RCCL New Smoking Policy Discussion (merged)

[alcheme]

I believe snoopy and you will probably concur, that individuals have the right to smoke ( its not illegal) until rules and laws make that no longer a right.

 

I believe it's just that you and I have different interpretations of what it means to have a "right" to something. To me that means more than whether or not it is legal. In fact, in my concept, even if there were a law against something, I could challenge that law, if I felt it deprived me of some inherent right. Lawmakers can and have put restrictions on smoking. Business establishments can and have put restrictions on smoking in their establishments. That's what I was trying to express. If the cruise line wants to say no smoking in the cabins (or no smoking at all, for that matter), they can, and you wouldn't get very far trying to claim that it infringed on home inherent right that you have.

[Captain Jake]

:eek: Mee-YOW! I am not even a smoker other than with an occaional drink a few times per year, hardly what I would call a habit. Just because I support logic and ask questions about studies doesn't mean I engage in "filthy habits", unless you consider the act of dialogue to be filthy? :rolleyes: Lighten up Frances. :p

 

Sorry then.Some smokers want us to believe second hand smoke is safer than city air,but since we don't live in the city and enjoy clean air from the Atlantic anyway a heavy wiff of smoke on a cruise is pollution to us.We do get pollen from the trees in the spring which we get away from on cruises

[vjmatty]

I believe it's just that you and I have different interpretations of what it means to have a "right" to something. To me that means more than whether or not it is legal. In fact, in my concept, even if there were a law against something, I could challenge that law, if I felt it deprived me of some inherent right. Lawmakers can and have put restrictions on smoking. Business establishments can and have put restrictions on smoking in their establishments. That's what I was trying to express. If the cruise line wants to say no smoking in the cabins (or no smoking at all, for that matter), they can, and you wouldn't get very far trying to claim that it infringed on home inherent right that you have.

 

Ok here is where we get into difficulties... no right is absolute, i.e. the right to free speech does not allow you to say FIRE in a crowded movie theater, and I won't even get into the Patriot Act making Swiss cheese out of our Bill of Rights.... Yes, there is a right to smoke, but not anywhere you want to. Yes there is a right to be in a smoke-free environment, but not if you choose a cruise line that is less smoke-restricted, or if you enter a smoking section. It is like saying you have a right to bear arms, doesn't mean you can walk downtown with an AR-15 fully loaded. Having the right against warrantless searches has many exceptions also.

 

Bottom line, all rights are within reason... smoking v. mon-smoking included.

[vjmatty]

Sorry then.Some smokers want us to believe second hand smoke is safer than city air,but since we don't live in the city and enjoy clean air from the Atlantic anyway a heavy wiff of smoke on a cruise is pollution to us.We do get pollen from the trees in the spring which we get away from on cruises

 

I hear you on the pollen... in fact when does the season end? I like to keep my windows open and its all over my desk :mad:

 

Not sure where you are, but I am in the mountains of NY and live on a lake, however in spite of being miles from any city we have an extremely high rate of breast and prostate cancer in this area. Not sure if it is the aluminum plant to the north or the paper mill to the south, but something "ain't right" about it. I guess no air is truly clean unless you are in an incubator :(

[Chris3679]

If you were an *ethical* science professional, and a real scientist, you would be appalled at a study that ignored 2/3s of the data, then doubled the margin of error, then doubled *that* number, to come up with 3,000 imaginary deaths in a population of 300 million people. The EPA report was rejected by a Federal Judge because it manipulated data.

http://www.heartland.org/archives/environment/sep98/smoke.htm

Bottom line is that the Federal Court's intervention came too late. The damage was done.

 

Here is a detailed look at three of the major SHS studies. The first, the EPA 1993 report, http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html is the basis for most of the SHS legislation and restrictions in the US. Once you see exactly what they did, and how they did it, you may never trust the EPA again. The second study, http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html carefully conducted by the World Health Organization, had some very surprising results. There are also two pages on the Helena http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helena.html study, including a look at the authors own chart. It provides a good example of the dishonesty and outright fraud practiced by the anti-smoker movement.

[rsscaptain]

The arrangement has already been made. RCCL says smoke on the balcony.

