Smoking Policy from a Brits point of view!

[FanofFlorida]

I didnt try to read all the comments on this thread because I only have an hour for lunch:p

However, I find the subject interesting, and since I recently read the OP's comments.....

RCI most likely will consider a higher ratio of smokers in Europe and will have to make a decision about their policies. supply and demand- if other cruiselines are cool with smoking and it is that big of a deal to people.

 

It would be nice to just book a non-smoking cruise. I really dont mind the minimal smoking areas.... I just quit smoking :rolleyes: (go ahead and eye roll) and never was an inside smoker anyway. In fact, on our most recent cruise, it felt strange to smoke inside. I suppose I am used to it because of local smoking bans- I cant think of a single indoor public establishment where I can smoke. Only booked a smoking room at a hotel once (yuk) and I didnt smoke in my home either.... rambling...

NOT all smokers are completely inconsiderate and will follow rules. It used to take me 45 minutes to have a smoke at an airport considering I had to go outside to a designated area and then back through security. I would have gone anywhere on the ship when I needed a smoke. It is just understood.

 

on another comment.... just because I love kids

RE:

Originally Posted by HurricaneSally

And your generation is doing such a good job that your kids never learn how to lose a game, can't handle discipline, can't take "no" for an answer, and have you busy trying to take away the freedom of others, instead of teaching your children values.

 

To which generation you are speaking to I dont know, but... I have teen agers who wouldnt think of smoking and are very aware of the potential harm of 2nd hand smoke. I would not say that the new generation doesnt care or have values. On the contrary, they care VERY much about what people are doing to each other. (They just dont care if their hair is washed or they have worn the same pair of wholly jeans for a month:confused: ) The kids at school now think virginity is a cool thing and really hate war...

 

Of course, I am an X-gen raising Y-gens; I actually let my kids fail a class when they dont do their homework; they also do the dishes and clean the bathroom. AND they didnt go on the cruise with me- MEAN mom....;)

[abcten]

Actually, the issue that Allie wrongly brings up about the WHO, is the disinformation that is spread by the Tobacco industry. Allie has admitted to not being able to find her information on the WHO site and it is no wonder....it is not there.....never was.

 

However here is a link to one group that has research some of the disinformation from tobacco companies that some of the smokers have latched on to as gospel and coming from the WHO. I wish some on this thread practice what they preach and I quote:

 

"You can believe all the PC junk you've been spoon fed. Me? I prefer to look at what actual SCIENTISTS say - from a study by actual SCIENTISTS - commissioned by the World Health Organization.

( http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=800370&page=9 ).

 

Now I posted several links to the WHO or supporting organizations on this topic. (page 13 post #243 ) ( http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=800370&page=13 ). Will this lead to a change of heart. As I posted originally, I doubt it as it does not support the behavior. However I hope it will lead to the end of citing in almost every other post, disinformation concerning the WHO.

 

Fo those of you interested in a perspective on disinformation from the tobacco industry, here is a link for your perusal.

 

http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/Secondhand/Secondhand_iih_internal_1.cfm

 

Also from the WHO itself:

 

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

 

Thanks for bringing this information to our attention. For someone to knowingly and willingly spread false information on the health aspects of second hand smoke is really about as low as a person can get. But as many have already pointed out on this thread, drug addicts will stop at nothing to perpetuate and justify their habit no matter who they have to trample to accomplish it.

[AllieInMD]

YAWN - some random person on the internet calls the World Health Organization 'voodoo science' - yep - let's all listen to that person :cool:

 

 

To buy but in most public places it IS NOT legal to smoke and MY GENERATION plans to keep it that way and do not believe for one second that we are foolish enough to believe your VOODOO science

[AllieInMD]

Too bad science doesn't agree with you :)

 

 

Sad but true.

[FanofFlorida]

- in my 46 years I've never known any smoker to specifically use perfume because they are trying to hide smelling like smoke, other than teenagers. We don't really care if you think it smells bad - we have to put up with perfume, hairspray, booze breath, garlic oozing out of pores, ethnic cooking oozing from pores, people who don't shower or use deodorant, pass gas in public etc. We just keep our distance if we don't like something.

