Wow-this topic has been heating up all the cruise boards. Just to put things in perspective, let's all remember hoe fortunate we are to have a great TA and agency that can take care of us no matter what our vices are!
;)

Agreed!

I, too, was on the WC 2007 and at both smoking meetings. There was one guest who was severely inconvenienced by a very unthoughtful guest next door whose smoke penetrated into the first guest's suite. She laughed about it and thought it was funny. It is cases like this where one person can totally ruin a privilege for the many.

Since when is smoking a privilege? I try to be respectful of others when I smoke and to smoke or not smoke is my right and my responsibility.

Does anybody know what the Regent policy is with regard to the staff including the officers. Are they allowed to smoke in certain areas and not allowed to smoke in their private (cabins) spaces. It would be interesting to know if the current changes have also resulted in changes to the staff smoking policies.

While I am not a smoker and my spouse does not smoke anylonger I for one think a policy that allowed smoking in certain cabins would make sense and make an accomadation to smokers.

I would not have posted but do think Regent read this forum and perhaps the posts here might, just might cause some rethinking about having some cabins as smoking cabins.

I also and have said this before, the number of people who today say they are allergic to smoke seems to be significantly more than say 30 years ago. 30 years ago few if any persons had a major issue with smoke, today it has become fashionable to complain. While I understand some may have real issues I must question the large numbers today that say they have an issue.

That now said I do believe that the issue will become less and less of an issue as there are fewer and fewer people that smoke today and expect that trend to continue in the future.

I would have not posted but do think Regent reads this forum and respects the opinions of the posters here. I would strongly suggest to Regent that it rethink the no cabin smoking policy and allow some smoking in certain cabins. That is simliar to some hotels and accomodates that percentage of the population that smokes. Makes sense to me.

In response to djw521 who said: "...the number of people who today say they are allergic to smoke seems to be significantly more than say 30 years ago... today it has become fashionable to complain. While I understand some may have real issues I must question the large numbers today that say they have an issue."

I believe many of us didn't realize how nice it was to be in a clean air enironment. As we are now around fewer and fewer smokers, and find more and more work and recreation spaces that are non-smoking areas, our noses naturally become more attuned (sensitive) to smoke.

Actually, after one trip to Las Vegas several years ago, I went to see an allergist. It was about a year after I quit smoking. He explained to me that smokers may be allergic to their own smoke but that when they smoke they are doing the same thing as having "allergy shots" and exposing themselves to the allergen thereby giving themselves immunity. When they quit and the exposure stops, the allergy returns. Same symptoms as ragweed or other pollens. Red running eyes, nasal passages clogged and breathing impaired.

Forget religion and politics, it is interesting how polarizing the smoking/no smoking debate is. One person's right to engage in an otherwise lawful act that offends his neighbor. I saw the handwriting on the wall when I could no longer smoke on airplanes and so quit. Hardest thing I ever did but it is, if nothing else, so much easier to be a nonsmoker. But FWIW, I vote for the live and let live scheme of things. It is far easier for me to get up and walk away then it is for the smoker to put it out. Wonder if this new policy will be in place on the Explorer II?
------------------
Helen

First, I'd like to congratualte our great TA that runs this board. She did not "lock" or delete threads on this subject, like CC did.

Ms. Understood, I agree with you 100%. I am a long term ex-smoker, who is tolerant of smokers as I know what it was like. I can actuyally understand a little "clamping down" on smoking in public rooms. Maybe even balconies. But all private suites? Give me a break. European travels and Asian travelers will not accept this. And I have seen a lot of these guests on Regent. Even here in the US, smoking and non smoking rooms at resorts and hotels are the rule, rather than the exception.

Carnival, as we all recall, tried such an "experiement" on the Paradise (even a little more stringent) and it ws a financial failure. Take the paradise now (if you dare for other reasons) and you can smoke you head off!