 

I was refering to before this arangement was made. If you read my post further you would have seen where I said that the rules include smoking on balconies. So be it!

[rsscaptain]

Double

[alcheme]

Ok here is where we get into difficulties... no right is absolute, i.e. the right to free speech does not allow you to say FIRE in a crowded movie theater, and I won't even get into the Patriot Act making Swiss cheese out of our Bill of Rights.... Yes, there is a right to smoke, but not anywhere you want to. Yes there is a right to be in a smoke-free environment, but not if you choose a cruise line that is less smoke-restricted, or if you enter a smoking section. It is like saying you have a right to bear arms, doesn't mean you can walk downtown with an AR-15 fully loaded. Having the right against warrantless searches has many exceptions also.

 

Bottom line, all rights are within reason... smoking v. mon-smoking included.

 

I hear you. Unfortunately, these debates sometimes drift away from the original context. I started disagreeing with this "right to smoke" in response to a poster who said:

 

And I totally feel that everyone is entitled to make choices in life, and I think chosing whether to have a smoking room or non-smoking room, on a ship, hotel, restaurant, etc. should be a choice everyone is able to make.

 

That poster seemed to be thinking of it as some kind of absolute right that a hotel or restaurant or cruise line must accommodate for him.

[Captain Jake]

If you were an *ethical* science professional, and a real scientist, you would be appalled at a study that ignored 2/3s of the data, then doubled the margin of error, then doubled *that* number, to come up with 3,000 imaginary deaths in a population of 300 million people. The EPA report was rejected by a Federal Judge because it manipulated data.

http://www.heartland.org/archives/environment/sep98/smoke.htm

Bottom line is that the Federal Court's intervention came too late. The damage was done.

 

Here is a detailed look at three of the major SHS studies. The first, the EPA 1993 report, http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html is the basis for most of the SHS legislation and restrictions in the US. Once you see exactly what they did, and how they did it, you may never trust the EPA again. The second study, http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html carefully conducted by the World Health Organization, had some very surprising results. There are also two pages on the Helena http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helena.html study, including a look at the authors own chart. It provides a good example of the dishonesty and outright fraud practiced by the anti-smoker movement.

 

 

I guess I believe in the Data of friends and co-workers who died as a result of smoking or have health issued from the effects to some bogus web sites posted by someone who wants to inflict their habit on others.You have a right to smoke and I have a right to avoid by any means and if that means supporting candidates and corps that support my point of view and writing letters,ect as follow ups

[ClevelandRox]

Believe me...Carnival would NOT have made Paradise a smoking ship if they were making money.

 

Families are not the core group that a cruise line wants, since they are notoriously cheap. Families don't spend money in the bars and casinos--which is about the only place a cruise line can make money besides the tours and the original booking cost.

 

The bars and casino are HUGE money makers for ships. Smokers, drinkers and gamblers are coveted by cruise lines.

 

Being a big gambler myself, I am offered FREE cabins on Celebrity and RC because they know I will be in the casino every night.

 

Carnival had to spin it by talking out of both sides of their mouth, but if they wanted to keep Paradise non smoking, they would have just traded thier iternary with another of their many ships.

 

Out of the hundreds of super cruiseliners out there, it seems pretty obvious why there are no American non smoking ships!! It always comes down to the bottom line--they just aren't profitable.

[NthernLgts]

Well done RCCL!!!! It's about time a major cruise line implemented a consistent no-smoking policy across it's entire fleet. Many of us who bring our young children aboard agree with the decision not only because it sets a better role model, but also for everyone's safety (Star Princess fire) and health! Well done RCCL.

Scoobs9

Liberty of the Seas - March 08

 

Cmon Scoobs, What RCL implemented was FAR from a "no-smoking policy across it's entire fleet". If you were to poll current smokers, I would guess the vast majority of them dont even smoke in their cabin. My wife is a smoker and has never taken a puff in our house, let alone a 150 sf stateroom. I do think RCCL's policy is reasonable. However, before anyone pines for an outright ban perhaps you might think about where the cruiseline will make up that 25-30% revenue drop from losing smokers. These people arent making a political statement, they are addicted and simply will not cruise. Will those left be willing to pay the difference? Nope.

