Smoking on QM2 after UK ban

[KenC]

Anti social ?

Smoking has been part of social life in many cultures all around the world for hundreds of years..

 

Quite right ..... but as someone else pointed out - slavery was also a part of society in many cultures all around the world for hundreds of years even though it is abhorred today. Society changed its attitude to slavery and it is now beginning to find smoking in enclosed public areas unacceptable too.

 

Ken

[SamanthasDad]

Anti social ?

Smoking has been part of social life in many cultures all around the world for hundreds of years.

The smoking rooms of the great liners were THE place to socialise.

Attitudes and knowledge changes with time. 50 years ago smoking was advertised as a health product. It is now proven that it kills people. (they even tell you this on the pack!)

[GAV BOY]

Attitudes and knowledge changes with time. 50 years ago smoking was advertised as a health product. It is now proven that it kills people. (they even tell you this on the pack!)

 

Good point ! :D

 

And if it wasn,t true would they be able to print that ? :rolleyes:

[pnhmrk]

So are you admitting that non-smokers were inconvenienced

 

Yes. There's no "admitting" it - when smokers were very common I'm sure that those who tried to avoid the smoke were inconvenienced.

 

And .... having to smoke outside is hardly much of a 'penalty' especially compared to having to breath someone else's cigarette smoke.

 

You've misunderstood my argument - one has the choice of going into a smoking establishment or not; one isn't going to have the choice about smoking outside.

[pnhmrk]

Could the British here tell if they would support the government ruling what time of the day one could smoke in public? Would this be fair?

 

There is no restriction on what time of day you can drink in public. The only restriction is on when alcoholic drink can be sold and even that is becoming more flexible (there have always been exceptions to those laws as well).

 

So I assume you agree with me when I say: smoking should be prohibit in places I compulsorily have to go like government offices, schools,etc. Right?

 

I couldn't agree with it being prohibited entirely, but restricted certainly. An area set aside for smokers and protected from the elements with the rest of the area non-smoking would be quite acceptable.

[pnhmrk]

Your out of touch with the medical proof against smoking and also the public opinion, because all the Politicians would not of banned it unless there was pressure from the Public !

 

I think you mean that I am "out of touch" because I disagree with you; because I suspect that politicians do things that are not with the support of the majority of the public?

[pnhmrk]

The idea that Government only do what is popular is a new one.

 

That a government should only do what is popular is worrying as well.

[pnhmrk]

Lots of Freedom ! :D

 

Gavin - what you mean is "Lots of freedom" as long as we agree with you.

[pnhmrk]

It is now proven that it kills people. (they even tell you this on the pack!)

 

No. Smoking can be a contributory factor in ill health and death. Inhaling other people's smoke is not.

[guernseyguy]

No. Smoking can be a contributory factor in ill health and death. Inhaling other people's smoke is not.

 

Malcolm, beg to differ, as do the World Health Organization, among others:

 

WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; First international treaty on public health, adopted by 192 countries and signed by 168. Its Article 8.1 states "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability.

 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General", 2006; One of the major conclusions of the Surgeon General Report is: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke."

 

California Environmental Protection Agency: Air Resources Board, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant" (June 24, 2005); on January 26, 2006, the Air Resources Board, following a lengthy review and public outreach process, determined ETS to be a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC).

 

WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer "Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking" IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83, 2002; the evaluation of the Monograph is: "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans. [...] Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."

 

Peter

[KenC]

No. Smoking can be a contributory factor in ill health and death. Inhaling other people's smoke is not.

 

Oh go on, bury that head in the sand :eek:

[KenC]

......

 

You've misunderstood my argument - one has the choice of going into a smoking establishment or not; one isn't going to have the choice about smoking outside.

 

Wait a minute ..... smokers have the same choice now - to go into a non-smoking establishment or not. Where's the problem in that - unless the addiction is too severe to cope with going without ???

[SamanthasDad]

No. Smoking can be a contributory factor in ill health and death. Inhaling other people's smoke is not.

This just proves that smokers are extremely inconsiderate to other people. If they believe that their habit is not causing harm to anyone else. I give up it is not worth my time arguing against such stupidity.

 

Below is a list of just a few of the chemicals in cigarette smoke that are inhaled directly and passively.

 

Benzene (petrol additive)

A colourless cyclic hydrocarbon obtained from coal and petroleum, used as a solvent in fuel and in chemical manufacture - and contained in cigarette smoke. It is a known carcinogen and is associated with leukaemia.

