it would be a different story.

[johnql]

Back in 1991, one casino on the strip -- the Silver City Casino -- went 100% smoke-free. If I recall correctly, the smoke-free rule lasted less than 1 year. The revenue drop was huge. No casino has tried it since, but there are a number of smoke-free areas within the large casinos there. Obviously, they have much more real estate than a cruise ship does, so revenue drops in those areas have a significantly lower impact on the bottom line...

Yes, I remember the Silver City Casino. I guess they were Vegas's version of Carnival's Paradise, which sailed smoke-free for several years but eventually gave up that policy. And I'm pretty sure they did it because of lower than desired revenue.

 

The smoke-free areas within large casinos are not very effective since smoke does not observe the designated boundaries. Walls are needed but they would disrupt traffic flow and probably ruin the aesthetics of the layout.

[OhioGirl]

I don't see the cruise ships going smoke free in the casino...its too much of a money maker for them...If someone is playing at a table or slot machine, if they have to get up to go to an outside smoking area, chances are, they might not come back to play for a while, and the cruise ships know this! They want to keep them playing as long as they can...The casino is one of their big money makers!

[luvtheships]

Of course it would hurt the casinos to do this. Any space that is designated as smoke-free will see a decrease in revenue. The larger the space, the higher the decrease. Mind you, this might eventually level off and/or even go away completely as people adjust to the smoke-free environment. However, I just don't see casinos being willing to go through an adjustment period during which they will lose money.

 

As I see it (my opinion completely), casinos (on land, at least) will only go smoke-free as a result of legislation. I don't see them ever doing it willingly.

 

Well of course legislation needs to be passed.

 

Companies and organizations do next to nothing willingly we all know that by now and anyone who thinks otherwise is just ill informed

 

I have to disagree about any space as non smoking will lose revenue though

 

People still fly and go out to restaurants and pay steep parking fees at the beach and bars are popping up everyday

 

All it would take is some nails and a hammer on older ships and a smart architect on newer ships

 

I recall a situation at a beachfront condo I own a few years ago where everyone was up in arms over a nothing issue

 

My solution which wound up being the answer to this silly problem was to find a screwdriver!!

I remember being on the phone with them and telling them I would come over with it and did they need Phillips head or flat head? Lol

 

It was such a stupid issue that I solved for them by saying " just get a screwdriver"

 

I am not asking for adoration on this silly thing just saying the solution is right in front of their eyes! Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[Charles4515]

I don't see the cruise ships going smoke free in the casino...its too much of a money maker for them...If someone is playing at a table or slot machine, if they have to get up to go to an outside smoking area, chances are, they might not come back to play for a while, and the cruise ships know this! They want to keep them playing as long as they can...The casino is one of their big money makers!

 

The casinos on all Celebrity Cruise line ships have been smoke free for several years.

[Macadian]

Do people still protest smoking bans ay bars and restaurants? Or do you just go smoke in a designated area?

 

Do people protest going to their friends homes if they can't smoke in the living room? Or do you just wait until you are outside?

 

Do people protest airlines because they can't smoke on a plane anymore? Or do they just deal with it until for their relatively short flight duration?

 

The big fuss being made will go away. People will accept it and deal with it, and perhaps everyone will be better off for it.

 

And there end'th the lesson.....:cool:

[NLH Arizona]

The casinos on all Celebrity Cruise line ships have been smoke free for several years.

Black Hawk, Colorado casinos are smoke free and they were packed when I was there a few weeks ago.

[Skallagrim]

I asked this before but mostly only got snide remarks (from others, not you) but was this not always NCLs policy? As I stated before, I know on Carnival, e-cigs have always followed the same rules at cigs. I thought it was the same on NCL so it would not be a new policy. I don't necessarily agree with the policy for all of the stated reasons but it is not my policy to make, only to follow.

 

Without going to look up the old NCL rule on e-cigs, my recollection is that they were previously allowed to be used in the cabin (and the balcony). It was only in the public areas that e-cigs users had to follow the same rules as smokers.