 

 

Hi! I would like to introduce myself- although I have recently quit smoking, I used perfume to hide the smell of smoke for ...gulp... 19 years. I cant believe I smoked that long...

Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself. Oh, and I can vouch for at least a half a dozen other girls in my life who have done the same.

Now I am horrified to find out that when I get cancer, it wont be from the 1/2 a pack a day I used to inhale, but the copious amounts of fragrance I used afterwards... I never knew that KOOLS could smell healthier than my perfume.

 

I have to agree about keeping a distance. duh.... I guess I do find myself successfully avoiding smoking sections. If I catch a whiff, I walk faster.

[AllieInMD]

You obviously can't tell the difference between determination and desperation.

 

Do I know everything? Heck no - I know my limitations - but I do know how to read the outcome of a scientific study.

 

Hmm, haven't seen any smoker on this thread say they want to quit to be disassociated with me - and frankly, why would I care what a stranger on the internet did with their own choice on smoking. Funny how you just dismiss the science as "all that WHO and science". People make scientific claims "we're all going to die from SHS!" when there is no science to back it up. The EPA study was used to start the bans - was then determined to be junk science - the WHO study proved the same thing - but the PC train had started and it wasn't gonna be stopped - the do-gooders and nanny-states had a new mission - very reminiscent of Prohibition. They won't do another large scale independent objective study because the science proved them wrong and the WHO was greatly embarassed.

 

I've laughed when someone said something laughable.

 

If you have COPD you don't belong in a smoking area, and if you are - who's fault is that? What did that COPD patient do to get there - and why should *I* be responsible for it?

 

I don't work in a hospital - I have in the past - I work in an office for a company that owns 8 hospitals and a bunch of diversified businesses. My daughter does work in a hospital ER.

 

Yeah, fires in Cali - environmental pollution - the good ole stuff you can't even see is taking a way higher toll on your health than any social exposure to smoke. Are you fighting to legislate that out of existence? How bout Cali traffic - worst in the country - all those cars and exhaust - have you given up your car that is polluting the public? Don't tell me I have to give up stuff for the 'public good' when you aren't willing to give up any thing that causes even more harm to the public.

 

If you walk into a place/biz/area that allows smoking - that's on YOU - you CHOSE to do so - so don't complain about it.

 

More do-gooder mentality - telling me what I should do, how I'll feel, what's best for my children etc. Guess what? You can live according to all the guidelines and still drop dead. A whole lot of people who never smoked or were around SHS get lung cancer. Now where do you supposed that came from?

 

Several people at my office quit smoking over a year ago and so have several members of my riding club - and every one - without fail - has said they are more miserable than they've ever been in their lives - still - and make everyone around them miserable too. Thanks - I'd rather live 65 years of fun than exist for 75 years of misery. If a smoker argues against the infringement of our rights based on bullsh*t then we are 'irate'. No doubt the sheep would have us all roll over and say thank you too - not going to happen.

 

I too am surprised the thread wasn't poofed by the time I got home from work.

 

 

 

 

I am another who has read the whole thread.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't hold back.....

 

What I am getting through all of this is that you seem to be sounding more and more desperate with every post you make. You seem to think you know everything. Everything!

 

As you can see by my 2 previous comments on this subject, I, in no way want a smoking ban, although I am a non-smoker. But all of your WHO and SCIENCE talk (That so far, only gave links at the beginning of this thread that were almost 10 years old....) probably makes some smokers want to quit, just to be disassociated with your views.

 

You should go back and see how many times you have started a comment by laughing and how sarcastic you have been to most.

 

What about what the SHS does for someone with COPD?

 

You work in a hospital....tell me that the SHS doesn't effect them. It is VERY unhealthy for anyone. I live in California with the fires going on right now.....if that smoke is very hazardous for people with lung problems, then SHS can be too. Maybe not as bad, but it still isn't good for ANYONE to breathe. (Especially with kids in a car...as you mentioned....you want your rights....but at the expense of your own kids.)