Formaldehyde (embalming fluid)

A colourless liquid, highly poisonous, used to preserve dead bodies - also found in cigarette smoke. Known to cause cancer, respiratory, skin and gastrointestinal problems.

Ammonia(toilet cleaner)

Used as a flavouring, frees nicotine from tobacco turning it into a gas, found in dry cleaning fluids.

Acetone (nail polish remover)

Fragrant volatile liquid ketone, used as a solvent, for example, nail polish remover - found in cigarette smoke.

Tar

Particulate matter drawn into lungs when you inhale on a lighted cigarette. Once inhaled, smoke condenses and about 70 per cent of the tar in the smoke is deposited in the smoker's lungs.

Nicotine(insecticide/addictive drug)

One of the most addictive substances known to man, a powerful and fast-acting medical and non-medical poison. This is the chemical which causes addiction.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)(car exhaust fumes)

An odourless, tasteless and poisonous gas, rapidly fatal in large amounts - it's the same gas that comes out of car exhausts and is the main gas in cigarette smoke, formed when the cigarette is lit. Others you may recognize are :

Arsenic (rat poison), Hydrogen Cyanide(gas chamber poison)

[GAV BOY]

I think you mean that I am "out of touch" because I disagree with you; because I suspect that politicians do things that are not with the support of the majority of the public?

 

Listen everyone , the majority of experts, politicians and us anti smokers on here are all wrong and Malcolm is right we should of realised that !

 

Silly us :D

[GAV BOY]

This just proves that smokers are extremely inconsiderate to other people. If they believe that their habit is not causing harm to anyone else. I give up it is not worth my time arguing against such stupidity.

 

Below is a list of just a few of the chemicals in cigarette smoke that are inhaled directly and passively.

 

Benzene (petrol additive)

A colourless cyclic hydrocarbon obtained from coal and petroleum, used as a solvent in fuel and in chemical manufacture - and contained in cigarette smoke. It is a known carcinogen and is associated with leukaemia.

Formaldehyde (embalming fluid)

A colourless liquid, highly poisonous, used to preserve dead bodies - also found in cigarette smoke. Known to cause cancer, respiratory, skin and gastrointestinal problems.

Ammonia(toilet cleaner)

Used as a flavouring, frees nicotine from tobacco turning it into a gas, found in dry cleaning fluids.

Acetone (nail polish remover)

Fragrant volatile liquid ketone, used as a solvent, for example, nail polish remover - found in cigarette smoke.

Tar

Particulate matter drawn into lungs when you inhale on a lighted cigarette. Once inhaled, smoke condenses and about 70 per cent of the tar in the smoke is deposited in the smoker's lungs.

Nicotine(insecticide/addictive drug)

One of the most addictive substances known to man, a powerful and fast-acting medical and non-medical poison. This is the chemical which causes addiction.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)(car exhaust fumes)

An odourless, tasteless and poisonous gas, rapidly fatal in large amounts - it's the same gas that comes out of car exhausts and is the main gas in cigarette smoke, formed when the cigarette is lit. Others you may recognize are :

Arsenic (rat poison), Hydrogen Cyanide(gas chamber poison)

 

Yes but SamathasDad ,Dr Malcolm knows best !:rolleyes:

[GAV BOY]

Sorry Gavboy, but I've been counting again and reckon the score is now 9 against banning the dreaded weed in public enclosed places on Cunard, and 8 in favour of it.

 

Mary

 

Yes Mary but its not a sientific poll, and it seems for some reason there are more smokers and their sympathysers than non-smokers commenting on this boared. But across this country as a whole you will be in the minority, so i am also sorry. :D

[GAV BOY]

I couldn't agree with it being prohibited entirely, but restricted certainly. An area set aside for smokers and protected from the elements with the rest of the area non-smoking would be quite acceptable.