[Captain Jake]

Everyone is already well aware of your feelings, give it a rest already.

 

....and yours too.I was simply responding to the same tired post

[Captain Jake]

Cmon Scoobs, What RCL implemented was FAR from a "no-smoking policy across it's entire fleet". If you were to poll current smokers, I would guess the vast majority of them dont even smoke in their cabin. My wife is a smoker and has never taken a puff in our house, let alone a 150 sf stateroom. I do think RCCL's policy is reasonable. However, before anyone pines for an outright ban perhaps you might think about where the cruiseline will make up that 25-30% revenue drop from losing smokers. These people arent making a political statement, they are addicted and simply will not cruise. Will those left be willing to pay the difference? Nope.[/quote

............willing to pay the difference,yup!'''''''

[NthernLgts]

Believe me...Carnival would NOT have made Paradise a smoking ship if they were making money.

 

Families are not the core group that a cruise line wants, since they are notoriously cheap. Families don't spend money in the bars and casinos--which is about the only place a cruise line can make money besides the tours and the original booking cost.

 

The bars and casino are HUGE money makers for ships. Smokers, drinkers and gamblers are coveted by cruise lines.

 

Being a big gambler myself, I am offered FREE cabins on Celebrity and RC because they know I will be in the casino every night.

 

Carnival had to spin it by talking out of both sides of their mouth, but if they wanted to keep Paradise non smoking, they would have just traded thier iternary with another of their many ships.

 

Out of the hundreds of super cruiseliners out there, it seems pretty obvious why there are no American non smoking ships!! It always comes down to the bottom line--they just aren't profitable.

 

You got it right. What too many people here do not understand is that if a business decision makes 20-30% of its customers ticked off, it is a bad proposition (a REALLY bad one). The other thing I have heard regarding the Paradise was from some Californians stating that 'if only the ship had come to the West Coast sooner it would have worked'. What rubish. Are we are supposed to believe that those same people had the means to make a CA based non smoking ship work, but not one sailing from FL:rolleyes:?

[GottaLuvCruising]

What too many people here do not understand is that if a business decision makes 20-30% of its customers ticked off, it is a bad proposition (a REALLY bad one).

 

But a business decision that makes 70% to 80% of its customers HAPPY is a GOOD proposition.

[ClevelandRox]

Northern Lights,

 

Be aware that by the time you sail on Princess, there will probably be no smoking in the casinos. They had THREE non smoking days on my recent 12 day cruise.

 

I am canceling my Australia sailing on them and won't sail them anymore. I only smoke when I gamble, but drinking and gambling go together. As I said before, I think they are foolish because the casinos were empty on the non smoking nights.

 

Carnival Festival Dec. 1978

Carnival Festival May 1979

Carnival Festival May 1980

Mardi Gras 1981

Tropical Jan. 1982

Norway 1984 (Honeymoon)

Festival 1985

Emerald Princess 1985

Emerald Princess 1986

Holiday 1986

Fantasy 1987

Fantasy 1988

Ecstasy 1989

Holiday 1990

Noordamm 1991

Sensation 1993

Empress 1994

Empress 1995

Fascination 1996

Imagination 1997

Inspiration 1998

Royal Princess 2000 (Med. first Europe)

Royal Princess 2001 ((Egypt)

Sun Princess 2001 (Panama)

Constellation 2002 (Hamburg)

Summit 2002

Brilliance of Seas 2003 (Canal)

Constellation 2004 (Fjords)

Diamond Princess 2004 (Alaska)

Millennium 2004

Legend 2004 (Hawaii)

Enchantment 2005

Miracle 2005

Liberty 2005 (Sicily, Venice)

Grandeur 2006

Triumph 2006

Constellation 2006 (Russia)

Star Princess 2007

Grand Princess 2007 (Fjords)

Sapphire Princess 2008 (Aus/New Z)

[alcheme]

You got it right. What too many people here do not understand is that if a business decision makes 20-30% of its customers ticked off, it is a bad proposition (a REALLY bad one).

 

That's not necessarily true. If you tick off 20% of your customers, but attract twice as many new customers as the ones you ticked off, it could actually be a good proposition (a REALLY good one).

