The Party’s Over

I’ve never been on a cruise ship. But to the best of my knowledge life on one of them is more or less one non-stop party, from dawn to dusk.

But it seems that now the party’s over.

Cruise Lines to End Smoking on Balconies

Cabin balconies are now off limits to smokers on two more cruise lines.

Last week, Carnival Cruise Line announced a change in its smoking policies, banning cruisers from lighting up on its balconies (a ban on smoking in the cabin was already in effect) beginning Oct. 9, 2014.

On Wednesday, Norwegian Cruise Line followed suit, prohibiting smoking on stateroom balconies beginning Nov. 1, “As the health and well-being of our guests and crew is of the utmost importance,” it said in an email announcement. Norwegian also prohibits smoking in ship cabins.

“The cruise industry is following what hotel industry is already doing,” said Carolyn Spencer Brown, editor-in-chief of “They are limiting smoking, not banning it outright.”

Nonsmoking areas have been growing in the past five years aboard ships, although most lines still offer public areas outdoors or in casinos to smoke.

So you can’t smoke in your cabin. And you can’t smoke on your cabin balcony either. And you almost certainly can’t smoke anywhere inside the ship (except the casino).

Why should a smoker like me ever want to take a cruise on one of these ships? The way I read it, the cruise companies are telling 20% of their customers that they’re no longer welcome.

Why? Surely a ship at sea is one place in the world where national or state smoking bans don’t apply. Why are the cruise companies unilaterally imposing their own bans? Have they become their customers’ moral guardians?

Perhaps they have. But if they’re going to ban smoking, why not ban drinking and gambling and dancing as well? After all, if smoking can be banned on some pretext or other, so can anything else.

And perhaps that’s exactly what they intend to do, and drive all their customers away.

I expect to see cruise companies going bust just like pubcos.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to The Party’s Over

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Yep and within hours I had that posted all over facefuck and it had hundreds of signers for all it was worth.

  1. Tony says:

    A little off topic – Prohibitionists create more problems:

    Bristol late night noise blamed on khat ban
    Abdi Mohamed, from Bristol Somali Media, said it was not due to Ramadan but down to the closing of khat cafes.
    He said it affected about 500 people who had lost their “social spaces”.
    ‘Worse after Ramadan’
    Mr Mohamed said: “As of last month, in one area, almost 30 social spaces have gone.
    He said each place catered for about 15-20 people, meaning “more than 500 people” now had nowhere to go.
    He said no problems were reported last year, despite Ramadan late night prayers finishing at about 23:00 BST.
    Mr Mohamed said they had met with the council and police to warn them “the khat ban would affect community cohesion”.
    “Imagine if you closed 30 pubs in an area in Bristol, what would happen? People need social spaces,” he said.

    • I’m not defending antisocial behaviour, but I’d never heard of khat, so wanted to learn more, as I have tried a few ethnobotanicals. (I’d never try salvia; not after seeing a video of a young bloke taking some then going bananas and jumping through a window.) Interesting comments in the Bristol Post (warning, music started playing and my volume is set at full):

      I think every comment shows the contempt in Bristol for the Somalis, so the multi-culti thing not really working there (‘cos it wasn’t meant to). They mostly manage to miss the point of the article. Comments like, “If these people dont (sic) like are (sic) laws go home its (sic) simple.”

      Well, duh! It wasn’t the law until a few weeks ago.

      It’s like calls to ‘ban the burkha’. If and when that happens, some women will still wear them (by order of their husbands) and we’ll get the same old guff, “If these people don’t like our laws, go home…”.

      Isn’t that classed as hate speech?

      Things seem to be changing. The Muslims have done their job and allowed our traitor politicians to trash our culture and values, so now they are losing their status as a protected species. It’ll happen to ‘the gays’ one day too. We’ll finally all be ‘equal’: equally without any rights or freedoms.

