Cruise Crazed,

Clearly you require a hotel that permits smoking. Rather than rely on second-hand information, don't you think it's best to be 100% certain by checking the property you wish to stay at, directly, for a definitive answer? This way you know for sure.

The hotel staff surely will welcome your question, Howard. Each hotel has their own policies pertaining to smoking; therefore, smoking policies will differ from property to property.

Howard,

I too went on the website and it is poorly done - you have to view it property by property. I tired to email them to get the official company wide policy, but you have to have a specific reservation to even email them.

Best to call, like Denise said. As a smoker, I have experienced that time and again when I've booked on-line and requested a smoking room, they are quick to answer that my preferences will be "noted" but not guaranteed.

Good point, Olivia. You can make requests; however, requests are always subject to availability.

You don't need a reservation to ask an important question. A call will get you the answer you need, immediately.

For Radisson Hotels, you do need a reservation if you want the answer in writing by email.

I did a google "Radisson smoking policies". They are all over the place. Yes in Bankok and Hong Kong. No in Boston, and Sydney, Yes in Madison and Nashville. Really a case where it is the individual property. Have no idea about e-mail. As a smoker, like I have said before, I call in advance, but there are never any guarantees!

Olivia -

Not all hotels will guarantee a non-smoking room either. We prefer Westin's non-smoking policy. I think Marriott is that way now too.

Kathy, I noted that fact above, none of them will guarantee, never have to my knowledge. Marriott has been very clear about their smoking ban enacted maybe a year ago..

I was not aware that Westin has gone to this policy, but it seems pretty clear.

Actually, I think you can book smoking and non-smoking rooms, just like you can book a king size bed which used to be by request only.

When I have made recent hotel reservations on line, for business and vacation, I am usually given the choice of a smoking or non-smoking room. So you can book these rooms.

I just got back from Champaign, IL and had to do a lot of on line shopping to find a hotel that had a non-smoking room. There was a big farm convention going on nearby. The only non-smoking room I could find had a Jacuzzi tub in the room. But that's another story. Tom.

We're very careful when we check out hotels for the family - and yes one call to the property is all it takes to get an answer. If we then decide to book I make another call so I have the name of the person I spoke with. It's a different matter if when you check in there is nothing available. Calling is much better than guessing when you have a confirmed smoker in the group! In the one case I recall where there was a problem, the property was gracious enough to upgrade Dad into a suite which allowed smoking. We would have paid the difference if necessary.

I agree with those who have said preferences are noted but not guaranteed. I always ask for non Smoking and do not always get it. That being said we own a condo in the MGM Signature in Las Vegas which is an entirely nonsmoking property even in the bar and on the balconys. If you must smoke you have to go outside. Or to the casino In LV one would assume this policy costs us some rental income but we are almost always booked so clearly there is a market for this. Seems pretty analogous to Regent's new policy?
---------------
Helen

Yet another smoking article with Mark Conroy at USA Today online. This one includes a poll.

Great article Karen! Guess Regent is not the only line making major changes in their smoking policy!

The one thing Mark DOESN'T say is how many people booked Regent because of the new smoking policy. Having said that, I'm not sure how figure it out.

Just a comment . . .

Peggy

??

I sort of suspect Regent took the lead on the smoking in the stateroom ban in much the same way Radisson did with the control on what Internet sites passengers could visit. RSSC initially explained the Internet restrictions introduced in early 2004 as a way to protect children (notable by their very low numbers on RSSC) although the actual reason, I heard for an on-board computer consultant, was to stop staff, crew, etc. from wasting time and bandwidth accessing "undesirable" (to RSSC) Internet sites. I think they are a bit old-fashioned, wanting to act " in loco parentis" for their passengers and crews. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised their lawyers let them try this, as it implies a level of protection difficult or impossible to actually provide with any degree of certainty.

