Poll: Should cabins/balconies be all smoking cabins/balconies?

[breal6]

We've heard the reasoning why people do or do not believe that cabins /balconies should be all smoking or non-smoking. Now I'd like to see the actual numbers.

 

 

From a marketing standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to limit cabins in either direction. If you sell out of either side, it would be a business disaster to turn away paying customers just because you didn't have their type of cabin available.

 

By the way, I am a non smoker.

[rolloman]

My last cruise in December on the Mariner, my balcony cabin smoke infested. I complained at the front desk as I am alergic to smoke. They seemed to be a little busy so I went to the Conceirge. He immediately had a team taking out everything and shampoo the rug. It took about two hours but it worked and the rest of the cruise was enjoyed. So I guess the moral of the story is if the cruiselines want to devote a team of people to fumigate the rooms upon check in, smoking on ships should not be a problem. I do think its pathetic someone would chain smoke in their cabin when they have a balcony.

[boaterette]

I think they should make all inside and oceanview cabins nonsmoking and the balcony cabins smoking. That way almost all of the cabins would be for the non smokers which should make them happy.

[isujim]

Poll should have #3 Question, Should smoking be baned in all cabins and balcony's. YES

 

Question #4 should have been

 

Are all of you that want smoking banned in all cabins and balconies ready to pay an increase of 25 to 30% IMMEDIATELY in your base fare to make up for lost revenue..........if not........then you can't vote yes on #3:)

 

And by the way.........I didn't vote.........but I understand the economics of a public company

[rolloman]

Question #4 should have been

 

Are all of you that want smoking banned in all cabins and balconies ready to pay an increase of 25 to 30% IMMEDIATELY in your base fare to make up for lost revenue..........if not........then you can't vote yes on #3:)

 

And by the way.........I didn't vote.........but I understand the economics of a public company

 

Thats the same old tired threat smokers used when they banned smoking in restuarants. Guess what, normal operations have occured. What are you basing the 25 to 30 percent number on? I assume a swag.

[isujim]

Thats the same old tired threat smokers used when they banned smoking in restuarants. Guess what, normal operations have occured. What are you basing the 25 to 30 percent number on? I assume a swag.

 

Look.........as I said I don't care...........I don't smoke but I roll with the flow........

 

Basic numbers is all........call it a swag if you want.

 

32% of Americans still smoke............take a 3,000 passenger ship and statistically 32% is 960 passengers........even at $1,000 per passenger (not including shipboard charges) that is almost one million dollars.....multiply that by 52 weeks and ........well...........do you swag it now?:)

 

This will be my last post on a smoking thread.........I know better........it is like tipping threads.........no winners, no losers and certainly I understand the passion this subject brings..........I really do.........

 

but I also understand the economics........

 

And by the way.......I really don't care........if they ban smoking tomorrow in all cabins, then I'll still cruise.........until the cruiselines can't replace the 52 million........except through base rate increases........

 

Happy cruising..........

[KAJOKG]

Ok granted the 31st of this month is going to be my first cruise, but I am assuming the ship doesn't spend much time going in reverse, which means rather than making the designations side to side, they should be front and back, correct? :confused:

 

I think it would be physically impossible to be underway and have the smoke coming from the balconies on both sides, as has been suggested by some posts on other threads. But as I said, this is going to be my first cruise and for all I know on cruise ships the laws of physics cease to exist....

 

First, one side of the ship is far removed from the other side, so the non smoking side did work. But no need to discuss it further because it is now a moot point. Have a good cruise....you have a lot to learn.

[Bennett'sCruise]

On our beautiful 17-day Panama cruise last spring my early morning, balcony, sea-watching ritual was ruined by my neighbor smoking on her balcony.

I love to get up before the sun rises and stand out on our balcony to watch us come into port ... or just cruise along and watch the day begin. On this trip, however, the lady next to us got up very early as well and practically stumpled out to her balcony to smoke her first of the day ... many times without her bathrobe or a comb thru her hair.

I learned I had to get up way before she did in order to enjoy a smoke-free ritual. To say my early morning ritual was ruined is putting it mildly. I need to do this cruise over and hopefully get next to some smoke-free folks ...

BTW: She was soon followed by her husband who would sit on their balcony, call their grown children every port morning and yell into the phone: "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW????!!!!!!" :o That got to be pretty funny ...

~d

[Compass Rose]

No matter how you cut it, the smokers bother the non-smokers more often than the non-smokers bothering the smokers. Maybe the non-smokers should take up blowing offensive bubbles at the smokers just to even things out. Problem is, the bubbles just don't stink enough.

[rolloman]

Look.........as I said I don't care...........I don't smoke but I roll with the flow........

 

Basic numbers is all........call it a swag if you want.

 

32% of Americans still smoke............take a 3,000 passenger ship and statistically 32% is 960 passengers........even at $1,000 per passenger (not including shipboard charges) that is almost one million dollars.....multiply that by 52 weeks and ........well...........do you swag it now?:)

 

This will be my last post on a smoking thread.........I know better........it is like tipping threads.........no winners, no losers and certainly I understand the passion this subject brings..........I really do.........