 

And even that was somewhat misguided. As mein18 has posted, many e-cig users are folks in the process of quitting actual tobacco smoking completely. To make them have to be around cigarette smokes harms them directly. Of course, as has been noted, NCL's new policy is not about health, but rather revenue.

 

And in that I hope, believe, and predict that NCL will change e-cig policy. The science on e-cigs is getting stronger everyday and the difference between e-cigs and regular cigarettes is clear: Absent an enclosed environment (and maybe even there), e-cigs pose no danger to non-users. The amount of residual nicotine and fine particulates is minimal and far below standards set for similar industrial, theatrical and cooking devices. This is especially true of modern e-cigs produced by reputable companies. As pointed out way earlier in this thread, many scientists previously working to end smoking are now speaking up in favor of e-cigs.

 

I somewhat believe that had the original marketers of this product chosen a different name, this conversation would not be taking place. Maybe then the difference between inhaling/exhaling a vapor and inhaling/exhaling the product of tobacco combustion would not be lost on so many anti-smoking zealots.

 

"Vaping" is quite popular among the youngish set, independent of those who go to it for its ability to help quit smoking. When those folks realize that if they cruise NCL the only way to vape is to inhale cigarette smoke, maybe they too will take their business elsewhere to a more enlightened company. If that does occur and costs NCL revenue, then maybe it will produce a more scientific, healthful and accommodating policy.

 

I am not holding my breath though.

 

Skallagrim

[mein18]

Not trying to start a fight here at all but at some point all cruise lines will be 100% smoke free. Yeah it has been tried before, but the operative word there is 'before'. I'm not saying it will be soon or at any specific time frame, just at some point it is going to happen. Never say never.

 

And the world will end someday too. Probably before your wish comes true.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

[mein18]

I would love to respond. But, it seems as though my opinion is not allowed on this topic as all of my post about it get deleted.

 

Carry on with the crusade.

 

The moderator is a non-smoker and I would not doubt one of the posters. Most of the threads deleted were from smolers or e-cig comments. I am sure this will go to the deleted pile too.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

[mein18]

Even the massive jones beach in New York is smoke free

 

Of course there is an occasional smoker but they always know the can't smoke and are on the lookout.

 

The woman behind me was smoking the other day and the minute I turned around she snuffed it in the sand

 

She was definitely a native new yawker and a tough one as well but she knew the rules and knew she could get fined big time.

 

Yep they actually do patrol this kind if thing.

 

They patrol beach drinking out there as well and the beach I was on was a radio free zone

 

Just sayin that apparantly the vocal majority has won if at the greatest beach in New York State just miles away from rough and tough New York neighborhoods can enforce a no smoking no drinking no loud music ordinance that it can be done

 

Please no " footloose" references because the reason for radio free and alcohol free beaches us because beach goers can't seem to control the volume of the music or the amount if alcohol consumed that plus the general

Use of iPods! Lol

 

Btw I love music but don't mind forgoing it at times

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

 

What does this have to do with NCL or cruising?

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

[Aquahound]

The moderator is a non-smoker and I would not doubt one of the posters. Most of the threads deleted were from smolers or e-cig comments. I am sure this will go to the deleted pile too.

 

Posts on both sides of the argument are getting deleted. Mine have been deleted too. You just have to learn from it and reword your next response to be less contentious.

[ellie1145]

 

And in that I hope, believe, and predict that NCL will change e-cig policy. The science on e-cigs is getting stronger everyday and the difference between e-cigs and regular cigarettes is clear: Absent an enclosed environment (and maybe even there), e-cigs pose no danger to non-users

Skallagrim[/quote

 

It's interesting to note that more and more companies are banning the use of e-cigarettes in offices for health reasons, including the BBC - our British Broadcasting Corporation. As more and more research is carried out I am sure that more places will ban e-cigarettes. At the moment it is early days. As research continues, the idea that e-cigarettes pose 'no danger' may well be proven wrong. Who would have thought 30 years ago that cigarettes would be recognised as the killers they undoubtedly are?