A somewhat comical, and very outdated, parallel: In the early '90ies, Ann Reynolds, then Chancellor of the City University of New York, without much notice, consultation, or anything else, apparently (e.g., getting approval of the CUNY Board) banned smoking University-wide (19 colleges, etc.) one fine summer. Someone, a student group I think, filed a successful ADA complaint, arguing that then-President Clinton had earlier that spring stated that smoking (or nicotine?) addiction was a very real disability, and CUNY's new policy made no "reasonable accommodation" for smokers. So CUNY, then (always?) in a very tight money crunch and "retrenching", was forced to settle the complaint by agreeing to renovate rooms in all buildings with ventilation, ashtrays, etc., to accommodate smokers. As with much that is planned in New York, this didn't happen very quickly, and before the program got very far along, I believe some federal agency ruled that smoking or nicotine addiction was not an ADA-protected disability, so the whole thing faded away.

Even more interesting is the not so scientific poll in the USA today article. It is running 50-50 for smoking vs. non smoking in cabins. I would of thought that the majority non smokers would of jacked up the ban smoking everywhere choice.

Count: What is happening to the cruise world? No puffing no porn - Yikes!!! Time to rent the old lake cottage and do as we please!!!

:D thanks for the laugh!

Joanna,
You crack me up!!!!! :D

Joanna, too funny....

Count Florida:

You are correct that ADA does not provide protection for nicotine addiction. But my position on this matter is that it should.

Karen:

The poll is rather limited: ban smoking, allow smoking on balconies, or not ban it at all. It fails to include the most obvious option of allowing smoking only inside designated cabins. That's the problem with polls -- they often fail to ask the right questions. :)

Joanna:

Actually the rule is pretty much "he who ownes the computer can control the computer." Those who want to watch "adult entertainment" will have to bring their own DVDs!

There are people who have real handicaps and struggle daily to deal with them. They mostly didn't choose to have a disability. However with smoking people make a conscious decision to START smoking and if you were born anytime after 1955, the dangers were known even before you were old enough to start smoking. (I'm an ex-smoker over the magic age of 50 and knew full well even at age 12 what the dangers were.)

Somehow when laws are enacted to protect, lawyers get involved and wind up perverting the meaning of the original law. The law was originally put in place to protect those children and adults who have real handicaps that affect their ability to function in the real world.

Arlene:

Yes, but many of us here were born WELL BEFORE 1955. For us, there was a lot of social pressure to start smoking in young adulthood. The military even provided free cigarettes in some instances. (There is a reference above on how the World Cruise attracts an older group of guests and therefore has a higher percentage of smokers.) Several M.D. friends of mine say that smoking is more addicting than many illegal drugs to some people. This is like debating whether a person who is an alcoholic is an addict, or merely a drunk. Depending on the person, it may be either -- but many are alcohol addicts.

Is an addiction (Tobacco, alcohol, or drug) a "disability" that should (but isn't) protected at all by the ADA and similar laws? It's a matter of opinion. I only know that many of us had a very difficult time quitting smoking, and I know that it was a true addiction in my case. I'm glad I've been "cured" for the last ten years.

That's probably why I urge a little compassion for those still "hooked", and prefer that smoking be allowed in those areas least likely to bother or injure us non-smokers during this "generational transition period" while we still have some around who got "hooked" back when smoking was "cool."

Let me start by saying that eventhough I don't smoke, "second hand smoking" has never bothered me that much, much less aboard any Regent cruise.

Having said that, I think it would be a travesty to include smokers as part of a protected class within ADA. If you did that, any other person with addictions ( ie. alcohol, recreational drugs) would also qualify! Like Arlene said, that was not the intent of the ADA legislation.

Not to restart a long discussion here, but it must be remembered that ADA and similar laws do not give "protection" to anybody. They merely require "reasonable accomodation" of certain conditions, IF such can be done without undue burden on others or on on entities such as employers and providers of public accomodation (cruise ships and hotels). "Reasonable accomodation" of smokers on ships would probably merely involve confining smoking to the inside of designated smoking cabins, with no smoking in any public area. The problem with Regent's new policy (and that of many other "tag alongs") is twofold. First, they fail to "reasonably accomodate" smokers with designated, non-public enclosed smoking areas (such as a guests own room). Second, they continue to allow smoking in public areas. Most notable is the casino. Some lines didn't give advance notice as Regent correctly did, and just invoked similar policies without notice. On those lines, the casinos have turned into "smoke holes", and that is no good either.