 

You say....stay out of your space If I don't want to be around it? Your smoke doesn't "stay" in your space, it travels to mine.....smoke from one cigarette permeates through a whole room.

 

Maybe you should try to quit for yourself, and your children, then your views will change and you'll look back at this thread and see how irate you have been with almost everyone. And you would be much healthier too. And believe me...I know how hard it is to quit.

 

I'm sorry to everyone if this thread is "poofed" because of my post, I just couldn't help it anymore.:(

[AllieInMD]

I will look at those - a first glance is they are opinions and policy statements - not science. I can make a claim of anything - and if the organization behind me has enough clout people will put stock in it - but that doesn't mean it's science. That's why when another poster on this thread asked the ALA repeatedly for how they came up with the 3000 SHS lung cases, they said they don't make their studies available.

 

Where's the SCIENTIFIC fact any of these policy statements are based on?

 

 

Here are some studies done by scientists supported by or working within the WHO. These attachements are either studies done by the WHO or supported by that organization. I'm not sure how someone can say that the WHO says SHS is not dangerous. A simple search would prove otherwise. However, I'm not going to make judgement but pass on these links for anyone interested. It's interesting to find that the tobacco industry has spent so many millions to keep the controversy alive by creating their own studies to dispute widely accepted studies from around the world and then distort what the WHO actually says. Again, this will not convince anyone I'm sure and it will take you some time to go through the info if you really have an interest.

 

http://www.fctc.org/

 

http://www.fctc.org/index.php?item=treatyoverview (of interest Article 8 for those arguing the WHO says SHS is not dangerous).

 

http://www.fctc.org/docs/factsheets/fca_factsheet_003_en.pdf

 

http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20070529.htm

 

There are many, many, many more from the WHO and others that I could list.

 

So in conclusion, I think folks will still draw their own opinions, link their own studies, that support their own behaviors. However, I think it should be clear that the WHO does support the evidence that SHS is dangerous and to state otherwise is to be disingenuous about this fact.

[AllieInMD]

Yeah, all except that WHO commissioned study by actual scientists that you can't find on their site after the results came out, but you can still find it at the National Institutes of Health website. Yep - objective unbiased science - not tobacco companies.

 

 

It is my experience that most studies that show no correlation between SHS and sickness are usually funded by the tobacco companies or an entity that has an interest in continued smoking.

[AllieInMD]

If you do come back to this thread, you should read State of Fear by Michael Crichton- after reading your post I think you would really enjoy it. It's about selling the world's population on a false crisis (global warming) for both personal gain and because the psychology of people is that they need to have something as 'the big bad boogie man enemy'.

 

 

Nope, I've seen non smokers post the same.

 

 

That is debatable. If you believe studies which has been done with false data and has been sponsored by a company who came out with the nicotine patch and faith based lobbiest and politicians then you are correct.

 

But with every study there is an opposing study. I believe neither. Not even the one which favors my opinion on second hand smoke. Second hand smoke requires a study in which you put several groups of people into an unchanging environment (some are non smokers living with smokers , some are non smokers living amongst themselves) doing the same type of work and eat the same food over at least a decade.

 

The studies you see are based on the undiluted pure ingredients in tobacco disregarding lifestyle changes, environmental changes and the delusion of air and the burn effect.

 

The only healthy people at risk with second hand smoke are those (or were those) who worked 8 hours a day in a smoking environment with bad air circulation (i.e. flight attendants). These people suffered and of course it is unhealthy for us non smokers.

 

The occasional whiff at second smoke will not impact you at all.

 

 

 

a) I smoke

b) I gamble on cruises but otherwise I don't. It is not a bad habit, it is fun entertainment. I interact more with people then I spend money. Interacting with people is priceless.

c) I drink moderate alcohol unless I am on a cruise where I raise my drinking a little.

 

So what you call bad habits I do occasionally and I leave a wonderful life.