      Anyway, I was wondering about shisha bars and came across a pdf of instructions from Preston City Council: “Thinking about setting up a Shisha Café?” I’ll post the link in a follow-up comment so I’m not impaled on a spike in the moderation queue as I think Frank’s set it to two or more links.

      It looks like a comfy shisha cafe is an impossibility. It explains. “What are ‘substantially enclosed’ premises?” and “What is a roof?” (customers will be asking “where is the roof?”). And of course, there’s talk of ‘enforcement’ and ‘penalties’ for failing to comply with every jot and tittle so you ensure your customers have as unpleasant a time as possible and you make enough money to scrape by on, if you’re fortunate.

      I have absolutely no interest in defending Islam per se, being a follower of the Christ; it’s just more bans and more complex rules to ‘comply’ with and less freedom all round.

      And more chances to keep the hatred festering.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      354 pubs had to close because of the smoking ban

      Over the past year made ??close to the Canary Islands 354 pubs.

      Canary Islands – This was announced by the regional association of recreational facilities and catering operators (Fecao) with and makes for the jobs destroyed as a result mainly responsible for the smoking ban. In a public announcement raises Fecao the authorities’ unprecedented witch-hunt “against.
      If you prefer to consider that are engaged in any operation for about four to six employees, then since the ban came into 2,000 jobs have been destroyed. According to the Canary Islands are Spain Fecao much on the sad fourth place in terms of the number of deaths from food court. 2010 were still registered 8451, 2011, there are only 8097.
      The consequences of the second January 2011 which came into force more stringent anti-tobacco law – strict ban on smoking in all pubs, restaurants and nightclubs – are seen, according to information from Fecao especially in Madrid, where the number of bars and pubs has fallen by almost 700th Also in Andalusia (424 deaths) and Galicia (367), the effects were clearly visible. “And despite all this, some politicians advocate as Health Minister Leire Pajín the success of this law, which in reality has led to business closures in Spain and continues,” it says in the statement of the Association. The problem is compounded for the industry that there is currently no active employment promotion policies for SMEs, waiting to continue reductions in the national health insurance and tax benefits. Rather, the self were currently exposed to an unprecedented hunt: workplace inspections, health inspections, traffic controls – with strikingly frequent inspections of company cars, complains Fecao.

  2. Marie Engling says:

    Some 48 years ago I was on a cruise ship. We were a group going to Israel for 1 1/2 month. From Venice to Haifa took a week, and so did the way home. It was before I started smoking, and was I bothered? Of course not. I shared a cabin with too friends. One of them was a smoker. Did he smoke in the cabin? I have no idea, but more than half the group were smokers, I am sure. But I don’t remember them smoking, because I did not notice – it was just part of them.

  3. carol2000 says:

    Meanwhile, as they kick 20% of their customers in the teeth, Norwegian Cruise Lines panders to the tiny two percent, with “Gay & Lesbian Cruises.”
    But don’t be surprised if they actually believe that 20% of the population is gay while only 2% smoke, because that’s what the media propaganda machine has been striving to convince the gullible sheep. And look how far they’ve succeeded!

    “In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or ‘homosexual,’ the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, ‘U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian,’ Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.”

    “Contemporary research in a less homophobic environment has counterintuitively resulted in lower estimates rather than higher ones. The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a gay and lesbian think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that just 1.7 percent of Americans between 18 and 44 identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent — predominantly women — identify as bisexual.” And, “A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of women between 22 and 44 that questioned more than 13,500 respondents between 2006 and 2008 found very similar numbers: Only 1 percent of the women identified themselves as gay, while 4 percent identified as bisexual.” The author adds that “One thing’s for sure: it’s hard to imagine the fact that so many think the country is more than a quarter gay or lesbian has no impact on our public policy.” (Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are. By Garance Franke-Ruta. The Atlantic, May 31, 2012.)
    The Centers for Disease Control just did its first large-scale survey, which found that that just 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.
    The New York Times was so put out by the news that they devoted most of their coverage (6 days later) to trying to cast doubt on it!

