Basic Poll: Would you report someone smoking on their balcony?

[sparks1093]

It works both ways. Just because you believe it was done for safety doesn't make it true. Either way it's speculation because no one here knows for sure one way or the other.

 

The company has said why they implemented the rule, that's their story and they're sticking to it. At the end of the day it doesn't matter because the rule is here to stay, even if one were able to demonstrate that the reasoning used by the cruise line is hooey. It's still their ball, their rules.

[firemanbobswife]

The company has said why they implemented the rule, that's their story and they're sticking to it. At the end of the day it doesn't matter because the rule is here to stay, even if one were able to demonstrate that the reasoning used by the cruise line is hooey. It's still their ball, their rules.

 

 

Yep.

[BeachChik]

The company has said why they implemented the rule, that's their story and they're sticking to it. At the end of the day it doesn't matter because the rule is here to stay, even if one were able to demonstrate that the reasoning used by the cruise line is hooey. It's still their ball, their rules.

 

Did I say anywhere that someone shouldn't follow the rules? I don't even smoke or know anyone that does. That's not the point.

 

The point is the idiotic logic that it is unsafe to smoke on a balcony but not unsafe to smoke in the casino or a deck two floors above a private balcony. And that apparently it only became unsafe as of 2014. :rolleyes:

[Karnyval]

considering there is no formal, signed paperwork from the customer acknowledging that smoking on the balcony is forbidden, i believe the first offense should be a formal warning along with signed documentation, second offense is the cleaning fee, and third offense is the boot. by the same token, it must be able to be proven that the offense took place to begin with and another cruise claiming they smelled smoke from somewhere isn't proof.

 

 

Carnival keeps a herd of attorneys on staff who are satisfied with the wording of the ticket contract. Good luck with that argument.

[firemanbobswife]

Did I say anywhere that someone shouldn't follow the rules? I don't even smoke or know anyone that does. That's not the point.

 

 

 

The point is the idiotic logic that it is unsafe to smoke on a balcony but not unsafe to smoke in the casino or a deck two floors above a private balcony. And that apparently it only became unsafe as of 2014. :rolleyes:

 

 

There have been multiple posts to the contrary explaining why this thought process is flawed but that's OK if some don't want to believe it. Moving on........

[Tapi]

I personally think that it won't be long before we look back and say: "do you remember when you could smoke on a cruise ship???!" just like today we say "do you remember when you could smoke on an airplane/movie theater/mall/restaurant??" and think it's nuts that it was allowed.

 

And to those arguing that smoking is being banned for safety reasons: it may be a contributing factor, but it's not the main one. The main factor is simply because it's 2016 and we now know better.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Tapi

[sparks1093]

Did I say anywhere that someone shouldn't follow the rules? I don't even smoke or know anyone that does. That's not the point.

 

The point is the idiotic logic that it is unsafe to smoke on a balcony but not unsafe to smoke in the casino or a deck two floors above a private balcony. And that apparently it only became unsafe as of 2014. :rolleyes:

 

No, you didn't say it and I didnt say that you did- I was only pointing out that regardless of what reasoning the cruise line used it doesn't matter, the rule is still the rule.

[sparks1093]

I personally think that it won't be long before we look back and say: "do you remember when you could smoke on a cruise ship???!" just like today we say "do you remember when you could smoke on an airplane/movie theater/mall/restaurant??" and think it's nuts that it was allowed.

 

And to those arguing that smoking is being banned for safety reasons: it may be a contributing factor, but it's not the main one. The main factor is simply because it's 2016 and we now know better.

 

Which is another way of saying the demographics have changed:).

[Aquahound]

It works both ways. Just because you believe it was done for safety doesn't make it true. Either way it's speculation because no one here knows for sure one way or the other.

 

Just like what happened in the other thread that got deleted, I think some people are arguing what they think was the reason. There isn't only 1 reason. I don't think anyone said that safety was the one and only reason for the ban. It was a reason, not the reason....or at least, it was a contributor that led to the eventual ban. Personally, I think guest feedback was the #1 reason for Carnival ban, but I do know there were several deciding factors that preceded the final decision, and safety was only one of them....among others like health concerns and housekeeping.

 

But others are making a great point. Does the reason really even matter?

[tonit964]

I don't smoke but I don't agree that it was stopped for safety. If that is really the case why did it only start in 2014? All the years prior it wasn't a hazard? And again people reference the star princess but that happened in 2006, 8 years before carnival stopped balcony smoking. If they really thought it was a hazard they would have stopped it right away.

 

When Carnival first banned smoking on balconies, I remember the threads discussing it and if IIRC, the ban was due to the insurance company imposing it or something like that.

If that's true, I don't know how HAL can continue to allow it though.

[DnD_Cruisin]

A deck 9 cigarette is more dangerous? I never said any such thing. How in the world did you translate my post into that? :confused: You don't have to believe that fire concerns were one of the core reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that it was.

 

 

 

These are billion dollar corporations with shareholders to answer to. No decision is going to be made without deep diving into P&L and measuring the risk involved. As I said earlier, Celebrity was the only line that initially thought the risk of fire outweighed the risk of losing customers. That, and they wanted to show they were progressive for the time.