 

 

 

If you do not limit yourself then I do not feel sorry for you at all. If you feel that a whiff of second hand smoke is going to kill you then you are reckless with your health. But I will explain this a little further down.

 

That does not explain non smokers who gamble in smoking zones rather than in non smoking zones.

 

*****In General*****

 

What irks me with statements like 'why should I limit myself' (and most non smokers do that):

 

You have a choice of cruising on a non smoking cruise line or a cruise line with more restrictions. But you choose to cruise on RCI and ***** and moan.

 

I love RCI as much, probably more, than anybody but if RCI would go totally non smoking and I haven't quit smoking by then I would look for another line which fits my needs.

 

And that's exactly what it is: find a cruise line which fits your needs. Would I be happy? No. But I wouldn't be sitting here and whining and complaining.

 

A lot of non smokers purposely engage smokers in one way or another - just to ***** and moan. On cruises non smokers purposely walk through the smoking areas on deck just to be able to make the little cough cough noises or roll their eyes.

 

On the Sovereign there were smoking and non smoking tables, smoking and non smoking slots. Yet, non smokers still flooded the smoker section. Why?

 

I tell you why because there are a couple of reasons:

 

a) Society loves misery. There is nothing ever good enough, it always has to be better. If there is nothing to complain about we find something even if it is invalid or we have to go out of our way. Smokers are a perfect target. You couldn't go out of your way and go on the other side of the ship knowing that you are now going through a smoking area. Why? Because you want to. Because it would just be to perfect to walk to the WJ and say what a wonderful cruise. No, you want to *****. So you go through the smoking zone so you have something to ***** about on your way to the WJ.

 

b) People need excuses for all their illnesses and their little boo-boos which pours billions of dollars into the pharmaceutical industry. It couldn't be your own lifestyle or other toxins in air and water and of course food items. Because if you would accept that then you have to make a lifestyle change and THAT could not happen.

 

I am so LMAO when I hear "I buy bottled water". Just like McDonalds burgers calling their chicken nuggets chicken water companies can call their water natural as long as the "natural" water is not going under a certain percentage. The rest: tab water and chemicals and artificial flavoring. All chemicals.

 

How many of you healthy non smokers are using over the counter Vitamin pills? All chemicals. Its easier to suck one of those down instead of eating an apple, an orange or a banana (while even those have chemicals it is at a much lesser rate).

 

Drive-Thru at McDonalds: you rather sit there for 30 minutes pumping fumes into the air and wasting gas with your 15mpg SUV as a single occupied vehicle to buy a fatty burger (with a diet coke please) who can call its burgers beef just because they meet the percentage thresh hold.

 

It actually would be too hard to

a) park your car and shut the engine off for 30 minutes because if you want to clog your arteries and kill yourself with the fast food crap DO NOT KILL ME!

 

b) would also be to hard to buy a nice sandwich from a deli

 

The question of course is: can so many people be wrong about second hand smoke?

They sure can. It is called 'marketing and advertising' to the masses. People are vulnerable, easy targets. If you give them something which would make their lives look better or the promise of a better life they buy into anything without questioning it. You have many examples throughout history in politics where this 'mass advertising' was bought by the masses without questioning.

 

I am an extremely courteous smoker who even asked at a smoking table in the casino if anybody minds. And even if everybody says no I still blow my smoke away from the table and do not hold my cigarette over the table.

 

I do that because I respect other people and their needs. I go out of my way to make life as a community a better life. Most can not even go out of their way to make their own life a better way.

 

It has to be bitching and moaning and all the misery in the world has to be put onto others without questioning: hey, maybe I can do something too to make my life or the lives of others better.

 

A good start would be to respect the current smoking areas on a cruise ship. You know where they are, avoid them. If a whiff of smoke bothers you on a balcony get an inside, OV or change cruise lines (i.e. Celebrity). You have that option.

 

Non smokers want to make a stand: they can not even do that at the very few opportunities they have. And why? It is much easier to ***** and moan to make their own problems less significant, to validate their own habits and life style, and blame all bad things somewhere else.