There could be some good news in this. As Europeans,k Asians, and even many Americans avoid Regent like the plague, whips will become less full. And you know what that means! Discounts and Specials! I recall the day when I could book an RSSC ship for a week with a balcony (other than the PG) for only about $3000 on special, with SSS discounts and all. Wish those days would return. Well, maybe by spring, '07, they actually will.

Richard,

Having just come off of an Oceania cruise, I can tell you, that there was an abundance of people who were former Regent cruisers and they left for Oceania because of the smoking policy. Oceania sells out nearly every cruise. There are only two spots on the ship where smoking is permitted. One in Horizons Lounge in a far off corner and one area near the pool. No smoking in any other public rooms.

Some people have suggested to have a block of smoking cabins, however, this presents its own sets of problems; if all of these smoking cabins are not booked, I doubt there would be many nonsmokers who would be willing to take one of these cabins.

As I (a non-smoker, but former smoker) see it, Regent made a business decision. Was it a good one or a bad one? I really don't know. It is not the decision I would have made, however.

I would have phased the ban in gently so as not to cause the uproar that clearly has occured. This sort of publicity cannot be good for business, no matter which side of the smoking fence one is on. It may become a PR nightmare for them.

I cannot wait to see when it turns up in the travel press and what the spin will be.

To those who refer to that other board's shutting down the thread, remember that they are advertiser supported & are actively selling cruise vacations. I wouldn't expect that they would do anything to upset any of the cruise lines.

It is all just business. The advertiser decides what to run. The provider (the cruise line) decides what to offer or NOT to offer. The customer decides where to spend his money. That is the ultimate choice we have as customers - the ultimate power.

Frankly, if I still smoked (which thanks to SWMBO I do not), I would think twice before I booked Regent as much as I love the line.

Just my 2 cents...Doug

Designation of smoking and non smoking cabins involves a bit of difficult predictiave ability, and the possibility of a few empty suites. But face it, most ships have better service if not 100%+ full anyway. Ships used to have such designated suites/staterooms all the time -- even the mass market. They lived through whatever problems this caused (if any.)

A luxury line should cater to the desires of diverse guests. Those who drink wine and those who drink beer, for example. It should be no different than snoking. And the best way to eliminate the "second hand smoke isue" is actually to confine smoking to the designated suites -- not ban it there.

Richard (and ex-somker)

Unlike recent changes on HAL, Regent is giving six months notice before implementing these policies. That is plenty of time to allow people to cancel prior to penalty period.

Casino and Voyager lounge will still be smoking as will pool bar; still many more smoking locations than on Oceania.

By next year, probably all cruise lines will be non-smoking on balconies. I think there is a possibility that all cruise lines will also be non-smoking in cabins. After all, like airplanes, if "all" cruiselines are forced by law or public opinion to remove smoking from cabins, they end up saving a lot of money in cleaning costs without losing a competitive advantage. The competitive advantage is only lost if there remain other options for smoking in cabins.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out with respect to SOLAS, individual country/EU action, and individual company action. I sure would postpone cancelling a cruise until closer to the penalty period unless you know that your alternate cruiseline is not following suit. Of course, land vacations are always an option; just beware of those properties that are also going non-smoking.

"... the uproar that clearly has occurred..."

Dear friends, might I gently and modestly (of course, all of you who know me are well aware than neither of the terms "gentleness" or "modesty" frequently finds itself in any reference to me) suggest that we LCT and CC posters are a very small minority of passengers on Regent cruises. Although we hope that some of the agents of RSSC read these boards and take some advice from them (clearly that didn't happen with the dreadful passenger-loyalty programs), we should recognize that we represent only what is likely a single digit percentage of Regent cruisers. Therefore, I would humbly (another term not normally associated with me) ask whether there is, in fact, an "uproar" regarding this change in policy?? And without doing a strict mathematical analysis, it appears from the posts on both LCT and CC that there are more positive than negative reactions to the newly-announced policy.

