Non-Smoking Cabins

[OHCruisin]

AmyBear - Amen! I KNOW there are rude smokers out there, but there are some really fanatical and very rude non-smokers out there as well.

[xpcdoojk]

AmyBear - Amen! I KNOW there are rude smokers out there, but there are some really fanatical and very rude non-smokers out there as well.

 

Lot's of em, and they tend to be far more unpleasant to be around because they are just looking for an oppurtunity to be mad at someone else. JMHO:rolleyes:

 

jc

[brmoqueen]

Tanker4....my dh is like u..he never smokes in the cabin and only on balcony when neighbors are not out or if they are smoking then he will too..

 

I use OUST...it really works well to remove any smells....

 

Hotels---don't always bet that u get a non smoking room as we have been in non smoking rooms and told by the hotel that dh can smoke in it....they just clean a little heavier.

 

I don't know how the ships could survive non smoking....but the time may come.. We just got back from Las Vegas and while the casinos are smoking, the Venetian hotel had changed to non smoking anywhere except the casino (smoking rooms are ok tho)

 

Smoking is a tough issue but I think it is changing rapidly as to what smokers can and can't do....

[sept10dsm]

Tanker4....my dh is like u..he never smokes in the cabin and only on balcony when neighbors are not out or if they are smoking then he will too..

 

I use OUST...it really works well to remove any smells....

 

Hotels---don't always bet that u get a non smoking room as we have been in non smoking rooms and told by the hotel that dh can smoke in it....they just clean a little heavier.

 

I don't know how the ships could survive non smoking....but the time may come.. We just got back from Las Vegas and while the casinos are smoking, the Venetian hotel had changed to non smoking anywhere except the casino (smoking rooms are ok tho)

 

Smoking is a tough issue but I think it is changing rapidly as to what smokers can and can't do....

NJ became nonsmoking except Atlantic City, now they will be too, I believe. Bars said how they would lose business, they didn't. I know they can go out and smoke but no business lost. I think non smokers are more apt to go to the bar now. A ship is contained so it will be a little more difficult, but the non smoking cabins may come.

[Boo Boo]

Reminds me of a story! ;) About 15 years ago, my wife had a great aunt die, and since she had no children or other relatives, I got sent over to take a few items from her. My MIL wanted the player piano and a few personal items, and my wife said, that she had a new Sears refrigerator, that we could use in the garage. The little old lady had basically lived as a shut in for the last 20 years of her life, smoking and ordering food brought in. So, anyway we get to her little house, and the smell was powerful. So, I load up the few items that I was sent to get, a harvest gold piano to match the harvest gold refrigerator and the harvest gold drapes, and the harvest gold cabinets. The refrigerator was a bit of a manhandling job, and it was a hot day, and I was perspiring a bit, and after we loaded it into the truck I noticed that I had a big smear of yellow on my t shirt. Noticed that the "paint" job on the fridge was no longer uniform. Didn't think much about it until I unloaded it in the garage, when I put a wash cloth to it and the harvest gold came right off. The items were all white. She didn't buy anything in harvest gold. It was the result of years of closed windows and cigarette smoke. BLLLEEEECCHHH!!!:eek: :D

 

EEEeeeewwww!!! :eek:

 

I can believe it! At least to a certain extent my parents aired the house etc (so it was never that bad), but whenever we went to stay my husband and I would always come home smelling like we had rolled in an ashtray... (even the things we hadn't taken out of the bag or worn!). You could always see discolouration on light coloured wallpaper, paint or furniture.

 

Tell you something though, having two parents that smoked has put me off for life: never been tempted to smopke, never will...

 

Boo

[Merion_Mom]

I know this off the topic of non-smoking cabins, but I have to say it: I am glad to hear you are as healthy as a horse, but you are the exception to the rule. There is plenty of evidence to support that smoking during pregnancy and around children does cause adverse health effects including asthma. Now that we know this information, I think parents should behave responsibly and all smokers should be considerate of their fellow non-smokers. It's not "life" to knowingly cause harm to people around you, it's negligence.