 

And I am out of this thread.

 

:D

[AllieInMD]

You mean like you do in dress code threads?

 

You put up just as tough a battle in those as I do on smoking - as does BakinCakes and a bunch of others.

 

Same as the same people who do the same battle over booze smuggling.

 

I know you really wish us smokers were sheep, but we aren't.

 

That's her mode of operation and I just ignore it when trying to respond.

 

It's OK, everyone has a right to their opinion.

[AllieInMD]

Did you ever consider that something else caused the problems in the spouses and being around SHS was coincidental? Of course not - because you've been told that SHS is a killer. Don't you ever question how many others who live with smokers NEVER get lung cancer or any other illness? Or how people who've never smoked or been around smokers get lung cancer? Dana Reeves is one of the most famous, and she never smoked.

 

Think about that for a minute - if SHS is what causes lung problems in non-smokers - just how do those not exposed get lung cancer? It's the environment and personal factors - poor people in countries that can't afford food much less tobacco still get lung cancer. Radon, industrial pollution, the funnel of that cruise ship spewing toxic fumes, all those things are a big contributor to lung cancer deaths. Age, race, genetics all play into whether you get lung cancer or not. To just say "she lived with a smoker" is easy and popular, but doesn't make it true.

 

 

I don't need a study, I have seen it first hand in my work. I work in the medical field and I see what first hand AND second hand smoke does to people.

I have patients who have never smoked in their life, but they were exposed to the second hand smoke of their parents/family and now they are on supplimental oxygen due to the damage that this second hand smoke has caused to their body.

 

And, again I ask, WHY should I limit myself to where I should go on a cruise ship? I don't carry a toxic cloud of smoke with me so my presence in any given area will not harm or cause discomfort to anyone else.. SMOKERS, on the other hand, can and DO cause harm and discomfort to others when they are smoking in public.

I do not try to limit where you can go, only where you can smoke.. That is a big difference.

[Shipyard Cruiser]

How about this.

 

Non-somkers are part of a right wing conspiracy to stamp out smokers rights.

 

The same folks woh started that phoney globel warming thing.

 

They are all in cahoots:D

 

Am I getting close:confused:

[AllieInMD]

That is a policy piece by a political appointee - not science. The 3000 quoted is from a study done that was thrown out by the US Federal Court for manipulating data to come up with a pre-decided conclusion that the data did not support.

 

Your link says it's from a 1986 report done - now who's using ancient data (as I was accused of). It claims 'other studies' - where are they? It's like the ALA won't show you the study they base their claims on - why not? The WHO study was commissioned and completed in 1998 or 1999 - 12 or 13 years later. The purpose of the study was to show the horrible health risks and creating a world wide policy to stamp out smoking and SHS. But the data showed that SHS was negligible or non-existent in causing lung cancer. They tried to bury it, the WSJ and some British papers called them out on the coverup, and you can't find the study on their site but you can on the NIH site. Now if you are a scientist and you don't toe the party line, in smoking or global warming, you can't get work or funding.

 

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

 

 

 

This is untrue. Attached below is the relevant link but it states in part:

 

 

 

There is NO risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure, with even brief exposure adversely affecting the cardiovascular and respiratory system.

 

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272006a.html

[TexCruise371]

Several people at my office quit smoking over a year ago and so have several members of my riding club - and every one - without fail - has said they are more miserable than they've ever been in their lives - still - and make everyone around them miserable too. Thanks - I'd rather live 65 years of fun than exist for 75 years of misery. If a smoker argues against the infringement of our rights based on bullsh*t then we are 'irate'. No doubt the sheep would have us all roll over and say thank you too - not going to happen.

 

That's really funny to me. I smoked for 35 years (I'm 54). Up to 3 packs a day at times. I couldn't sleep at night because I was up hacking and coughing all night until my eyes felt like they were going to blow out of their sockets. It kept my wife and kids awake too. I couldn't walk a mile or do any physical labor without running out of breath and huffing and puffing. My wife and kids complained about smelling like smoke all the time.