To offer full disclosure (as they claim to do on network news shows), I admit that I am delighted with the new policy, since it will diminish the likelihood of our entering a cabin which bears the strong redolence of smoke. That has happened only once in our cruises on Regent and was not dreadful - merely annoying.

It appears that Regent may not have handled the communication of this decision well and may have not been entirely consistent with some signals they may have given in discussions on the WC. Irrespective of that, I find the suggestions of some on "that other board" that those of us who are quite libertarian should cancel our current bookings in solidarity with outraged smokers to be about the goofiest (sp???) notion ever.

It is likely that a few years from now, this discussion will be largely moot, unless one wants to cruise on a Russian or Chinese riverboat. From my experience in both of those countries, it will be well past our lifetimes before public accommodation goes non-smoking in either of them.

Cheers, Fred

BTW - Purely in the interest of protecting the reputation of all of us retired sharks - Richard, there is a spell-check icon on the Google toolbar which is quite useful in posting. Without it, I would have earned the dubious honor of having made the most incoherent and misspelled posts in the history of the Internet (or at least in the period since it was invented by Al Gore...).

It sounds to me like smoking will not be banned on their ships; there will just be places the smokers can gather. They will, and it will become a social gathering as well. We are non-smokers but smoking doesn't bother us. I just don't like the stale smell in the suite. I can also understand the fire hazard. Someone falling asleep in the suite and dropping their cigarette; it could happen. Safety is the first concern, comfort second. Judy & John

I truly do not mean to be disrespectful of anyone's opinion, but there has never been a recorded incident of a fire starting from someone falling asleep in their cabin and dropping their cigarette, and as far as safety first, a lot more people have fallen overboard because of drinking too much,but they haven't banned liquor, in fact they made it free!
Lynn

Lynn,

With all due respect, assuming your assertion that there has never been a recorded instance of someone starting a fire in their cabin by falling asleep with a lit cigarette is correct, what's the point? While your assertion may or may not be correct, there have been many verified reports of fatal fires in homes, apartments and hotel rooms caused by people falling asleep while smoking in bed. The fact that such a fire may not have occurred in a cruise ship cabin yet does not lessen the probability that it will happen in the future. Smoking in bed leads to fires. They are just as likely in a cruise ship cabin as elsewhere.

I also disagree with your comment about drunks falling overboard. The crucial difference is that a drunk falling overboard only harms himself or herself; a fire on a ship endangers the lives of everyone on the ship.

Fred, Didn't know about Google Spell Check icon. Never know what you'll pick up on LCT.

Thanks.

-----------

Eugene

If they designate smoking suites, will they be at the stern where there's more noise & vibration?

What a fun and expensive way to quit smoking....just book a cruise on RSSC next year.

jack

I think we might have to agree to add "smoking" to religion and politics as issues we should agree not to discuss on LCT! On the CC board, the moderator had to close the thread because the discussion got so heated.

Here's another angle:

I think this is a business decision forced upon Regent by its insurance carrier. With the fire on Carnival and resulting claims, I'm sure the insurance providers (and there's probably just a few of them insuring ships) have required this smoking change as policies come due. Either they are demanding the smoking changes or are offering an alternative policy allowing smoking in cabins at a much higher premium that an already high-priced line like Regent can't afford (not much wiggle room in their cruise fares compared to lower priced cruise lines). I don't care where ships are registered, etc.; there is always a way to sue. You won't see the cruise lines blaming the insurance industry in fear of losing their policies altogether.

And, whatever the cause of the next big ship disaster, rules and rights on the ship will change again. Welcome to business in 2007.

People do seem to fall overboard more and more often. The reason I mentioned the fire in the suite is because I work in an ER in Las Vegas and have had probably 3 or so incidents where someone in a hotel room (drunk) did fall asleep with a cigarette. Ususally they only burned themselves and the mattress. Like I said before smoking doesn't bother us. So, either way it o.k. with us.

Fire last year on Princess caused by a cigarette. One is all it takes..