 

Actually, I am NOT the exception to the rule.

 

Unlike jc, (:)), I DO believe that second-hand smoke is harmful to others.

 

But these things are RISK FACTORS, not rules. SOME people become ill from things. NOT EVERYONE.

 

Not all smokers get lung cancer.

 

Not all tobacco chewers get mouth cancer.

 

Not all needle-sharers get AIDS.

 

Not all swamp-visitors get malaria.

 

Exposure to risk factors INCREASES your chance of getting a disease, it doesn't REQUIRE it.

 

Just injecting a few FACTS into this *discussion*.

[Shoeshopper]

SO you cannot bring an Iron on the cruise because its a fire Hazard BUT you can smoke in your room - HOW STUPID, HOW STINKY, HOW UNHEALTHY & MOST IMPORTANT -HOW DANGEROUS.

[Shoeshopper]

THE only people who think that Oust or Febreeze or a door open for ANY amount of time actually gets rid of the smell of smoke is a smoker or someone who is around a smoker.

 

You CANNOT get rid of the smell, its in the carpets, in the mattresses in EVERYTHING. Especially American cigarettes.

 

I know a lot of smokers and I'm not saying they're bad people but I hate to tell you IF YOU SMOKE you smell like smoke all the time the smell sticks to you. It's in your hair, your clothes, its on your KIDS, pets, it is everywhere.

 

There should be no smoking on boats !

[abridalmaven]

Before I comment, I have to qualify, I hate smoke and never have smoked nor ever will. But that having been said, I have to comment on this on how impractical this all is. What happens when yo want to book a cruise and all the non smoking rooms are full, so you can not book a room?. You bet there are going to be whiners who come here and complain about that?

And what if you were planning a group cruise and half were smokers and half were not and there were not enough rooms to accomdate everyone, who do you disappoint?

 

I am sorry it just will not happen.:rolleyes:

[amybear912]

exactly... which is why we all just have to get along...

 

:)

[xpcdoojk]

Carol, buddy, I didn't say that there was no risk, I just said that the amount of fear surrounding the evil second hand smoke is way beyond the actual danger it presents. I think that people have bought into the anti-smoking propaganda so much that the actual science and facts are not generally known by the people who spout anti-smoking "facts". I used to be a very good bowler, almost professional level. I quit bowling 10 years ago because I hate coming home late at night and smelling like an ashtray. So, I do not like smoke. However, I am compelled by science and facts far more than emotion it is just the way I am wired.

 

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=386

 

http://www.fumento.com/disease/smoking.html

 

I certainly would prefer to have a world in which nobody was addicted to cigarettes and where nobody ever smoked indoors, but to me it is very dangerous how quickly we turn to the government to tell someone else what they can or can not do in their own private property. Just another small step away from liberty, and I am not going to quietly walk into a society that does not value liberty.:)

 

jc

[melsdt]

Actually, I am NOT the exception to the rule.

 

Unlike jc, (:)), I DO believe that second-hand smoke is harmful to others.

 

But these things are RISK FACTORS, not rules. SOME people become ill from things. NOT EVERYONE.

 

Not all smokers get lung cancer.

 

Not all tobacco chewers get mouth cancer.

 

Not all needle-sharers get AIDS.

 

Not all swamp-visitors get malaria.

 

Exposure to risk factors INCREASES your chance of getting a disease, it doesn't REQUIRE it.

 

Just injecting a few FACTS into this *discussion*.

 

I am well aware that exposure to risk increases your chance. I have a Master's Degree in Public Health, a Bachelors degree in Health Education, and will begin my doctorate in Epidemiology within the next year. I have conducted research on smoking cessation. I am also a former smoker. I still do not think that just because a risk factor is not a requirement for a disease, that it is ok to send the message that the behavior is not harmful. In my opinion, your original posting sent that message, maybe not intentionally. Having seen some of the results of smoking in my own life, I tend to take the topic very serious. From now on, I should know better than to open the posts that have "smoking" in the title!!!