 

I quit. I took me several tries but I did. I quickly gained 20 lbs but I made up my mind and lost that plus another 55 pounds. I work out every day and run at least a mile every other day. I feel fantastic and 20 years younger. So, not everyone is as miserable as your friends that quit. Most of my friends that have quit are much happier. I promise you I'm much happier. I'm ready to live a longer life.

 

I'm also happy about the money I save so I can cruise more :D

[AllieInMD]

YAY! we agree on something - even BakinCakes and I agree on something every once in awhile.

 

(if you've seen me and her on other topics you understand the levity)

 

Because they will make very sure you respect their rights as a smoker.

 

See, I have learned something from this thread:D

[Davey Interweb]

The delicious irony here is that the same folks posting their "second hand smoke kills" rhetoric are the same people who don't mind sucking benzene - a known class-A carcinogen - into their lungs each and every time they gas up their car. I still don't see anyone volunteering to give up driving.

 

That's just a lone example of daily life where one is exposed to various toxic crap. I haven't even touched upon the food you eat and other mundane stuff.

[AllieInMD]

Exactly! We can't smoke in our cabin anymore, so I paid a lot more for a balcony. I didn't like it, but I didn't throw a hissy fit. And if RCCL would go totally smoke free, I'll move to another line or back to land-based vacations. That's kinda what adults do - pick a venue that suits their wants and needs.

 

 

But I didn't complain or whine. We looked for a new venue and we found it.

[beachdogboarder]

YAWN - some random person on the internet calls the World Health Organization 'voodoo science' - yep - let's all listen to that person :cool:

Who's calling World Health Organization Voodoo Science???????:confused:

Not Me

They have had extensive studies that are available in our schools library and have been referenced to on this thread that point out the dangers of second hand smoke.The stuff you reference was propaganda issued by the RJR toadies to try to trick the innocent to smoke

[beachdogboarder]

You mean like you do in dress code threads?

 

You put up just as tough a battle in those as I do on smoking - as does BakinCakes and a bunch of others.

 

Same as the same people who do the same battle over booze smuggling.

 

I know you really wish us smokers were sheep, but we aren't.

 

But aren't Smokers sheep?Sheep to Tobacco Companies

[beachdogboarder]

That's really funny to me. I smoked for 35 years (I'm 54). Up to 3 packs a day at times. I couldn't sleep at night because I was up hacking and coughing all night until my eyes felt like they were going to blow out of their sockets. It kept my wife and kids awake too. I couldn't walk a mile or do any physical labor without running out of breath and huffing and puffing. My wife and kids complained about smelling like smoke all the time.

 

I quit. I took me several tries but I did. I quickly gained 20 lbs but I made up my mind and lost that plus another 55 pounds. I work out every day and run at least a mile every other day. I feel fantastic and 20 years younger. So, not everyone is as miserable as your friends that quit. Most of my friends that have quit are much happier. I promise you I'm much happier. I'm ready to live a longer life.

 

I'm also happy about the money I save so I can cruise more :D

 

Good for you.My Aunt and Uncle thankfully quit smoking three years ago and they both tell me they have not felt better in years.They too mention that at todays prices they are saving over 3 thousand dollars a year giving up the nasty habit and plan on hiking the Grand Canyon in the Spring:):):)

[AllieInMD]

You can't find the study they commissioned on their site - they were too embarrassed by it and don't link to it (like the ALA won't tell you where they got their figure) - it's on the National Institutes of Health site - they didn't pull it.

 

The link you gave is statements - not science - not data - not studies. The only 'authority' they claim in that statement is International Labour Organization - that's not a scientific organization, it's a division of the UN run by politicians - and who knows where they got that figure.

 

But, let's go with it - just for the heck of it.