 

As many of the e-cigarettes are produced by tobacco companies they have an interest in making them as addictive as real cigarettes. So it is short sighted to say they pose NO danger. Indications are that they do.

 

Having watched a dear friend who waited excitedly to retire last September be diagnosed with terminal lung cancer (yes, she is a smoker) then getting a secondary, and now being diagnosed with a brain tumour as the cancer spreads throughout her body I feel sorry for anyone who is so addicted to nicotine that they feel their cruise vacations are damaged by their inability to smoke on a balcony.

 

If that ban helps even a few people give up smoking then I for one am grateful to the cruise lines. I am saddened to hear of people so heavily addicted that they plan their vacations around their smoking needs.

[mein18]

Without going to look up the old NCL rule on e-cigs, my recollection is that they were previously allowed to be used in the cabin (and the balcony). It was only in the public areas that e-cigs users had to follow the same rules as smokers.

 

And even that was somewhat misguided. As mein18 has posted, many e-cig users are folks in the process of quitting actual tobacco smoking completely. To make them have to be around cigarette smokes harms them directly. Of course, as has been noted, NCL's new policy is not about health, but rather revenue.

 

And in that I hope, believe, and predict that NCL will change e-cig policy. The science on e-cigs is getting stronger everyday and the difference between e-cigs and regular cigarettes is clear: Absent an enclosed environment (and maybe even there), e-cigs pose no danger to non-users. The amount of residual nicotine and fine particulates is minimal and far below standards set for similar industrial, theatrical and cooking devices. This is especially true of modern e-cigs produced by reputable companies. As pointed out way earlier in this thread, many scientists previously working to end smoking are now speaking up in favor of e-cigs.

 

I somewhat believe that had the original marketers of this product chosen a different name, this conversation would not be taking place. Maybe then the difference between inhaling/exhaling a vapor and inhaling/exhaling the product of tobacco combustion would not be lost on so many anti-smoking zealots.

 

"Vaping" is quite popular among the youngish set, independent of those who go to it for its ability to help quit smoking. When those folks realize that if they cruise NCL the only way to vape is to inhale cigarette smoke, maybe they too will take their business elsewhere to a more enlightened company. If that does occur and costs NCL revenue, then maybe it will produce a more scientific, healthful and accommodating policy.

 

I am not holding my breath though.

 

Skallagrim

 

Well put. BTW Princess allows e-cigs in your cabin but not on balconies. A name change would certainly help and educating the public would help even more. To ban just because the squeeky wheels are uneducated on the product is ridiculous.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

[mein18]

 

And in that I hope, believe, and predict that NCL will change e-cig policy. The science on e-cigs is getting stronger everyday and the difference between e-cigs and regular cigarettes is clear: Absent an enclosed environment (and maybe even there), e-cigs pose no danger to non-users

Skallagrim[/quote

 

It's interesting to note that more and more companies are banning the use of e-cigarettes in offices for health reasons, including the BBC - our British Broadcasting Corporation. As more and more research is carried out I am sure that more places will ban e-cigarettes. At the moment it is early days. As research continues, the idea that e-cigarettes pose 'no danger' may well be proven wrong. Who would have thought 30 years ago that cigarettes would be recognised as the killers they undoubtedly are?

 

As many of the e-cigarettes are produced by tobacco companies they have an interest in making them as addictive as real cigarettes. So it is short sighted to say they pose NO danger. Indications are that they do.

 

Having watched a dear friend who waited excitedly to retire last September be diagnosed with terminal lung cancer (yes, she is a smoker) then getting a secondary, and now being diagnosed with a brain tumour as the cancer spreads throughout her body I feel sorry for anyone who is so addicted to nicotine that they feel their cruise vacations are damaged by their inability to smoke on a balcony.

 

If that ban helps even a few people give up smoking then I for one am grateful to the cruise lines. I am saddened to hear of people so heavily addicted that they plan their vacations around their smoking needs.

 

How the tides have turned. If you look back to the pre-ban era you will see many mon-smokers would not cruise due to the smoke so do not critisize smokers for not cruising.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

Edited July 27, 2014 by mein18

[luvtheships]

What does this have to do with NCL or cruising?

