RCCL New Smoking Policy Discussion (merged)

[dc-snoopy]

#1...anyone remember the smoke free CCL Paradise??? That lasted a long time, eh?

 

It lasted six years...not such a short time either. And there were inherent flaws in the implementation of the line. Plus the fact that 1996-2002 was a much more smoker-friendly atmosphere, so the push for non-smoking facilities was just a little ahead of its time. It's like how "Lite" beer premiered ahead of its time and died. Then 10 years later became a huge marketing force and now has a very large niche in the beer market. Different times. Different results.

 

I can not help but wonder what is going to happen to the cleanliness on the RCI after the “no smoking” policy is implemented. If you read the new policy carefully it states that there will be an additional charge for cleaning if they find that someone has smoked in the cabin….WHY? Does this mean that the cabins will not be cleaned as well if there is no smoking? Before the malls went to no smoking you would walk through them, albeit with a cloud of smoke hanging in them, but there were always people cleaning; now you seldom if ever see anyone with a mop, gloves, or dust rag. If you really look closely, business is business, and if there is a way for a company to save money they will. The No Smoking Policies are in part a way for a company such as RCI to save money by cutting back on the time the stewards spend cleaning and using cleaning products. I can only wonder, if in the future we will be booking cruises with and without cabin service!!

After all, if the cabins are cleaner and fresher because they are “smoke free” what will the stewards be doing with their extra time? Think about it…how many things in a ours lives have been implemented with great fan fare under one guise and have turned over the years to become something else….As I have stated in other postings…this new policy is a bunch of hypocrisy by RCI and is just a “feel good” “politically correct” thing to do. I am allergic to heavy colognes and perfumes….are they going to charge the person who has doused themselves in it for 7 days to get rid of the odor on the pillows and fabrics…I don’t think they will at this point, but it is coming. More fees or dirty stinkier cabins…and the sad part, we are all being sucked in under this feel good politically correct policy!!!!! What is next....charging if the rooms are messy and the stewards have to work around the personal belongings?

 

This has been mentioned before and although it is a concern, I think that this is overrated as a concern. Just as rooms in non-smoking hotels are still serviced and cleaned, cabins on ships will also continue. As someone else mentioned, cleaning is a way of life on a ship and that will not change. What will change is that a normal cleaning will leave the cabin habitable by allergic passengers, whereas, now, even a special cleaning might not. The tar buildup on *ALL* porous surfaces is hard to get out even with the special cleaning. Getting out 99+% of an allergen still does not guarantee that a passenger will not have an allergic reaction. The way to avoid that is to just avoid the allergen. Although smoking on balconies will be less comfortable for nearby non-smokers (who do not make polite arrangements with their neighbors), this is still *FAR* more preferable than making someone sleep in an enclosed area with allergens that they react to. The former is an irritation. The latter is a health concern.

 

Also, your conclusions are not supported by empirical data from non-smoking hotels. On occasion when I am alone and not traveling with my wife, I have stayed in smoking rooms in a mixed hotel. I would say that even at above average facilities, I would only do that in desperation because the tar and nicotine buildup is noticeable and deplorable. The non-smoking rooms are almost always significantly cleaner. Less work produces a superior effect. That doesn't mean insufficient cleaning, it means less work to produce a cleaner product. Why is this likely to be different on a cruise ship?

[EMTgoneNUTZ]

Remember, it was a smoker who caused a massive, deadly fire aboard a Princess ship a couple of years ago. I as a non-smoker is pleased with the changes. I was on the Freedom in May, and they allowed smoking totally in one of lounges and you couldn't even sit in there because of all the smoke. Do you smokers ever consider the health of the staff in these places when you smoke? I hate to be a downer and let the sparks begin. I realize that smoking is a bad habit and hard to give up.

 

Sorry.