 

That 200,000 - even if you could find the source of the figure to confirm it - would represent in the entire world. All those cities and countries with such extensive air and water pollution that you can't see a foot in front of your face included. But even if you buy the 200,000 for arguments sake - that's .003% of the world's population. Does that sound like an overwhelming health crisis of such magnitude that it should be the main focus of world public health policy?

 

• .853% of the world's population dies of AIDS every year, over 2 million per year
  
• .003% of the world's population dies of Radon gas caused lung cancer every year (same as SHS claim if you use your 200,000), between 70k and 170k every year - I admit I used the top figure of 170k
  
• .928% of the world's population dies of pollution every year, 62 million deaths, 40% of all deaths - from organic and chemical pollutants in air and water.

Look at that pollution stat - in comparison to the claimed SHS stat - and that's using YOUR data you provided. 200,000 vs 62 million - .928% of the world's population vs .003%. SHS is easy and politically correct, but in the big picture it's not what's killing people - industry and cars are.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I'm confused.

 

On the WHO site.....this is what I found....

 

http://www.who.int/features/qa/60/en/index.html

 

Or are you looking at a different WHO site?

[beachdogboarder]

You can't find the study they commissioned on their site - they were too embarrassed by it and don't link to it (like the ALA won't tell you where they got their figure) - it's on the National Institutes of Health site - they didn't pull it.

 

The link you gave is statements - not science - not data - not studies. The only 'authority' they claim in that statement is International Labour Organization - that's not a scientific organization, it's a division of the UN run by politicians - and who knows where they got that figure.

 

But, let's go with it - just for the heck of it.

 

That 200,000 - even if you could find the source of the figure to confirm it - would represent in the entire world. All those cities and countries with such extensive air and water pollution that you can't see a foot in front of your face included. But even if you buy the 200,000 for arguments sake - that's .003% of the world's population. Does that sound like an overwhelming health crisis of such magnitude that it should be the main focus of world public health policy?

• .853% of the world's population dies of AIDS every year, over 2 million per year
  
• .003% of the world's population dies of Radon gas caused lung cancer every year (same as SHS claim if you use your 200,000), between 70k and 170k every year - I admit I used the top figure of 170k
  
• .928% of the world's population dies of pollution every year, 62 million deaths, 40% of all deaths - from organic and chemical pollutants in air and water.

Look at that pollution stat - in comparison to the claimed SHS stat - and that's using YOUR data you provided. 200,000 vs 62 million - .928% of the world's population vs .003%. SHS is easy and politically correct, but in the big picture it's not what's killing people - industry and cars are.

 

I find your post entertaining.:D

[VAHockeymom]

I think the thing that bothers me is that so many assume that us smokers are rude and wanting our own way. Cigarettes are legal. I have ALWAYS complied with where and when I can smoke. We use to be able to smoke in our cabins. That was not my rule. It was the cruise ship's. Now I am only allowed to smoke on a balcony, at one bar and sometimes the casino and a small part of the pool deck (at least on Freedom last December). However, when I comply I am told by others that this is not good enough! I ruined their balcony experience, they had to walk past me on the pool deck (they could have walked on the other side), they couldn't go to the one bar out of 13 because I smoked there. Yes, I wish I could quit, but I can`t. But I am not rude nor insensitive. I don`t smuggle booze, I don`t cut in line. I don`t smoke where I am not allowed.

 

I have known people who use drugs and endanger lives everyday because of how high they are. I have one `friend`` that is an alcoholic and cannot quit. He has driven drunk numerous times. That endangers a lot of people. All of these people get more sympathy than me because I am addicted to nicotine.

 

So please don`t lump all of us smokers in the same category. We are addicted to something that is legal and we follow the rules. Ok off my soapbox. I am wound up now so I will go and have a smoke to calm down LOL. Plus, I hope that you all have wonderful cruises in the future.

 

 

AMEN SISTER! I too have been reading this post and yet to chime in because I always get flammed on the smoking threads. I couldn't agree with you more. If someone smokes and abides by the rules of the given situation then it is the fault of the non-smoker who puts themselves in a position to be exposed to the smoke...their CHOICE.