After 26 plus years in the Navy and having seen a lot of fires at sea, there's no way that a cigarette caused the fire on the Princess ship. It will be interesting to see what the final determination of the cause is.

Doug,

The investigation was performed by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch of the British Government in cooperation with the US Coast Guard and other agencies. (See MAIB ) They concluded that the fire was probably caused by a discarded cigarette butt that ignited combustible material on the balcony and then quickly spread to adjacent balconies.

Sorry. I didn't see Dave's post before I submitted mine.

Hi Doug. Actually, the final report on the Star Princess fire was completed last October and it did conclude that the likely cause of the fire was a discarded cigarette butt that ignited combustible materials on the balcony. Here's a link to the synopsis:

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Star%20Princess_Synopsis.pdf

There were a lot of people who, at the time of the fire, believed a cigarette could not possibly have caused all that damage. But the investigators found no evidence of any other cause.

The report shows it was not an easy fire to fight and it took an hour and a half to put it out. Not being an expert on these things, my guess is it was a very tense situation aboard the ship and if the fire would have taken much longer to get under control the captain probably would have had to begin abandoning ship.

By the way, on my last cruise on the Crown Princess I noticed sprinkler heads on each balcony. Tom.

Looks to me as if they didn't find a real cause, so they have made the assumption that it was a cigarette that caused the fire. I still don't believe that's a good assumption. Some other major combustible had to be involved.

Regardless of whether a cigarette was involved in the Princess fire, I hope we can all agree that cigarette-caused fires on cruise ships are rare! Not the sort of thing that motivates major policy changes.

Seriously, does anybody know whatever happened to the designated smoking and non-smoking staterooms cruise ships used to have? I know they existed in the '90s. But it was around 2000 (I think) that I called to book (what line I do not recall) and requested a non somoking room. I was told that such things didn't exist anymore! As I remember it. one side of the ship was non smoking. The other side was smoking from mid-ships back. This resulted in about 25% of the rooms allowing smoking -- about in keping with the percentage of the population that smoked then. It also resulted in everyone gettting a smoke free balcony who wanted one. Everybody I knew like this policy. Does anybody know why the cruise lines abandoned it, and instead allowed all rooms to be smoking (and now allow none to be smoking)?

I'm sure something like this could be made to work. The non-smoking person who ended up beside the smoking section might not like it, but then there's plenty of people who hardly use their balconies at all, so if these cabins could be identified, then it might not be a problem.

I think the point about the rarity of fire is that:
a. on the one hand, fires on a ship a very serious, since there's no where to go.
b. on the other hand, we live in an era of extreme political correctness where everybody's safety seems paramount--to the point of absurdity -- don't dare build a monkey bar or a slide that might allow a child to fall off -- warn people not to eat pieces of plastic in packing.

I have lived with smokers most of my life, and thankfully never became an addict, although I was a social smoker off and on. I am very happy to be smoke free, but I strongly believe that smokers have rights too, and I suspect Regent is thinking right now, "what have we done?!"

Richard, we took our first cruise in the Spring of 2000 on NCL. We booked just 5 weeks prior to sailing for a price so low that we could not pass it up. We only had a guarentee reservation so we did end up on the port side which was their designated smoking side. The room had a stale odor but was tolerable. Sometime later that year NCL went to free style dining. At the time we went they still had early and late seating. I don't know if they kept their designated smoking side when they made other changes.

Our next cruise was the Mariner to Alaska in June 2001. Then we were ready to book Renaissance in FP shortly before they went out of business. We were attracted to their no-smoking policy since we are not smokers and are bothered by second hand smoke. We have a smoke free home but when out in public we try to be considerate of smokers and just move if necessary to be upwind of their smoke, but sometimes that is difficult to do.

We've been fortunate enough to be on the PG twice and hope to sail Regent again. I feel bad for our good friends on LCT that are negitively impacted by the restrictions that will go into effect the last weeks of 2007. For those of you who are trying to kick the habit, I wish you success. For those who will be going over to other cruise lines I wish you happy sailing. I do hope that Regent makes it though any business downturn this may cause them.