 

but I also understand the economics........

 

And by the way.......I really don't care........if they ban smoking tomorrow in all cabins, then I'll still cruise.........until the cruiselines can't replace the 52 million........except through base rate increases........

 

Happy cruising..........

 

You really dont care, yet you are a walking data base of statistics and information, Too funny. I understand the logistics too, once they ban smoking in the actual cabin fleet wide, after a short lull, those who cruise will still cruise. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[KAJOKG]

~d

 

OMG - I think I was next to these same folks on our last cruise!!!! Couldn't help eavesdropping (they were so loud) and to my ears none of the conversation was essential in any way!!!!!! Fortunately, most people are considerate of others, but the few who aren't make it tough for folks around them.

[isujim]

You really dont care, yet you are a walking data base of statistics and information, Too funny. I understand the logistics too, once they ban smoking in the actual cabin fleet wide, after a short lull, those who cruise will still cruise. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

 

 

Naw........I'll put it in my swag;)

 

Happy cruising!:)

[teajak]

No matter how you cut it, the smokers bother the non-smokers more often than the non-smokers bothering the smokers. Maybe the non-smokers should take up blowing offensive bubbles at the smokers just to even things out. Problem is, the bubbles just don't stink enough.

Larry Hagman, the actor from Dallas, and lots of others, carries a small battery operated fan and turns it on smokers that come too close to him.

[hayesktrm]

Didn't one of the huge hotel chains (was it Westin) go non-smoking? I wonder how they are doing. Also, I thought Princess (or Disney??) didn't allow smoking in their cabins, only on the balconies (I could be wrong). My friend's grandmother was going cruising with them and was upset because she had to get a balcony because she's a chain smoker. I think you need to have the majority of the ship non-smoking. When those cabins run out, you tell people you only have smoking rooms left. They can decide for themselves if that's acceptable. I am also sure it costs the cruiselines a pretty penny getting rid of the disguisting smells of a smoker when they leave.

[perkyblue]

Poll should have #3 Question, Should smoking be baned in all cabins and balcony's. YES

 

I would agree with you on this one, except that it would just increase the amount of smoke in public places. I'd rather have them smoking in their own cabin than out in the public rooms where I have to either breathe their smoke or leave.

[perkyblue]

I think they should make all inside and oceanview cabins nonsmoking and the balcony cabins smoking. That way almost all of the cabins would be for the non smokers which should make them happy.

 

What?! No way, that would make the smoke on the balcony situation even worse, not to mention making it more difficult for non-smokers to get a balcony! Plus, they couldn't force all smokers into more expensive cabins.

[Onessa]

Didn't one of the huge hotel chains (was it Westin) go non-smoking? I wonder how they are doing. . . .

 

I know Marriott made all of their rooms "non smoking" sometime last summer (their Website had some problems when I was making a multiple room, multiple night stay reservation with a "non smoking" preference that just happened to span the smoking/non-smoking changeover date and the poor system puked). I stay at the Marriott Crystal City (near Washington National) and a Marriotts in the western Chicago suburbs and have informally asked the front desk staff (most still remind everyone checking in that the rooms are smoke free) -- and across the board they've all stated that bookings are up and they are getting more compliments on the policy than complaints. They have desingated smoking areas in the hotel, but the lobby, halls, and rooms are smoke free.

[Compass Rose]

Yes! It's called a SYSY fan............Suck Your Smoke Yourself! They used to sell them in a small shop in Northern Michigan............sorry, I misspelled your name!

[pjgoodx2]

Be it on the ship or at home visiting a local restaurant, I don't appreciate somebody else's *habit* infringing upon me. I have in-laws that smoke every waking minute with a drag between bites of food...yeah, imagine how well those meals go over. :eek:

 

To me, smoking infringes upon MY rights...though nothing I'm doing infringes upon the smoker and this is a huge injustice. As for on the ship, If I paid $1500/pp for my balcony, I should get to enjoy it smoke free just as X smoker gets to enjoy theirs w/o my doing anything that offends them. I take great pride in my physical appearance and that includes the way I *smell*. The stench left in my clothes/hair is embarrassing!!! In addition, myself and my son are horribly allergic to smoke so exposure to it leaves us quite sick. There isn't anything I'm doing to the smoker that does that. I guess I could conjure up as an offensive habit of loudly passing gas or picking my nose and (pretending to) eat what I find....I mean, it is my habit and I have the right...right? :rolleyes: I could always start coughing in their faces which'd be as offensive to them as they are being to me, yes? :p

 

Designated smoking areas, bars, casinos...ok, fine. I know what I am getting into by going to them....but my CABIN and where I eat? I draw the line there.

[silentbob007]

Westin was the hotel that has banned smoking ... last time I stayed in one, I was told there would be a $250 "cleaning fee" if I lit up while in the room.

[scoob70]

Twice in this thread there have been references to "smoke allergies".

 

Cigarette smoke is NOT an allergen. There is no protein present in cigarette smoke. In order for something to be an allergen, there must be a protein present.