 

Just because one smoker caused a fire doesn't mean ALL smokers are careless. :rolleyes: I have NEVER in my 17 years of smoking dropped a cigarette and burned carpet, furniture, car interior, etc., let alone caused a fire. That's like saying that because ONE male driver caused a car accident that ALL male drivers will cause one.:rolleyes: And you're right, smoking IS a bad habit, and it is not "hard to give up", it's nearly impossible! (unfortunately) Being disabled (due to an on the job injury, and continuously lifting overweight patients that had a bad habit of their own...food...)and beng stuck in my home pretty much 24/7, it's the one vice I have and will be the most difficult thing I've ever had to do when the day comes I am able to try to quit. With the cost of the cigs plus the tax the State of Michigan keeps raising on them, it's an avg. of $5.30 per pack. Certainly a lot of money that could go towards purchasing more cruises in the future...if only it were that easy. Some people scratch themselves, :eek: others pick their nose, :rolleyes: others constantly interrupt during conversations. We ALL have bad habits, but in my experience, at least smokers are among the first to ADMIT to having said bad habit!

Back to RCCL's policy...I'm not saying it's the most horrible thing in the world, but they also have to be fair if they intend to keep their ships full. I still say the back (aft)1/3-1/2 of the ship should be smoking rooms, and the front 2/3-1/2 be non smoking. It would be impossible for the smoke to go from the rear of the ship to the front while the ship is moving forward, right? That way everyone gets a balcony, and the choice to have a smoking or non smoking room is there. How many people, when asked at a hotel or restaurant "smoking or non?" say "doesn't matter, whatever's available"? I hear it all the time. I'm sure there would be some on cruise lines as well. As far as having smoking on one side of the open decks, I think that's a great idea and from what I've seen, the majority of smokers have NO PROBLEM adhering to that policy. It's the NON-smokers that are doing the most complaining about it, not the smokers who are the ones forced to stay in their own little smoking corners.:rolleyes:

You can't EVER please everyone.....so find a compromise and deal with it, rather than complaining that it's never good enough, no matter WHICH side of the debate you're on.

[alcheme]

Just because one smoker caused a fire doesn't mean ALL smokers are careless. :rolleyes: I have NEVER in my 17 years of smoking dropped a cigarette and burned carpet, furniture, car interior, etc., let alone caused a fire. That's like saying that because ONE male driver caused a car accident that ALL male drivers will cause one.:rolleyes:

 

Way off base. Saying it was a smoker that caused that fire is not even close to saying that all smokers are careless. But some smokers are careless, and many, many fires (and I'm talking in general, not just cruise ships) have been cause by careless smokers.

 

So if you want a driving parallel, it might be closer to saying something like using a cell phone while driving sometimes leads to accidents, so we should consider restricting cell phone use in cars. I'm sure there are millions of people who've used cell phones while driving, without causing an accident. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[vjmatty]

Way off base. Saying it was a smoker that caused that fire is not even close to saying that all smokers are careless. But some smokers are careless, and many, many fires (and I'm talking in general, not just cruise ships) have been cause by careless smokers.

 

If we are going to talk about everywhere and not just cruise ships, many more fires have been caused by electrical problems... should we ban electricity too? And if you do want to talk about ships, eliminating smoking because of one fire is like banning drinking because of people jumping over board.

[DC2OC]

Just because one smoker caused a fire doesn't mean ALL smokers are careless. :rolleyes: I have NEVER in my 17 years of smoking dropped a cigarette and burned carpet, furniture, car interior, etc., let alone caused a fire. That's like saying that because ONE male driver caused a car accident that ALL male drivers will cause one.:rolleyes: And you're right, smoking IS a bad habit, and it is not "hard to give up", it's nearly impossible! (unfortunately) Being disabled (due to an on the job injury, and continuously lifting overweight patients that had a bad habit of their own...food...)and beng stuck in my home pretty much 24/7, it's the one vice I have and will be the most difficult thing I've ever had to do when the day comes I am able to try to quit. With the cost of the cigs plus the tax the State of Michigan keeps raising on them, it's an avg. of $5.30 per pack. Certainly a lot of money that could go towards purchasing more cruises in the future...if only it were that easy. Some people scratch themselves, :eek: others pick their nose, :rolleyes: others constantly interrupt during conversations. We ALL have bad habits, but in my experience, at least smokers are among the first to ADMIT to having said bad habit!