I agree about it being an addiction. I also know how hard it is to quit and wouldn't wish it on anyone. I'm a former smoker myself (21 years without a cigarette), so yes I do have compassion for the need to smoke and do understand.

What I don't agree with is trying to classify it with true disabilities. To equate the need to smoke as something that should be classified under ADA with a need to have ramps in buildings, handicapped seating or accomodations for LD children so they can have the same opportunity to learn as non-LD children,is ridiculous.

While I'd personally love to see the ship smoke-free, I know this isn't going to happen in the near future. I do know that I'm very sensitive nowadays to smoke (and have developed a real allergy that causes asthma to it) and can smell it the minute I walk into a room. My guess is they took this step to keep cleaning costs down. As for the balcony, this is in direct response to what happened on the Princess cruise and in light of the fears is understandble.

While it's an unlikely scenerio, a room or balcony that catches on fire on a lower floor would spread upwards, and possibly even incapacitate the life boats. I know the smokers here on this board are very responsible, but who's to say others are? Just because they have the money to sail on a Regent ship, doesn't mean they're going to abide by common sense.

I also agree about the casinos being unfit to sit in. I have avoided them for that reason, even though I enjoy playing craps. Unfortunately like most things in life, Regent is not going to please everyone.

don't you think this would impinge on the emplyees?

Lastly, when NYC went smoke-free bar owners were up in arms that they were going to lose their customers. What happened? Nothing. Smokers stayed away for a short while and eventually came back. Now if you go to any trendy bar in Manhattan, you'll be lucky if you have enough room to squeeze in. And what started as an oddball idea in NYC is now spreading across the country, and even into other countries.

Re the ADA point, even if it were included, no one would have to accomodate the act of smoking--only the physical effects of the addiction. For instance, no one would say that an employer has to provide a way for an alcohol-addicted person to drink, only to make allowance for time off to detox. Similarly, the ADA would never require a cruise ship to enable the smoking addiction by providing a place to smoke.

It might be argued that the ships enable alcohol addiction by including alcohol and making it available throughout the ship. But the point is they would never be required by ADA to do so.

Two ADA thoughts, it would be terrific if there were one spot for smoking and drinking and it would not impact the other passengers or the employees.

California has been non-smoking in both bars and restaurants for years and led the way internationally. Hotel Bars are an exception. I still smoked when the legislation started passing and it's when I quit. I got tired of being forced outside to smoke. For me, one of the best things to happen and hardest thigs to do but I don't miss it now - it's as if I never smoked.

Complicated issue for sure. All I know is this. Many of my doctor friends tell me that tobacco addiction is so strong that some smokers who were hooked while the tobacco companies were keeping the ill effects a secret may NEVER succeed in quitting. They also lament than "big pharma" hasn't come up with better "quit smoking" drugs that could be used like methadone on heroin addicts.

The question is simply this. Are ships going to provide these people an isolated, private place to smoke (like their own designated smoking cabins) while banning smoking in all public areas and balconies so as not to impact he rest of us? Apparently not. Instead, the ships are still allowing smoking in some public areas, are making casino's "smoke holes" and therefore inaccessable to some of us, and banning smoking from the most isolated and private places (i.e. designated smoking cabins). It is not that I disagree with the premise that Regent (and other lines) needs to ban smoking from more areas than in the past. It's just that I think the particular approach is "bass ackwards!"

And yes, alcoholics should also find a more "friendly" set of policies onboard. Since it is not possible to have "designated alcoholic rooms" (and would do no good), ships need to work at removing the temptation and social pressure on alcoholics to drink. This might include having a few tables at dinner where alcohol is not served, and curtailing the "hawking" of drinks on the mass market lines.