 

I'm not saying that's what would happen, or what did happen in this one case. I'm just saying that your logic is off. Alienating a portion of your current customer base doesn't automatically make for a bad business decision.

[NthernLgts]

............willing to pay the difference,yup!'''''''

 

Highly doubtful Jake.....highly doubtful as in not a snowballs chance doubtful. Jake, in briefly looking at your posts it appears well over half of them are regarding smoking. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but the militants on both sides of this issue will largely be relegated to the sidelines as the decisions are simply too important to be decided by the zealots.

[NthernLgts]

That's not necessarily true. If you tick off 20% of your customers, but attract twice as many new customers as the ones you ticked off, it could actually be a good proposition (a REALLY good one).

 

I'm not saying that's what would happen, or what did happen in this one case. I'm just saying that your logic is off. Alienating a portion of your current customer base doesn't automatically make for a bad business decision.

 

It may sound arrogant, but that will not happen in this instance, and cruiselines know it. It is the reason why what you suggest hasnt happened a decade (or more) ago, and why the limited experiments have failed.

[vjmatty]

 

Being a big gambler myself, I am offered FREE cabins on Celebrity and RC because they know I will be in the casino every night.

 

 

Um, how can I get in on this? I don't gamble but for free rooms I will visit the casino every night too :D

[Mines]

I have just been reading this posting from a thread discussing the differences between Carnival and RCI.

 

What we like on Carnival are the last minute price bargains, larger cabins, $3 casino table games specials, kareoke, and of course, the pizza with caesar salad and ice cream 24 hours.

 

The biggest problem for me on ships is smoking. The older Carnival ships in the Fantasy Class have a hallway running the side of the ship so you don't get stuck breathing in smoke when you pass the casino. RCCL always makes you walk thru the smoke filled caisno on their ships to get to the theater. You even have to walk thru the smoke filled Schooner Bar to get to the specialty restaurants and main lounge on Jewel of the Seas (which we are sailing next year).

 

I think that RCL management should take note of comment like this when designing a smoking policy that does not go nearly far ernough.

[iriemon]

Oh give me a break, RCCL is doing this for the health of their passengers! If they are going to do something at least let them be truthful about it. It is all about money(and with their stock dropping like a rock maybe it is needed). Less money spent cleaning. Funny they don't care about the "health" of their passengers in the casino - that may cut down on their revenue. Or what about the health of their crew that they get from underdeveloped countries and barely pay them. Or the health of their passengers who drink too much. Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the new rule, I just can't stand being though of as a gullible idiot. We will be on Mariner in March and hope to come back much "healthier"!

[ClevelandRox]

:D

 

I get this offer through a company called CASINOS The Grand Collection. They specialize in high rollers. They look at your wagering history in Vegas, AC, etc...and know if you are a true gambler.

 

Unfortunately, I do fall into that category. They give me up to $1800 off my cabin if I will sail on Celebrity or RC. NCL also gives gamblers incentives.

 

Believe me, it is cheaper to just pay for your cabin and stay out of the casino...which I might do if the cruise lines ever go no smoking in the casinos.

 

In fact, I wouldn't even cruise anymore...I'll stick with Vegas.

[vjmatty]

 

Believe me, it is cheaper to just pay for your cabin and stay out of the casino...

 

I figured this might be the case.. but at least you have something to show for all of the money you lose. Or kind of like paying for your room but playing in the casino for free ;)

[NthernLgts]

:D

 

I get this offer through a company called CASINOS The Grand Collection. They specialize in high rollers. They look at your wagering history in Vegas, AC, etc...and know if you are a true gambler.

 

Unfortunately, I do fall into that category. They give me up to $1800 off my cabin if I will sail on Celebrity or RC. NCL also gives gamblers incentives.

 

Believe me, it is cheaper to just pay for your cabin and stay out of the casino...which I might do if the cruise lines ever go no smoking in the casinos.

 

In fact, I wouldn't even cruise anymore...I'll stick with Vegas.

 

My case, Im definately a 'low roller' and non-smoker, but still would wind up not cruising if a ban were to ever go into effect because my spouse is a smoker. We cruise together or not at all.