    • Frank Davis says:

      Very interesting.

      It may reflect the fact that gays and lesbians are a highly vocal minority, making a much greater noise than their actual numbers would ordinarily permit. And that smokers are a silent (silenced?) minority, making much less noise than their actual numbers.

      I’m reminded, however, that there is a higher prevalence of smokers among gays and lesbians. So if they’re now welcomed as gays aboard cruise ships, they’re quite likely being rejected as smokers. Swings and roundabouts.

      • carol2000 says:

        “It may reflect the fact that gays and lesbians are a highly vocal minority, making a much greater noise than their actual numbers would ordinarily permit.”

        You make the mistake they want you to make, of presuming that it’s because gays are vocal while smokers are not. The truth is that it’s the Harvard oligarchy that gave them their high-powered sound system, etc., and executed their strategy. Just look at the difference in media coverage, especially The New York Times. The elites have a formal strategy, by which you you always recognize when they’ve switched on their consent-manufacturing machine:

        “The fastest way to convince straights that homosexuality is commonplace is to get a lot of people talking about the subject in a neutral supportive way. Open, frank talk makes gayness seem less furtive, alien, and sinful more aboveboard. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable block — the most modern, up-to-date citizens — accept or even practice homosexuality… The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.” (Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk. Strategy: Persuasion, Not Invasion, from Chapter 3 of After the Ball (1989). In: We Are Everywhere: A Historical Sourcebook of Gay and Lesbian Politics. By Mark Blasius and Shane Phelan.) This is Madsen and Kirk’s first step of “desensitization.” Their next step, “jamming,” is public smearing of anyone who opposes their agenda, to intimidate both the target and any potential supporters into silence. “We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation through the media” (After the Ball, p. 153)

        With smokers, they did exactly the same thing but in the opposite direction, using badmouthing against smokers while goodmouthing anti-smokers – with the latter as “the most modern, up-to-date citizens,” ad nauseum.

        • Words I know well from The Overhauling of Straight America.

          There are so many classics in this must-read article from 1987 about how the militant homosexuals would use mainly television to make straights defend homosexuality.

          The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed.

          And straights would defend “by reflex”. Only mass mind control could have changed public opinion so much in such a short space of time,

          Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression.

    • Fredrik Eich says:

      Gay couples can adopt children in the UK , just so long as they are not Gay smokers. Gay smokers are the wong sort of Gay

  4. carol2000 says:

    In Bermuda and Belize, the potheads get shaken down by local customs officials, while in Jamaica, they get Bob Marley tours.
    PS, I have another comment in the dungeon.

  5. magnetic01 says:

    I posted a comment a few years ago on the matter that is still relevant.

    A number of major cruise lines that still had “reasonable” smoking policies have just further tightened these policies.

    The situation has only worsened.

    The vast majority of cruise lines now have what could be termed anti-smoking/smoker policies. If you want to smoke onboard, it is a highly controlled/restricted behavior – hardly a holiday atmosphere for smokers.

    Over the last 5-6 years, I’ve kept an eye on smoking policies at holiday resorts (not that I could attend any of these – research purposes only). The antismoking trend began with 5-star resorts. Initially it was nonsmoking rooms that were offered. Then all rooms were made nonsmoking. Some resorts even declared the entire property nonsmoking.

    So there was a small percentage of 5-star resorts offering nonsmoking facilities; the percentage became greater and greater. We are now at the point where the vast majority of 5-star resorts are highly smoker unfriendly. And this has all occurred over a short time-frame, i.e., bandwagon effect. There are still some 5-star resorts that cater to some extent for smokers but these are now very few.

    The trend has trickled to 4-star resorts. There is now a growing proportion of these offering nonsmoking facilities on a par with 5-star resorts. There is even a small percentage of 3-star resorts offering nonsmoking facilities.