 

Cigarette smoke IS an irritant, to be sure, and can cause reactions (NOT ALLERGIC REACTIONS!) to those with respiratory problems.

 

The US Surgeon General has stated that while extremely rare, smoke allergies have been diagnosed. These are not "Cigarette smoke" allergies, just generic smoke allergies. This occurs in about .0001% of the population. That's about 280 people nationwide.

 

Now, given that this particular allergy is nearly always part of a much larger immune system deficiency, those afflicted with it rarely live to make it out of the neonatal ICU. Any that do are relegated to a "Plastic Bubble"-type existence. How many people have you seen on cruises wearing their plastic bubble on formal night?

 

I know, some of you don't believe me because someone once told you that you were "allergic to smoke". Well then, call your doctor. Or your allergist. Or someone with access to some mind-bending modern website that can search billions of documents in nanoseconds just by entering a few keywords. You know, like Google.

 

Sorry all, I just can't stand the misuse of medical terminology. I'm not at all saying that there aren't perfectly legitmate health reasons for some people to avoid secondhand smoke. There are.

 

But allergic ain't one of 'em.

[pjgoodx2]

Twice in this thread there have been references to "smoke allergies".

 

Cigarette smoke is NOT an allergen. There is no protein present in cigarette smoke. In order for something to be an allergen, there must be a protein present.

 

Cigarette smoke IS an irritant, to be sure, and can cause reactions (NOT ALLERGIC REACTIONS!) to those with respiratory problems.

 

The US Surgeon General has stated that while extremely rare, smoke allergies have been diagnosed. These are not "Cigarette smoke" allergies, just generic smoke allergies. This occurs in about .0001% of the population. That's about 280 people nationwide.

 

Now, given that this particular allergy is nearly always part of a much larger immune system deficiency, those afflicted with it rarely live to make it out of the neonatal ICU. Any that do are relegated to a "Plastic Bubble"-type existence. How many people have you seen on cruises wearing their plastic bubble on formal night?

 

I know, some of you don't believe me because someone once told you that you were "allergic to smoke". Well then, call your doctor. Or your allergist. Or someone with access to some mind-bending modern website that can search billions of documents in nanoseconds just by entering a few keywords. You know, like Google.

 

Sorry all, I just can't stand the misuse of medical terminology. I'm not at all saying that there aren't perfectly legitmate health reasons for some people to avoid secondhand smoke. There are.

 

But allergic ain't one of 'em.

Whatever you want to label it, it is what it is.

 

It triggers my son's asthma (which is only triggered normally when he gets a cold), triggers my sinuses which makes my nose run and triggers a migraine to put a boozing night to shame.

 

I avoid bars, casinos and smoking restaurants, which is my right so if a smoker has to refrain from smoking in the cabins or on the balconies to those cabins it is the least they can do. I'm all for a smoke-free planet but that isn't realistic because it doesn't take into account people's needs to satisfy their habit so....hence the designated areas that I can CHOOSE to avoid/enter and not be FORCED to.

 

I ask the question: If a smoker and someone like me each paid X for a balcony....why should the smoker get to infringe upon me? What makes my right to fresh air less important than their need for a smoke?

[pjgoodx2]

Twice in this thread there have been references to "smoke allergies".

 

Cigarette smoke is NOT an allergen. There is no protein present in cigarette smoke. In order for something to be an allergen, there must be a protein present.

 

Cigarette smoke IS an irritant, to be sure, and can cause reactions (NOT ALLERGIC REACTIONS!) to those with respiratory problems.

 

The US Surgeon General has stated that while extremely rare, smoke allergies have been diagnosed. These are not "Cigarette smoke" allergies, just generic smoke allergies. This occurs in about .0001% of the population. That's about 280 people nationwide.

 

Now, given that this particular allergy is nearly always part of a much larger immune system deficiency, those afflicted with it rarely live to make it out of the neonatal ICU. Any that do are relegated to a "Plastic Bubble"-type existence. How many people have you seen on cruises wearing their plastic bubble on formal night?

 

I know, some of you don't believe me because someone once told you that you were "allergic to smoke". Well then, call your doctor. Or your allergist. Or someone with access to some mind-bending modern website that can search billions of documents in nanoseconds just by entering a few keywords. You know, like Google.

 

Sorry all, I just can't stand the misuse of medical terminology. I'm not at all saying that there aren't perfectly legitmate health reasons for some people to avoid secondhand smoke. There are.

 

But allergic ain't one of 'em.

Oh...and how about the fact that it just....plain....STINKS?

[Erie Dave]

You may not be getting some votes because you omitted a choice to make all ships non-smoking. Aside from the health risks and obvious personal feelings on this, fire is the biggest safety concern on a ship. I live in Pa and here they are currently working on a state ban on smoking in public buildings and workplaces. In my opinion, it is about time.

I did not vote in your poll because you are missing the most improtant and sensible option.

[DC2OC]

I'm sure smokers would agree that designated cabins is better than a complete ban.It must happen. It will work...........FRank