 

What people have a hard time coming to grips with, especially loyal cruisers, is that these cruise corporations are just like any other big business. Do you really think safety is #1? Of course not. These corporations do what they are told to do by the regulatory agencies like SOLAS, USCG, IMO, etc. Any further safety measures that are taken go through months or years of internal bureaucracy. Every cruise corporation took a very close look at the USCG report after the Star Princess fire and every single one of them knew what should have been done. But at a time when 21% of America smoked, P&L was the bigger concern. We're down to 14% now. By the way, I have it on pretty good authority that when the # hits single digits, we're going to see smokeless ships in one of the major lines.

 

Thank you for your reply. You confirm the primary point I was trying to convey. It's not about health. It's not about fire safety..it's all about P&L.

 

Definately those are factors that go into the decision. But had the smoking demographic not dropped to 14% we would likely still have smoking on balconies today. With the probable exception of Celebrity of course.

 

@aqua - Thank you for your service sir.

[Lurkyloo]

I'm an ex smoker and don't particularly enjoy smelling it, but if it is outside and the ship is moving it doesn't bother me. Might catch a wiff or two here and there but I don't let it bother me and I wouldn't call security. I try not to let the little things bug me on vacation.

[First and Ten]

Just like what happened in the other thread that got deleted, I think some people are arguing what they think was the reason. There isn't only 1 reason. I don't think anyone said that safety was the one and only reason for the ban. It was a reason, not the reason....or at least, it was a contributor that led to the eventual ban. Personally, I think guest feedback was the #1 reason for Carnival ban, but I do know there were several deciding factors that preceded the final decision, and safety was only one of them....among others like health concerns and housekeeping.

 

But others are making a great point. Does the reason really even matter?

 

Aqua, I haven't agreed with a lot of your posts, but I do agree with this one. I think the deciding factor that pushed Carnival was guest feedback....Depending on what source you quote, right around 20% of the US population smokes. Back in the 60's, it was estimated that 50% of the population smoked....HUGE difference. They had to accommodate the vast majority of their guests, makes business sense. To all the people that say that smoking will soon be banned totally, hmmmmm, I don't know about that. Roughly 20% of adults still smoke. Clearly the minority, but its still a pretty big number. If they ban it totally, no way will you get a smoker to book a cruise. Smokers are NOT going to wait 48 hrs until the first port to get the nicotine fix if you ban it on the ship. So you basically will lose 1 out of 5 potential customers. that would be a ballsy business decision to make

Edited June 30, 2016 by First and Ten

[42CruiseCrazy]

Hey! I just figured it out. The reason some people are insisting that safety was not the reason for banning smoking on balconies is to argue that the rule is unjust and to justify not following it. Why else would some people care so much about the reason for the policy change?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kathybelcher2433]

What about e-cigs?

[Karnyval]

When Carnival first banned smoking on balconies, I remember the threads discussing it and if IIRC, the ban was due to the insurance company imposing it or something like that.

If that's true, I don't know how HAL can continue to allow it though.

 

HAL might be the only major cruise line that still allows smoking on balconies. Carnival was certainly not the first major cruise line to ban smoking on balconies but was one of the last.

 

It is the de facto industry standard.

[LaCal]

Smokers Unite.....Take Back The Balconies 🚬💨💨💨

[sparks1093]

What about e-cigs?

 

Same rules apply.

[DnD_Cruisin]

Hey! I just figured it out. The reason some people are insisting that safety was not the reason for banning smoking on balconies is to argue that the rule is unjust and to justify not following it. Why else would some people care so much about the reason for the policy change?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

At least in my case your assumption would be incorrect. I do follow the rules and won't smoke on my balcony.

 

TBH I don't care if they bring it back or not. They won't of course so this point would be moot.

 

I'm more concerned with an outright 100% ban. So questioning vehemently this decision let's it be known that even though we are the minority ... we are still human too and deserve some rights.

[sparks1093]

Smokers Unite.....Take Back The Balconies

 

Doubt that it would ever happen.

[DnD_Cruisin]

When Carnival first banned smoking on balconies, I remember the threads discussing it and if IIRC, the ban was due to the insurance company imposing it or something like that.

If that's true, I don't know how HAL can continue to allow it though.

 

My assumption is that they are trying to capture the smoking niche just as Celebrity is capturing the non smoking niche.

[First and Ten]

My assumption is that they are trying to capture the smoking niche just as Celebrity is capturing the non smoking niche.

 

Is Celebrity smoke free? I thought I heard they had some "no smoking" cruises, but did they decree all cruises are now no smoking?

Edited June 30, 2016 by First and Ten

[Karnyval]

At least in my case your assumption would be incorrect. I do follow the rules and won't smoke on my balcony.

 

TBH I don't care if they bring it back or not. They won't of course so this point would be moot.

 

I'm more concerned with an outright 100% ban. So questioning vehemently this decision let's it be known that even though we are the minority ... we are still human too and deserve some rights.

 

I'm not aware of any "right" to smoke, however, I don't see a complete ban anytime soon, if ever. Besides passengers, it would also impact crew, who sneak enough cigarettes as it is.

[DnD_Cruisin]

I'm not aware of any "right" to smoke, however, I don't see a complete ban anytime soon, if ever. Besides passengers, it would also impact crew, who sneak enough cigarettes as it is.

 

I currently have the right to smoke in designated areas. As to the outright ban I hope you are correct.

[DnD_Cruisin]

Is Celebrity smoke free? I thought I heard they had some "no smoking" cruises, but did they decree all cruises are now no smoking?

 

They are not yet totally smoke free but have the most restrictive rules (i.e. no smoking in interior places). They definately seem to be moving in that direction though.