[yogimax]

That said, smoking is legal and I get really tired of all the doo-gooders in the world telling business how they have to run their private property. Nobody has a right to tell others how they should operate their business. Nobody has a right to go into a private business and expect them to offer them a non smoking experience. You do have the right to not support the restaurant and to support another that provides an atmosphere that pleases you. Yes, I wish the cruiselines would offer non smoking rooms if they want to. I hope to heck no country tries to write laws to force them. 2nd hand smoke is a lot less dangerous than most people believe and act. Of course, since we live in a world of fake fears, none of this surprises me it only saddens me.

<end of soap box>:D

 

jc

 

Sorry to disagree, but government certainly has a right to set standards in the business world.

 

Your comment that "Nobody has a right to tell others how they should operate their business," strains credibility.

 

Of course, government has a right to demand clean operations in a restaurant.

 

It has a right to demand that restaurants be rodent free...

 

It has a right to demand that meats be refrigerated at a proper temperature...

 

It has a right to insist that employees wash their hands before leaving the bathroom...

 

It has the right to protect the public by enforcing non-smoking standards!

[negc]

I am not going to quietly walk into a society that does not value liberty.:)

 

jc

Just don't confuse "liberty" with "license". There are legitimate public health issues involving smoking and there is a legitimate role for government in establishing regulations relative to smoking in order to promote and protect public health. :)

[xpcdoojk]

I agree yogi, that we want standards, what I don't agree with is the instant rush that the government needs to fix everything. The government is rarely an efficient or even a good remedy for most of societies problems, and yet, they keep promising. How about that war on poverty that has gone really well, hasn't it. How about the war on drugs, another winner there. I personally love going to the post office don't you?:D

 

The government is not the answer to almost any question.

 

I am not saying that smoking is a good thing, in my opinion it isn't. Just because you have a degree in public health doesn't mean you know the facts. Facts come from science, education comes, many times, unfortunately, from propaganda. I listen to people tell me that global warming is a fact, but I don't see the scientific theory that proves it. Anymore than because the surgeon general says second hand smoke kills, doesn't prove it does. However, smoking is a legal product, if it is dangerous the government should ban it. Why don't they? Because they keep making money from it. They make billions of dollars on the taxes from smoking. It is a travesty. Big tobacco makes far less profit from smoking than does the government. Which one is more responsible for killing millions? A business that is making a legal product and selling it in a legal way or the government that takes the money but doesn't stop the killing. :rolleyes:

 

Again, I don't really care, but don't fool yourself that you "know" second hand smoke kills, because it has not been proven scientifically. I am not saying that second hand smoke is safe, again, all I am saying is that the fear and hype that has been promoted, published and broadcast is greater than the actual danger.

 

People are so sure of their "facts" that anyone who points another point of view is attacked. Which is typical of those who want the nanny government to take care of everything when there is virtually nothing the government has ever done that any of us would be particularly proud of.

 

jc

[amybear912]

bravo...

[xpcdoojk]

Just don't confuse "liberty" with "license". There are legitimate public health issues involving smoking and there is a legitimate role for government in establishing regulations relative to smoking in order to promote and protect public health. :)

 

My copy of the constitution doesn't contain the clause to promote and protect public health. Funny that yours does. :D

 

jc

[amybear912]

My copy of the constitution doesn't contain the clause to promote and protect public health. Funny that yours does. :D

 

jc

 

 

what's funny is that anyone would trust the government to promote and protect their health...

 

the only interest the government has in your health is how much $$ they can make off of it... it all boils down to the mighty dollar folks:)

[yogimax]

Again, I don't really care, but don't fool yourself that you "know" second hand smoke kills, because it has not been proven scientifically.

jc

 

Hope you find this helpful!