 

Back to RCCL's policy...I'm not saying it's the most horrible thing in the world, but they also have to be fair if they intend to keep their ships full. I still say the back (aft)1/3-1/2 of the ship should be smoking rooms, and the front 2/3-1/2 be non smoking. It would be impossible for the smoke to go from the rear of the ship to the front while the ship is moving forward, right? That way everyone gets a balcony, and the choice to have a smoking or non smoking room is there. How many people, when asked at a hotel or restaurant "smoking or non?" say "doesn't matter, whatever's available"? I hear it all the time. I'm sure there would be some on cruise lines as well. As far as having smoking on one side of the open decks, I think that's a great idea and from what I've seen, the majority of smokers have NO PROBLEM adhering to that policy. It's the NON-smokers that are doing the most complaining about it, not the smokers who are the ones forced to stay in their own little smoking corners.:rolleyes:

 

You can't EVER please everyone.....so find a compromise and deal with it, rather than complaining that it's never good enough, no matter WHICH side of the debate you're on.

 

 

I agree more needs to be done to reach a compromise ,but feel no matter what's done some smokers would whine.Smoking should be confined to a small area of the ship.A smoker does not have the right to smoke anywhere they please or to inflict their health risk on others and the non-smoker has every right to expect the majority of the ship to be smoke free

[vjmatty]

I agee more needs to be done to reach a compromise ,but feel no matter what you do smokers would whine.Most of the whinning on this thread seems to be from smokers who want half the ship smoking even though they are only 25% of the passengers tops

 

For every smoker that whines about smoking being restricted there is a non-smoker complaining about smokers even when they are smoking in legitimate smoking areas. I think there is plenty of whining to go around here.

[alcheme]

If we are going to talk about everywhere and not just cruise ships, many more fires have been caused by electrical problems... should we ban electricity too? And if you do want to talk about ships, eliminating smoking because of one fire is like banning drinking because of people jumping over board.

 

My message was disputing a poster who said that saying that fire was caused by a smoker was the same as saying all smokers are careless. That was not a logical conclusion. Your electricity analogy is not much better. They have not banned smoking; they have placed some restrictions on it (and for several reasons, not only because of the fire hazard). Electricity can be hazardous too, which is why there are many restrictions put on it, mainly through building codes.

[island lady]

Or many smokers who cannot afford balconies or nonsmokers who don't like all that balcony smoke will be moving to Carnival? I have not understood why like most hotels, there are not smoking and non smoking rooms available.

 

I think you will find, if you travel in hotels a lot like my DH does, that many hotels are now going totally smoke free.

 

In fact he has more trouble trying to book a room, at the last minute at a hotel, when asking for a smoke free room. He is offered only the left over "smokers rooms". They are the last to be booked, as no one wants them. Including my DH, who will then book elsewhere.

 

The hotels, including many large chains now, are saving a lot of money by going smoke free with the cleaning expenses reduced and the insurance rate drops.

 

Cheers! :)

[massfriends]

COMPROMISE !!!

IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW!!

[cruiserbryce]

The hotels, including many large chains now, are saving a lot of money by going smoke free with the cleaning expenses reduced and the insurance rate drops.

 

as well as the inconvinience placed on the hotel when the place is sold out and all you have is smoking rooms for non smoking guests. I work for a company that owns 4 hotels here in Southern California...3 of the 4 are completly non smoking

[Captain Jake]

If we are going to talk about everywhere and not just cruise ships, many more fires have been caused by electrical problems... should we ban electricity too? And if you do want to talk about ships, eliminating smoking because of one fire is like banning drinking because of people jumping over board.

 

But was the drunk who jumped overboard a smoker who lost his money in the casino?:rolleyes:-(just kidding)after all its been pointed out that smokers drink and gamble more,not as if there is anything wrong with that

[island lady]

as well as the inconvinience placed on the hotel when the place is sold out and all you have is smoking rooms for non smoking guests. I work for a company that owns 4 hotels here in Southern California...3 of the 4 are completly non smoking

 

I could definitely see why.

 

Cheers! :)

[ClevelandRox]

IF YOU WANT NON-SMOKING CASINOS, SAIL ON PRINCESS. THEY HAVE GONE COMPLETELY NON-SMOKING FOR HALF OF THE CRUISE in the Casino.

 

Of course, the casinos are almost completely empty on those nights because, as Carnival learned long ago....GAMBLERS ARE ALSO SMOKERS AND DRINKERS! That is why the Carnival Paradise had to allow smoking after its 6 year experiment--the Paradise bled money without the smokers.