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

 

It has to do with smoking bans in places that were once considered unheard of like beaches for example

 

Now are you saying beaches are not the most open of open areas? That being said the breeze alone should just blow the smell away but alas it doesn't and thus they are smoke free in New York

 

No need to fight this battle anyway as smoking areas are only going to diminish in the future. No need for the debate anymore.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[negc]

...

 

And in that I hope, believe, and predict that NCL will change e-cig policy. The science on e-cigs is getting stronger everyday and the difference between e-cigs and regular cigarettes is clear: Absent an enclosed environment (and maybe even there), e-cigs pose no danger to non-users. The amount of residual nicotine and fine particulates is minimal and far below standards set for similar industrial, theatrical and cooking devices. This is especially true of modern e-cigs produced by reputable companies. As pointed out way earlier in this thread, many scientists previously working to end smoking are now speaking up in favor of e-cigs.

 

I somewhat believe that had the original marketers of this product chosen a different name, this conversation would not be taking place. Maybe then the difference between inhaling/exhaling a vapor and inhaling/exhaling the product of tobacco combustion would not be lost on so many anti-smoking zealots......

 

 

Skallagrim

 

The fact that many or most of those original (and present)marketers of e-cigarettes are the very same tobacco companies that for decades cited "scientific studies" that claimed that there were no adverse health effects that could be attributed to smoking regular cigarettes, makes me a bit wary of those claims that you cite. In the meantime it appears that the attitude of most licensing bodies and the cruise lines is "better safe than sorry" and e-cigarettes will, and probably should, continued to be banned or restricted.

[luvtheships]

What does this have to do with NCL or cruising?

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

 

You are obviously new to the debate because airlines restaurant and parks have been discussed regarding smoking bans just lime cruise ship balconies

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[RDC1]

Without going to look up the old NCL rule on e-cigs, my recollection is that they were previously allowed to be used in the cabin (and the balcony). It was only in the public areas that e-cigs users had to follow the same rules as smokers.

 

And even that was somewhat misguided. As mein18 has posted, many e-cig users are folks in the process of quitting actual tobacco smoking completely. To make them have to be around cigarette smokes harms them directly. Of course, as has been noted, NCL's new policy is not about health, but rather revenue.

 

And in that I hope, believe, and predict that NCL will change e-cig policy. The science on e-cigs is getting stronger everyday and the difference between e-cigs and regular cigarettes is clear: Absent an enclosed environment (and maybe even there), e-cigs pose no danger to non-users. The amount of residual nicotine and fine particulates is minimal and far below standards set for similar industrial, theatrical and cooking devices. This is especially true of modern e-cigs produced by reputable companies. As pointed out way earlier in this thread, many scientists previously working to end smoking are now speaking up in favor of e-cigs.

 

I somewhat believe that had the original marketers of this product chosen a different name, this conversation would not be taking place. Maybe then the difference between inhaling/exhaling a vapor and inhaling/exhaling the product of tobacco combustion would not be lost on so many anti-smoking zealots.

 

"Vaping" is quite popular among the youngish set, independent of those who go to it for its ability to help quit smoking. When those folks realize that if they cruise NCL the only way to vape is to inhale cigarette smoke, maybe they too will take their business elsewhere to a more enlightened company. If that does occur and costs NCL revenue, then maybe it will produce a more scientific, healthful and accommodating policy.

 

I am not holding my breath though.

 

Skallagrim

 

Actually no. E-cigs do emit less nicotine, but they actually have been measured to produce more fine particulates than regular cigarettes. Because of the fine particulates they should not be allowed in indoor public space. The particle emissions is as a result of the process, vaporization of the fluid (largely propylene glycol), not a matter of the manufacturer. The manufacturer quality might impact out items such as the emission of heavy metals due to the materials used in the heating elements, but will not impact the particles from the fluid vaporization itself.