 

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

 

Yogi

[negc]

what's funny is that anyone would trust the government to promote and protect their health...

 

the only interest the government has in your health is how much $$ they can make off of it... it all boils down to the mighty dollar folks:)

 

What a sad commentary on the current state of affairs. The only ones making money off your health are the private insurance companies, HMOs and others who charge outrageous premiums, limit your healthcare options, and set standards of care for doctors who otherwise might be more focussed on providing you with the treatment and medications you actually need and not that which the beancounters decide you should receive.:mad:

[xpcdoojk]

Hope you find this helpful!

 

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

 

Yogi

 

It did, it proved my point, if you look at all of the reference data there is only a single scientific study listed, it did of course link itself to the surgeon generals report and the California EPA. Both of which I take with a major amount of skepticism. Since both of those sources are political and not scientific.:D

 

jc

[MrPete]

 

There should be no smoking on boats !

 

And until you can't, you can. It just seems so easy.

 

Please enjoy the non smoking sections. I do, until something interests me in a smoking section. Then I make a choice.

[yogimax]

It did, it proved my point, if you look at all of the reference data there is only a single scientific study listed, it did of course link itself to the surgeon generals report and the California EPA. Both of which I take with a major amount of skepticism. Since both of those sources are political and not scientific.:D

 

jc

 

So you dismiss the report of the Surgeon General of the United States because, in your opinion, it was not scientific.

 

I was going to post 47 other links to scientific studies which detailed how second hand smoking had a direct correlation to cancer and heart disease - but what's the use?

 

You response indicates that you will never accept reality or the facts.

[Cruising89143]

When I cruised on the Norway back in 94 NCL had non smoking cabins available. We booked those. Shortly after that NCL did away with non smoking cabins. There must had been a good reason for doing it.

 

I don't smoke, don't like being around it but I will not tell others what they can and cannot do. If smoke bothers me then I get up and move.

[xpcdoojk]

So you dismiss the report of the Surgeon General of the United States because, in your opinion, it was not scientific.

 

I was going to post 47 other links to scientific studies which detailed how second hand smoking had a direct correlation to cancer and heart disease - but what's the use?

 

You response indicates that you will never accept reality or the facts.

You are correct about one thing, that the surgeon general is not a scientist in the sense that he has proven that second hand smoke is particularly dangerous. He/she/it is doing that thing Bill mentioned, promoting public health. Which is a worthwhile goal, but it is not science.

 

I am far more likely to believe a researcher that is doing specific research, but then I remember someone is paying the researcher to do the research, are they at liberty to speak honestly and truthfully. One of the "scientific" things that was in the link you sent was one regarding the fact that one of the experiments which showed that second hand smoke might not be dangerous was rejected because of those links to who is paying for the research. So very much in science is tainted and tainted badly by politics and what people want to believe. Belief is more powerful than science for most people. I find this incredibly sad considering where we are today because of science.:(

 

By the way, I only accept facts that are based in reality. I believe very danged little of what people tell me. :p Especially, those who are crusading for some great social or public concern. True believers are not a good source for truth!:eek:

 

jc

 

PS Here is a definition of the scientific method. I, also, know you won't read this because the 5 O'clock news gives you all of the facts you need to get by.:p

 

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

 

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
  
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
  
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
  
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
  
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
  

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

 

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied.

When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws.

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?).

A frequent criticism made of the scientific method is that it cannot accommodate anything that has not been proved. The argument then points out that many things thought to be impossible in the past are now everyday realities. This criticism is based on a misinterpretation of the scientific method. When a hypothesis passes the test it is adopted as a theory it correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time, be falsified by new experimental evidence. When exploring a new set or phenomena scientists do use existing theories but, since this is a new area of investigation, it is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new experiments and observations. In this case new hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges.

There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith. The argument cited by some creationists, that science is just another kind of faith is a philosophic stance which ignores the trans-cultural nature of science. Science's theory of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith required.