[OGCFreddie]

COMPROMISE !!!

IT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW!!

 

Massfriends, I don't think compromise is a word that some of these posters know (although many of them do). The die-hard smokers will always think that they're right, and the die-hard non-smokers will always think that they're right. Like many children, they'll just have to fight back and forth until they realize that nobody has won and no progress has been made.

[Captain Jake]

IF YOU WANT NON-SMOKING CASINOS, SAIL ON PRINCESS. THEY HAVE GONE COMPLETELY NON-SMOKING FOR HALF OF THE CRUISE in the Casino.

 

Of course, the casinos are almost completely empty on those nights because, as Carnival learned long ago....GAMBLERS ARE ALSO SMOKERS AND DRINKERS! That is why the Carnival Paradise had to allow smoking after its 6 year experiment--the Paradise bled money without the smokers.

 

Perhaps non-smokers have learned to live without the casino.Maybe if they(cruiselines) weren't so greedy with their take one wouldn't have to smoke or drink to gamble

[EMTgoneNUTZ]

I agree more needs to be done to reach a compromise ,but feel no matter what's done some smokers would whine.Smoking should be confined to a small area of the ship.A smoker does not have the right to smoke anywhere they please or to inflict their health risk on others and the non-smoker has every right to expect the majority of the ship to be smoke free

 

Well there's a compromise! So you're saying the smokers have no rights and the non-smokers have ALL the rights? So much for freedom.....

From what I've seen on this thread, as well as the numerous other "smoking vs. non-smoking" threads, it seems the smokers are the ones MOST willing to compromise, because we just want OUR OWN SPACE to smoke (our cabins and balconies, that we're paying the same thousands of dollars for you are) while you non-smokers don't think we shoud be allowed to smoke ANYWHERE. Heck, some go so far as to say we shouldn't even be allowed to smoke in our own cars or homes for pete's sake! COMPROMISE...look it up in the dictionary, then revisit with the meaning, not your opinion of what compromise SHOULD mean. I would gladly stay in my cabin and ONLY in my cabin (and/or balcony) to smoke if that were the only place I could smoke, but that's not good enough because I just might offend someone 4 decks higher and 200 feet forward of my location with my "puffing":rolleyes:

Again, as it was said earlier.....to us smokers, RCCL has gone too far, and to you non-smokers, they haven't gone far enough. SO, as I said, let them find a FAIR compromise that will appease all-but in order for that to happen, there HAS to be give and take on BOTH sides, not one side gets their way and the other just has to deal with it.....:mad:

[TXSailor]

...but feel no matter what's done some smokers would whine.Smoking should be confined to a small area of the ship.A smoker does not have the right to smoke anywhere they please or to inflict their health risk on others and the non-smoker has every right to expect the majority of the ship to be smoke free

 

A smoker does not have the right to smoke anywhere they please or to inflict their health risk on others

 

And you have the right to walk everywhere and not drive your car and inflict a health risk as well....you choose.

 

When are non-smokers going to get off their hypocritical mentality? They act as if they don't cause any health risks themselves.

 

I challenge every non-smoker to put their actions where their mouths are, start walking to your cruises...don't drive and don't fly....because these two methods of transportation are a health hazard to everyone..including Mother Earth(its been proven already). Just remember, while you are walking to your cruise, I'll be passing you in my Hummer while smoking a cigarette and listening to my favorite cruise music. ;)

 

Fausto

[tampagal61]

I don't think smoking should be allowed in any of the cabins. No matter what they can try and do, you cannot get the smell of smoke out of the materials. If you want to smoke go outside.

 

I was one of those who voted for the smoking ban in Florida.

 

I'm sorry to be so harsh but I object to being assaulted by smoke. I really don't enjoy going to bars because I don't like getting smoke in my system and on my clothes.

 

I think the Brits are going in the right direction. May all the countries follow.

 

I agree. When making hotel reservations I always request a non-smoking room. My November cruise will be my first, and when I read that smoking as allowed in the cabins, I have become concerned.

 

When the vote to ban smoking came up in Florida, I so wished I could have voted more than once!!!