I think a bit of clarification or rebuttal is needed here. I started smoking in 1953, as a young teenager, and smoked until August 14, 1995. When I started, the tobacco companies were running ads about which brand of cigarettes doctors (yes, MDs) preferred! A few years later, in the service, I got 'free' cigarettes (4 or 5 at a time) in C rations when we were "in the field". At that time, it was considered a courteous thing to offer others a cigarette if you were going to light up; you saw it all the time in the movies. By the time anyone knew cigarettes were dangerous, in the 1960ies I think, I was hooked, addicted to nicotine.

A book published by Consumers' Reports in 1972, "Licit and Illicit Drugs", reported on conclusions by a scientist at Rockefeller University and the Synanon drug addiction help agency in 1971: "It is much easier to quit heroin than cigarettes". The principal author of that book, Ed Brecher, a personal friend, had earlier lost his wife, a heavy smoker, to lung cancer. He himself was also a smoker, but even with this horrific example was unable to quit and later did away with himself rather than face the terminal ravages of emphysema. Both my wife and I saw what smoking did to Ed, and also to my sister’s father-in-law, up close, but neither of us was able to quit. It wasn’t until the ‘patch’ became available and my father was dying of congestive heart failure, brought on at least in part by his heavy smoking, that I was able to quit, and that was on my third try with the help of the patch. A work-place ban actually helped me to stay off cigarettes, but many couldn’t stop. Some lost their jobs over it, good jobs! No one should lightly criticize people with a smoking addiction, as it is a very tough thing to stop, for some, an impossible thing to stop.

In intensive care, facing surgery, radiation and chemotherapy for lung cancer, my siblings and I were encouraging our mother to quit smoking. She was being wheeled outside, to smoke, and they werebringing her oxygen with her. Since we were meeting with the physician, in her room to discuss treatment, we were sure we would be supported and perhaps buy a bit more time.

The doctor's response was "It's too late now - let her enjoy her last pleasure in life".

I never wish that upon anyone's children to experience.

ChatKat:

Your story provides us with a good example of the need for all to quit smoking and be able to avoid second hand smoke -- and also how difficult it is to quit. I am sorry for your loss.

Count Florida:

Your post is spot on. Even after the famous Surgeon General's report on the dangers of smoking in 1963, there remained some debate as to HOW dangerous it was. And nobody got any official warning about the second hand stuff untill the EPA report in the late 80's. This report also detailed that the dangers of direct smoking were much greater than detailed in the 1963 report, which was actually a little "weak" on the issue. This raises a real question as to when all of us should have known that this stuff is deadly.

Now, to clarify my position on what ships should do to maximize our protection from second hand smoke while still providing the maximum accomodation for those whose addiction is too strong (no fault of their own), here it is.

1. Ban smoking in ALL public areas of ships, and on balconies.

2. Allow smoking only in designated smoking rooms/suites. equip these suites with exhaust fans to the outside set to run, say, 3:30 AM to 4:30 AM.

This seems better for non smokers and smokers alike than the recent current trend to allow smoking in some public areas, while banning it in all srooms/suites. Under the lines' new policies, we are still exposed to second hand smoke in some public areas and some (casino) have become smoke filled. We shouldn't have to put up with that. On the other hand, smokers are banned from smoking in the place where it would harm others the least -- thier own smoking designated room/suite. This is also better because those guests who are in the process of quitting would not be exposed to even the sight of someone smoking -- which I know can be a temptation.

So it is not that I oppose more limitation of smoking on ships -- it is just that I believe that the lines are doing it "bass ackwards."

Thanks, Richard, that was almost 15 years ago - long after I'd quit. I started by stealing my mom's Salem's sometime around 1971 and quit in 1990.

I'd gladly sign your petition. It's just not fair to expose non-smokers to the health hazards.

Dolebludger, I must once again respectfully disagree with your position. Regent is making "reasonable accommodation" for smokers. However, based on many years of experience assuring that the company(s) I worked for adhered to ADA, no one ever suggested that smoking be included in ADA.