 

No of course you couldnt agree with it being prohibited entirely :eek:

[dianancolin]

Interesting to see this "discussion" again - in Canada we went through all the hand wringing about smokers rights etc. but in the end sanity prevailed. Being an ex-smoker (40 years on the weed before cold turkey quitting) and also a "fiscal refugee" from UK 30+ years ago I am quite amused at the word battles from both sides (mainly from the British it seems) – seen it all before over here. Battles may be won or lost but the war is over and the non-smokers have won! Ontario now has some of the toughest rules anywhere - the separate smoking rooms are gone - even in old peoples retirement homes (where even my feelings are that this is going too far)! Of course Governments will continue to wring every penny of tax out of the weed while they can - how else can they justify exempting Casinos in Ontario from the smoking ban? :rolleyes:

 

North America is now making it's feelings known on the cruiser that smokes. Regardless of the QM2 being British Flagged, the owner (Carnival Corp) is US based and they do know from experience that they need to look after ALL cruisers whether smokers or not. Their only experiment with a totally non smoking ship (Carnival Paradise) was a dismal failure – never achieved the capacities of their other ships. I suspect they were just a little ahead of the market. All their ships, however, in common with many others do control where you can smoke, even to which side of each deck.:)

 

As my smoker son and his wife put it – it would just be nice if all smokers were considerate and did not smoke where it impacts others. On his last cruise it was not possible to enjoy his balcony due to the cigar smoking:eek: neighbour on the next balcony.

 

Marriott and other hotel chains have discovered that by going non-smoking they have lost no business and are improving their profit due to less damage by careless smokers. At least one cruise ship fire can be attributed to a careless smoker. Isn’t that the key? – nobody objects to the considerate smoker but the careless smoker (like a careless driver) is somebody to avoid. To the hardened smoker I would just add – lighten up not light up! You are (literally) a dying breed.

[travel-to-go]

Dianancolin,

Your post was most intelligently written, and quite balanced. No insults or unkind words, and you are so right- If everyone were a considerate smoker (Drinker, driver, talker, cell phone user) it would be a better world indeed. I imagine half of the laws in the world are written because of inconsiderate and selfish people who have to have it spelled out for them that something is just plain wrong. One would have to be very much out of touch and in a state of denial not to admit that smoking is not good for anyone, including the passive smoker who is forced to inhale the unfiltered content off the end of someone's cigarette. As I sit here struggling to breathe right now, knowing that I would not be able to cope with the smallest amount of passive smoke today (and even the cold or wind, which is why I have not left the house for two days!) I know only too well just how painful and dangerous second hand smoke can be. I certainly am not making it up when I go into serious respiratory distress from passive smoke. It is not faked. Sometimes I don't realize I am around smoke until suddenly I can't breathe. Now this is not conjecture. This is my reality. I live with it. I try to be considerate of my smoking friends. And my friends try to be considerate of me. Even when I was a smoker, I certainly was not stupid enough to think it was healthy for me! I knew it was bad. Just as I know that the extra weight I carry is horribly bad for my health. No matter how much I want people to respect me and accept me as I am, which is, in a word, obese, the fact remains, that I am unhealthy (and Malcolm, before you start in on me about that being the reason for my sensitivity to smoke, it was the drugs that they gave me to keep me alive that destroyed my metabolism, making me fatter and fatter and making it nearly impossible for me to lose weight normally. In fact, I also had a digestive disorder, Crohn's disease, and was 40 pounds UNDERweight when I first started on these drugs.) So yes, second hand smoke is also destructive. If you don't think so, ask a professional upholsterer or wall paperer. Ask them if it does not break down the fabric in upholstery and drapes. I am not talking about burns, I am talking about the smoke! If it is doing that to fabric, what is it doing to my eyes, lungs, skin, etc?

 

Malcolm, if you want to argue that people have the right to smoke, do so. But do not insult our intelligence and your own by stating that second hand smoke has no dangers. And do not argue that you have the right to be rude, and inconsiderate. Ann Landers used to say, "your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins" You are not harmed by not being able to smoke inside- You have the choice to hold off and have a smoke later. I AM harmed by not being able to go into a smoking room EVER! I have NO choice, unless I wish to endanger my health. I will do so sometimes when I REALLY want to be in that room for some reason- say, to be with my smoking friends. but I have to choose between my desire to be there and my health. The smoker merely has to defer smoking for a period. I cannot defer breathing until a more convenient time.

 

I do not believe it is realistic to ban smoking in all public rooms or areas. I hate having to run the gauntlet of smokers outside a building. Especially when (stupidly, IMHO) the handicapped entrance happens to be the designated smoking area. (duh! What were they THINKING!) What you seem to be advocating, Malcolm, is a smokers rights to harm their health and the health of those around them trumps a non-smoker's right to maintain their health AND not be restricted from entering a premises. (remember, the smoker can have a butt then go in, or have one later- No one is saying he or she cannot enter the premises.) It's kind of like saying you have to wear formal wear to enter the dining room on formal night! No one is saying you can never come in! You just are not allowed to wear jeans there....or smoke cigarettes there. (on the QM2) No one would question rules that said you could not smoke in an explosive atmosphere. Only an idiot would think it is usurping their God-Given rights! (to potentially kill themselves and others) Why would it matter if the danger is a slower, less obvious one?