[alcheme]

And you have the right to walk everywhere and not drive your car and inflict a health risk as well....you choose.

 

Oh, yeah. There's a good example. :rolleyes: There are no restrictions at all on driving cars, right? I don't know about where you live, but I am limited on where I'm allowed to drive my car (it's pretty much restricted to the roadways, which are almost exclusively outdoor, btw ;)), plus I have to have an inspection done every year to ensure my car and its emission control system are operating properly, plus I'm limited on how fast I can drive, what kinds of fuels I can use . . . and that doesn't even get into the regulations the manufacturer of my car had to follow in designing and building it.

[robnmac]

Going non smoking is a non brainer.

[dc-snoopy]

Just because one smoker caused a fire doesn't mean ALL smokers are careless. :rolleyes: I have NEVER in my 17 years of smoking dropped a cigarette and burned carpet, furniture, car interior, etc., let alone caused a fire. That's like saying that because ONE male driver caused a car accident that ALL male drivers will cause one.:rolleyes: And you're right, smoking IS a bad habit, and it is not "hard to give up", it's nearly impossible! (unfortunately)

 

No, your analogy is faulty. All RCI has stated is that smokers cause an increased risk of fire due to them having combustible products (matches and lighters) and lit products. This does not equate by any means to ALL. It says that smokers as a group have one additional risk factor that is significant in increasing the risk of fires. It doesn't say they are necessarily more careless, but that the risk goes up when there is a group of passengers that regularly handles combustible materials and fire. And insurance companies charge them more if there is indoor smoking (I know I was asked from my homeowners insurance policy if anyone in the household smoked indoors). And I would guess for a cruiseline that allowing passengers to smoke inside staterooms is more expensive insurance-wise than not allowing smoking inside staterooms.

 

The analogy is closer to saying that male drivers under 25 are a greater risk and they charge higher insurance rates to cover them. It doesn't state that all males under 25 are careless and costly, it says that the risk to insure them is higher due to the higher rate of claims. I had one minor accident when I was under 25 and although it was not very costly, my rates from 18-25 for auto insurance cost more than twice what my rate was after I passed 25. The difference in rates for my premium for those 7 years was about 4 times what the accident cost, but I had to pay the premium to ensure I was covered. But, I paid it. I had the choice to not pay and either drive uninsured or not drive. I paid.

 

RCI has made the decision to restrict the smoking. You can adhere to the policy or sail another cruise line or pay the penalty.

[bluejeans]

Going non smoking is a non brainer.

 

It won't take brains, just guts. We'll see if RCCL has them.

 

Really don't see it happening.

[pmshirl]

Unreal! They stopped smoking in cabins (because it is indoors) and the insurance cost is less for the cruiseline. Aren't the Casino's INSURED! This is getting more and more bizzare as the beat goes on.

[dc-snoopy]

Unreal! They stopped smoking in cabins (because it is indoors) and the insurance cost is less for the cruiseline. Aren't the Casino's INSURED! This is getting more and more bizzare as the beat goes on.

 

Smoking in bedrooms is considered one of the greatest hazards of indoor smoking. Hence there is a very different standard for a private sleeping area like the cabins vs public areas like the Casino. Hotels have had this problem for years. The insurance rates for allowing smoking in sleeping rooms in hotels is significantly higher than just about any other room in the hotel. The same should be true for the cruise industry.

[alcheme]

Unreal! They stopped smoking in cabins (because it is indoors) and the insurance cost is less for the cruiseline. Aren't the Casino's INSURED! This is getting more and more bizzare as the beat goes on.

 

Yes. The casino is indoors. But probably the most common causes of smoking related fires is when a person either a) falls asleep with cigarette in hand or smoldering somewhere nearby and (because they're asleep) don't immediately notice that a fire is starting or b) discards a cigarette among flammable materials such as papers in a trash can or dry grass on the ground. If you're in the casino, you're probably not going to fall asleep, and if you are careless with disposing of a cigarette, someone's probably going to notice pretty quickly and grab a fire extinguisher.

 

There's definitely a difference in risk between smoking in cabins vs. casino.

 

 

Edit: I see snoopy already made this point above as I was typing. He must be a rocket scientist, too. :D