 

E-cigarettes deliver nicotine by creating an aerosol of ultrafine particles. Fine particles can be variable and chemically complex, and the specific components responsible for toxicity and the relative importance of particle size and particle composition are generally not known.50 Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke. There is strong evidence, however, that frequent low or short-term levels of exposure to fine and ultrafine particles from tobacco smoke or air pollution can contribute to pulmonary and systemic inflammatory processes and increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease and death.51–54

 

Fuoco et al55 examined particle number concentration and distribution and performed a volatility analysis of the e-cigarette aerosol generated from 3 devices (2 rechargeable and 1 disposable) using 4 refill e-liquids with varying levels of nicotine and flavorants. They found that higher e-liquid nicotine content was associated with higher particle numbers in the resulting aerosol, with little effect on the particle size distribution. Longer puffing time resulted in more particles. Flavor was not associated with differences in particle number or size distribution. Consistent with other studies,46,56–58 the particle size distribution (range of modes, ≈120–165 nm) was similar to that of conventional cigarettes, with some e-cigarettes delivering more particles than conventional cigarettes (Figure 3).

Edited July 27, 2014 by RDC1

[sjbdtz]

Black Hawk, Colorado casinos are smoke free and they were packed when I was there a few weeks ago.

 

The Niagara Falls Ontario casinos are smoke free, and packed...despite being a bridge away from the Seneca casino in NF, NY.

 

 

 

The moderator is a non-smoker and I would not doubt one of the posters. Most of the threads deleted were from smolers or e-cig comments. I am sure this will go to the deleted pile too.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Forums mobile app

 

 

How do you know the moderator (there's more than one) is a non-smoker?

 

When the Hosts post, you can tell, as their posting names will be along the lines of HOSTNancy or HOSTCathy

 

 

 

.

[Skallagrim]

The fact that many or most of those original (and present)marketers of e-cigarettes are the very same tobacco companies that for decades cited "scientific studies" that claimed that there were no adverse health effects that could be attributed to smoking regular cigarettes, makes me a bit wary of those claims that you cite. In the meantime it appears that the attitude of most licensing bodies and the cruise lines is "better safe than sorry" and e-cigarettes will, and probably should, continued to be banned or restricted.

 

Just wrong.

 

The original e-cig manufacturers were small independent start ups with an idea. They competed directly with the big tobacco companies and they were winning the competition. It is only recently that the tobacco companies have shown an interest in e-cigs, previously they had been among the group seeking their ban. When they realized the FDA could not ban them, and the competition increased, only then did they try and get into the market themselves. The vaporizer that I use is manufactured in the USA by a company with no ties whatsoever to any tobacco company.

 

And as to the "better safe than sorry" argument, the logic is just lacking. Shouldn't we live in a world where someone has to prove something harmful before seeking to ban it? Virtually every new product would be banned if before it could be marketed the producer had to prove that it is impossible that it could have any negative effects.

 

And, as I said before, the science is being done and it is showing precisely what I said: while there MAY be some slight harm possible to users and those near them in enclosed areas, there is no doubt that e-cigs are far, far safer than cigarettes (or any other number of everyday items that emit an odor or evaporate into the air). Read the letter from a group of anti-smoking scientists to the World Health Organization: http://nicotinepolicy.net/n-s-p/1753-who-needs-to-see-ecigs-as-part-of-a-solution

 

Skallagrim

[Skallagrim]

 

....

 

Fine particles can be variable and chemically complex, and the specific components responsible for toxicity and the relative importance of particle size and particle composition are generally not known.50 Given these uncertainties, it is not clear whether the ultrafine particles delivered by e-cigarettes have health effects and toxicity similar to the ambient fine particles generated by conventional cigarette smoke or secondhand smoke.

 

....

 

Aside from the fact that you are relying on a single study out of a group of avaialbe studies with differing results, the most important part of your post is the part I have not removed.

 

No one has established that these fine particles, especially at the level common to e-cig vapor, has any detrimental health effect. Fine particles are produced by a lot of things so if this is the basis for a ban, please tell that to those doctors who wrote to the WHO, and please be prepared to begin banning a lot of industrial and cooking practices which also emit fine particles into the air.

 

Skallagrim