 

Nope. You are being obstreperous. I think most of the smokers here are wise enough and realize it would be very selfish to say otherwise. I also have sympathy for my friends who are addicted to the weed and cannot seem to quit. It isn't easy! In a perfect world, no one would smoke. It is not a necessity in anyone's life, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it is harmful.

 

"nuff said" Though I know you will argue with this. You just like to argue and always insist that everything must be YOUR way only and everyone else is WRONG... on any subject. That is not very classy.)

 

Karie,

who gets tired of man's inhumanity to man

[Norfolk Brit]

Yes Mary but its not a sientific poll, and it seems for some reason there are more smokers and their sympathysers than non-smokers commenting on this boared. But across this country as a whole you will be in the minority, so i am also sorry. :D

 

I was merely counting comments in response to the original question about smoking on Cunard after the restrictions come into place. Sorry, but I can't come up with a better way of gauging relevant opinion.

 

Unscientifically yours, Mary:)

[GAV BOY]

I was merely counting comments in response to the original question about smoking on Cunard after the restrictions come into place. Sorry, but I can't come up with a better way of gauging relevant opinion.

 

Unscientifically yours, Mary:)

 

Thats ok your forgiven ! :D

 

 

Regards,

 

Gavin :cool:

[paulista1950]

"It's kind of like saying you have to wear formal wear to enter the dining room on formal night! No one is saying you can never come in! You just are not allowed to wear jeans there....or smoke cigarettes there. (on the QM2) No one would question rules that said you could not smoke in an explosive atmosphere. Only an idiot would think it is usurping their God-Given rights! (to potentially kill themselves and others) Why would it matter if the danger is a slower, less obvious one?"

 

I can't see how to disput that somebody wearing jeans would be less harmful to others than smoke!

[GAV BOY]

"It's kind of like saying you have to wear formal wear to enter the dining room on formal night! No one is saying you can never come in! You just are not allowed to wear jeans there....or smoke cigarettes there. (on the QM2) No one would question rules that said you could not smoke in an explosive atmosphere. Only an idiot would think it is usurping their God-Given rights! (to potentially kill themselves and others) Why would it matter if the danger is a slower, less obvious one?"

 

I can't see how to disput that somebody wearing jeans would be less harmful to others than smoke!

 

Someone Will ! :D

[pnhmrk]

Dianancolin,

Your post was most intelligently written, and quite balanced. No insults or unkind words, and you are so right- If everyone were a considerate smoker (Drinker, driver, talker, cell phone user) it would be a better world indeed.

 

I'd second that sentiment - it was a good, reasoned and agreeable post:)

 

Malcolm, before you start in on me about that being the reason for my sensitivity to smoke

 

Karie - I have never wondered what causes your sensitivity to smoke. I have never had any doubt that is is a medical problem and not something imagined by you.

 

Malcolm, if you want to argue that people have the right to smoke, do so. But do not insult our intelligence and your own by stating that second hand smoke has no dangers.

 

People have a right to freedom of choice - the restriction of that is shown in the smoking debate. For most people the dangers of passive smoking are nonexistent.

 

And do not argue that you have the right to be rude, and inconsiderate.

 

Have I ever? If so then I apologise unconditionally for it.:)

 

I do not believe it is realistic to ban smoking in all public rooms or areas.

 

I agree. What I want is consideration from both sides that permits both camps to live together.

 

I hate having to run the gauntlet of smokers outside a building. Especially when (stupidly, IMHO) the handicapped entrance happens to be the designated smoking area.

 

What I want is the freedom to have a smoking area if that's what suits the establishment and not if it isn't. (I'm with you on the location of the disabled access:) )

 

What you seem to be advocating, Malcolm, is a smokers rights to harm their health and the health of those around them trumps a non-smoker's right to maintain their health AND not be restricted from entering a premises.

 

No - I'm objecting to a Government saying that you cannot smoke in any enclosed public space. I believe that it should be up to the individual establishment. That way we could express our preference for accommodation.

 

Karie - who gets tired of man's inhumanity to man

 

Why does one side or the other have to be right? Why can't we just get on together?

[pnhmrk]

Unscientifically yours, Mary:)

 

Unscientific it may be, but I can't see an easier way of guessing opinions.