Personally, I would not care if the ship was smoking but a few people have caused me to crusade for what I think is fair now.

For example, I cruised in December with Karen and Mark. Next cabin over. Even when we went off the ship, she was sweet and kind about it. Her smoke never once bothered me. I never smelled it. Even when I left Compass Rose during dinner, she was kindly smoking outside the restaurant on the back side. We weren't dining together - just happened to see her back there doing her thing. I never had any problem with it. She asked and went to where no one else was affected. I and several others were very appreciative. But then that is our Sweet Karen.

I do hate 2nd hand smoke. I grew up with it, I smoked for many years and I understand both sides of the issue. What I do hate about it are the smokers with attitude who feel that their right to smoke supercedes my right to breathe smoke free air. I can tell you story after story. In the casino I was playing blackjack when a woman came in, sat down and lit up. Put her cigarette down in an ashtray - not smoking it. Smoke was drifting my way. I asked her to move it to the other side, very nicely. So instead she decides to smoke it and blow it in my face because it was a smoking area. A good part of the Horizons lounge had a Martini Night with John Barron singing. Because it is a smoking venue a few smokers refused to put out the cigarettes and they were purposefully blowing smoke into the non smoking section. Regent chose not to change the rules for that show and a bunch of people walked out of his great show. it's been changed since because there were a ton of complaints.

I think it's really a reflection of the ME society. We've given up on polite society so we've had to regulate it and those affected are not happy about it. The rules only apply to me selectively. There are no real consequences and it just reflects on the ethical state of things everywhere. It saddens me greatly.

I was not going to post on this thread because while I am a smoker I have not really cruised so have no real basis from which to form an opinion. I do, however, try to be very aware of how my smoking may impact others.

I think you have really hit the proverbial nail on the head with this statement, Kathy. It saddens me too.

Hi everyone. I’ve been observing this debate from the sidelines avoiding the temptation to jump in with an opinion. But I would like to add my two cents and I apologize in advance if I should offend any of my good friends here.

Many people are making an issue of smokers’ rights and the freedom to smoke. As a journalist I have spent my life defending freedom so I am sensitive to the freedom to smoke. When I was a kid the most respected TV journalist was Edward R. Murrow. He smoked himself to death. I worked at ABC News for almost 25 years with Peter Jennings. He smoked himself to death.

I learned long ago that freedom of the press applies to those who own the press, not those who write for the press. I think we can apply the same principle to smokers. The right to smoke somewhere depends on who owns the place where you want to smoke. Regent owns its ships so Regent gets to decide whether and where you can smoke on its ships.

For better or worse, Regent made a business decision to severely restrict smoking. Smokers have the freedom to accept it or find another line. Perhaps it did get a better deal on its insurance, but that really doesn’t matter. Frankly, it surprised me that Regent took an action that would alienate 10-20% of its customers, the ones who smoke. But I’m sure they took it knowing full well that some smokers would abandon ship and Regent was willing to accept the consequences.

We all have to look at where this thing is going. Momentum has been moving toward further restricting smoking. I doubt Regent would have taken this action if it didn’t feel its competitors would be forced to soon.

As for those who favor smoking cabins, I just don’t see how that could ever be a realistic solution. It would still leave too many problems that would defeat the purpose of banning smoking in cabins and on balconies.

Getting back to smokers rights, some have pointed out that smoking is legal and those who smoke shouldn’t be persecuted for it. I live in Virginia, a state that has a long history associated with tobacco. Given tobacco’s roots in our country it would be very hard to ban it here.

But think for a minute if the cigarette had been invented today, with what we now know about smoking. If someone announced his invention today and said I have this product that when used as directed will greatly increase your risk of lung cancer, likely lead to your early death, and harm your children and loved ones around you when you smoke; would anyone in his right mind allow this product to be sold today.