 

I just don't understand what the big debate is always about here. RCI allows smoking on balconies and on one side of the ship by the pool and sometimes in the casinos. Very few bars allow it at all. And, before someone flames me about the balcony smoke coming into their next door cabin etc. Consider that this too is a temporary situation. Close the door and wait 10 minutes....poof all gone. The ship is well ventilated and if you don't want to be around smoke, then don't go there. Simple...problem solved. I don't like being around obnoxious (sp?) drinkers and there's ALWAYS plenty of them to be found on the ships even with drink prices as high as they are. I also don't appreciate the over-bearing fat guy that insists on getting on the already full elevator, but it is what it is and it's all temporary. If someone is bothering me, I simply go elsewhere. These ships are HUGE and you can always find another place if you are bothered by someone else's choices.

 

Bottom line, as long as smoking is legal and allowed in designated areas, people will smoke. If you prefer not to be around it, then don't. Or opt to sail on a smaller line that doesn't allow it at all or even one of the "smoke-free" cruises that RCI offers several times a year.

 

Just my humble opinion.

[AllieInMD]

This is serious - not being mean - not even trying - and not being sarcastic - I really am curious. I was raised to question things. I've raised my kids to question things too.

 

I get that you don't like smoking - got it - that's your right. But I have to ask, since you are such a staunch activist on this topic - do you read any actual science or data on the topic? question what you do read? I was a law student for awhile and the one thing it taught me was that if you were going to make a claim of fact, you had better have something to back it up. Giving an opinion was ok if stated as strictly an opinion, but it was expected to be an informed educated opinion.

 

You do so often fall back to 'they will justify their habit' - but that's just rhetoric when you have nothing of substance. I haven't justified my smoking, I don't have to as it's my choice and as such I don't bother. This thread has lasted so long I dare say because it hasn't degraded into name calling and personal attacks (tho that one guy tried) - but based on discussion.

 

If you are interested in discussion of facts and SHS - great. If you feel that you can't ever change our minds - then why do you continue? I do it because it threatens my rights based on lies and falsehoods and to put facts and science out there - that's why I participate in the smoking threads. I do occasionally join in the dress code and and booze smuggling ones - but not too much anymore - those are just value judgment issues and a bit of fun every once in awhile.

 

If you just want to bash smokers and not interested in education or facts or science, why do you bother? Not saying you can't - free board - just curious.

 

 

Posting stuff like this is pointless.

 

Smokers do not see the risks in what they do. They will always find a way to justify the habit.

 

And nothing you or I say will change that.

 

And it's pointless to try.

 

You can only hope they will respect your rights as a non-smoker.

 

Because they will make very sure you respect their rights as a smoker.

 

See, I have learned something from this thread:D

[AllieInMD]

I still don't like the way you pick your nose, but thank you for being reasonable - and for taking the time to post it :cool:

 

 

I guess I do lots of things that are potentially injurious to my health and I honestly don't know the truth about the dangers of global warming, climate change, type 7 plastic and second hand smoke.

 

I do know, however, that I do not like the smell of smoke, second hand or not. Nor the smell of dirty ashtrays, discarded cigaret butts, or my clothes after I have spent a few minutes in a smoky environment. I would go so far as to say that heavy smokers themselves seem to carry a cloud of unpleasant odour with them whether they are smoking at the time or not. And, please forgive me, I find all these smells unpleasant. So when I am contained in a ships environment, to me, all smoking is bad smoking and I'd like to see it stop.

 

Of course, I recognize that there are plenty of other things that also can be unpleasant. Heavy perfume for one in the smell arena, cellphones in restaurants for another.

 

But we can't go through life having everything the way we personally would like. A certain tolerance for others habits probably leads to a certain tolerance for your own. I will ignore your weird laugh if you ignore my nose picking. A certain consideration for others probably leads to a certain consideration for yourself. If you wont whistle at the dinner table, I wont practice my tuba at 6 am.

 

But I still don't like the smell of cigarettes.

 

Gord