If I could make the law, I would allow privately owned companies to make their own decision as it pertains to smoking. It would be interesting to see how many employees would chose to be exposed to second hand smoke 8 hours a day when they have a choice to work in a clean environment and smoke outside.

I just returned from England (smoking in all public places became a law in July 2007) Belfast, Northern Ireland (where the same law went into effect in April 2007). Unlike luxury cruisers, people in the U.K. are not making a big fuss. Yes -- they can smoke in their homes -- but certainly not in any hotel or restaurant.

So, I my opinion, smokers should thank Regent for accommodating smoking on their ships and respect the fact that they want their beautiful suites to be free not only from smoke in the fabrics of their furniture and carpeting, but from possible cigarette burns or, worst case scenario, a fire caused from someone falling asleep in bed (as happens all to frequently in homes).

A former smoker. . . . .

Again, read the RCI and NCL boards where those lines just "sprung" a Regent-like policy on guests without the warning to guests that Regent has given. Accomodation of smokers is only half the story. The other half is that on those ships, smokers, no longer able to smoke in their own rooms away from us non smokers, are filling the casinos and other designated smoking areas on the ship with a thick blanket of smoke. You must have missed the part where I have advocated no smoking in ANY public areas or on any balcony. My goal in doing so is to keep second-hand smoke away from me. It has been established that the market for a totally smoke free ship is pretty limited (i.e., the Carnival Paradise story). So if we accept that as current fact, the remaining issue is where should smoking be allowed? I strongly believe that it shouldn't be in any pubic areas. Not balconies either. Not due to the Princess fire, as the "cigarette dropped from a balcony " is only a theory. But due to the situation of non smokers who might have a balcony down wind of a smoker's balcony. All that is left is designated, ventilated smoking staterooms and suites.

I know of no instance wherein a ship fire has been started from smoking inside a stateroom or suite. Does anybody?

You have a very logical reasoning mind, Dolebludger.

Ardis

Ardis:

Why thank you very much!

I really believe that what all of us want (including smokers) is to eventually arrive at a point were all are ABLE to just quit, nobody will be smoking, and threads like this will be a moot point. There needs to be a WHOLE LOT done by both government and "big pharma" in developing more effective "stop smoking" drugs. I never knew a smoker who didn't really want to quit. That is probably the source of my compassion for smokers. Before I was able to quit ten years ago, I had unsuccessfully tried to do so more times than I can count! Then, my doctor put me on a drug called "effexor" for another problem. As a side effect, smoking no longer gave me a "buzz" but just left a bad taste in my mouth. That and "the gum" allowed me to quit for good. This drug doesn't have the same beneficial effect for everyone, and what we need badly is a drug that does.

Smoking is really going away as acceptable behavior first in the US and now Europe. It started with the airlines 20 years ago and it has come full circle with the rumors that it will be banned in some Las Vegas casinos. Of all places. I read in one article that Convoy said Raddison will lose millions in business from mostly the Europeans who are not quite used to this deal yet. But I look at it as some of the many gradual changes in our society whether we like it or not. Look at drinking and driving, a acceptable behavior for my parents (to have a few drinks at dinner and drive home) now it's practically a felony. As Dylan said "the times they are a changing."

I've heard that kicking smoking is as hard as giving up Heroin in some respects. I can attest to that as today makes one week for me without. But I can look forward to not worrying about where I'm going to smoke on my next cruise and maybe spending an extra 15 years on the planet down the road. I will however never ever be rude or look down on someone because they smoke. Being on the receiving end of that on my last cruise.

You can't smoke indoors anywhere in Great Britain or Denmark, but you can still get a smoking room. Go figure. The restrictions took affect this past summer in July and Aug. Many of the Regent smokers who were full world cruisers and who cancelled the 2008 WC are going to the WC on the Silver Shadow and/or to Holland America. We're going to Silversea. I, for one, refuse to be told by others how I am to live my life. It's my right and my responsibility, not someone else's! But then, I would never think of sueing a tobacco company either. I guess the 6 1/2 years in the can in Vietnam under communism just turned me into a freedom loving maverick!

Tony and I will be forever grateful for what you did in VM