As someone who has never smoked, I just cannot see how anyone could say they enjoy smoking. But I also realize quitting can be the hardest thing a smoker has ever done in his or her life.

People complained when smoking was banned on planes, but smokers still fly. Then came restaurants, but smokers still eat. Now they’re starting to ban smoking in bars, but I haven’t seen any bars go out of business. Casinos will be next, not necessarily for the health of the customers, but for the health of the workers.

The reality is the situation for those who smoke is not going to get any better. It will only get worse. It is a matter of freedom. The freedom of others to breathe clean air supersedes the freedom to smoke wherever you want. Thanks. Tom.

Wow! Kathy & Tom, you are right on the money. Great posts. I would only add that I don't think Regent is at all surprised by the responses we are seeing on the message boards. They knew there would be considerable angst among their smoking clients. They knew they would get some cancellations. And they knew the long-term benefits that accrue from this policy change would out weigh any temporary losses. Regent gave the vast majority of it's current and future clients one more excellent reason to book with them.

Patrick

The memo Paul posted is in the Seven Seas Society in the Frequently Asked Questions section.

I'm glad to see that it is public and not just available to travel agents.

Peggy

Tom - Well said.

We love RSSC and several of those we have met and come to enjoy, are smokers, and most if not all of them have been what I consider very considerate of those of us who don't smoke. I have never had an issue yet with anyone I've met on a cruise from this board that is a smoker.

However, as a TA, it is becoming obvious that cruise lines are slowly going the way of restaurants, in that they have started having limited smoking areas. Your point about the airlines is well taken, when they started banning smoking I had many clients saying they wouldn't fly that airline, or this one, until finally they didn't have a choice anymore, and if they wanted to get somewhere they had to deal with it. Same with restaurants, people still go out to eat.

I really think that in time this will all work itself out, and also that RSSC is not the only cruiseline that will eventually go this route, many have already started, but on this board, RSSC is the main issue, along with Oceania and Silversea. Oceania has had that policy as long as I know of, and they fill their ships on a regular basis and somehow the smokers seem to deal with it.

With Marriott and other hotel chains going totally smoke free not to say countries with strong smoking habits such as Ireland and France limiting smoking, this is a trend that - like it or not - is here to say. I'm not cancelling a wonderful cruise because I can't smoke on my balcony anymore (well, I haven't smoked since last November, but I have to admit, I'm tempted on a nice, long cruise).
-
We're originally from California where the non-smoking issue hit its stride a decade ago. Here in Chicago, most of the suburbs have now banned smoking in the bars and restaurants and Chicago is joining us in a few months. The hue and cry from the restaurant and tavern owners was much ado about nothing. Nobody lost business. We adapted.
-
I am sympathetic with those who say this is just another example of our loss of various freedoms over the past 10 years. But this is not an issue brought about by the Patriot Act - instead, this issue has grown worldwide as more and more of the public (that's us) have decided that they don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke.
-
I think Regent has shown that it is a company that cares what many of their passengers want, and they have adapted well over the years. Regent will have a pretty good idea within 6 months what impact this decision has on their bottom line. I'm betting it is negligable. Regent still offers great value in the luxury cruise segment, and I'm sure their occupancy rates will not be adversely impacted by this decision.
-
As others have mentioned, this could be a situation where Regent is taking the lead (at least in the cruise portion of the hospitality business) and its decision will look very prescient in the years to come. Jeff

This will be my last post on this subject. I understand about no smoking on flights and restaurants and such not having a big impact, but for those of us who do smoke, those situations are for a matter or hours, not weeks, as it is on a cruise ship, and not at $700 per diem or so on a wonderful luxury cruise line that the majority of the population cannot afford.
For all the LCT posters who have been supportive of those of us who try to be considerant, and realize we have rights also, thank you very much. I, personally, appreciate it. I am just very sorry that Regent didn't really bother to really try out the block of cabins for 6 months or a year to see if it could work.
Lynn