    What can be said of the circumstance is that antismoking is elitist. It is the wealthy (and the “educated”) that pushed the trend in their 5-star sphere, i.e., snobbery/bigotry. Smoking has now been manufactured into a lower-class, “uneducated” activity. The wealthy have become [physical] health obsessed (just like earlier last century). These antismoking policies are a way of distancing the smoking riff-raff (even wealthy smokers that haven’t yet gotten with the “health program”), a way of avoiding “contamination” from the “unclean”. A very significant percentage of 4-star resorts and smaller percentage of 3-star resorts have followed suit (copycat, “trendy”).

    It’s sad to say that if you’re a smoker, you’d now be hard pressed to even find 3-star facilities (in numerous countries) that don’t have rabid antismoking policies.

  6. magnetic01 says:

    Although cruise lines came late to antismoking fanaticism, the deterioration has happened even more quickly on cruise ships. Up until only a few years ago, most cruise ships banned smoking only in most indoor public areas, particularly eateries. But then the cruise-line “health officers” got moving, tapped into GlobaLink for the most effective tricks/strategies, with the eradication agenda. Now on most cruise ships, smoking is also banned in state rooms and balconies, with only a few designated outdoor smoking areas. Smoking is still permitted in casinos, but only if the smoker is playing (spending money).

    The adoption of such draconian policies is made all the easier by antismoking complaints. Complaining/whining is not only an aspect of antismoking bigotry; it’s also an antismoking strategy. The antismoking bigots will go into smoke-permitted areas and complain – loudly and constantly – of the “terrible” smoke. Or they’ll lodge complaints with the front desk that they had to endure a whiff of tobacco smoke as they were walking along the deck that has almost ruined their entire holiday. Antismokers promote themselves as health and moral “superiors” that must be accommodated first and foremost. The cruise lines themselves have become rabidly antismoking. Unfortunately, society (including cruise lines) cannot yet discern the perils of twisted fanaticism, and so they currently fully appease the neurotic antismoking bigots believing this to be “progress”.

    There are a number of “cruise blogs”. All of them have adopted the antismoking line. They occasionally will have an antismoking theme and out come the cruising antismokers (and/or antismoking astroturfers). Some of the most vile, bigoted comments come from cruising antismokers. They are well-versed in the propaganda; how smokers are ruining antismokers’ holidays and health. They even complain of thirdhand “smoke” getting into the crevices of furniture imperiling innocent antismokers. It’s an extraordinary mental mess.

    But the latest deterioration concerns e-gizmos…… this policy from the Sea Princess:
    “The use of electronic cigarettes is permitted in all areas onboard with the exception of dining areas and the Princess Theater. However, should a fellow passenger in the vicinity feel inconvenienced and complain, even after being told the difference between electronic cigarettes and real cigarettes, we will ask the passenger to refrain from smoking the electronic cigarette.”

    It’s all been put in the hands of the lowest common denominator. You can use the e-gizmo just about anywhere on board. But if anyone complains, even after the e-gizmo is explained to them, you have to put the gadget away like a good little boy/girl because only the complaining of stupid, bigoted people counts.

  7. magnetic01 says:

    A fundamental problem that facilitates the expanding hysteria is the “health officer”. Health officers are all over the place. You’ll find them in corporations (including cruise lines, hotels). You’ll find them in local government. Health officers are lobbied by the typical antismoking groups (e.g., cancer society, heart foundation) and fed the standard propaganda. Health officers then define their corporation’s position on smoking. And the standard position is antismoking. And by antismoking is meant the eradication of smoking, to not accommodate the smoking habit in any way. Whether these health officers are aware of it or not, they are in line with the WHO FCTC.

  8. waltc says:

    I agree with Magnetico down the line. The ants whine to management and even a dozen whines can lead to a ban, especially in the face of ” no safe level” and third hand smoke. All things considered, I find it only passingly ironic that some of the worst viral epidemics that lay low half the customers have been happening on cruise ships. S o much for those Health Officers. Then, too, I wonder to what if any extent governments are involved, as they were in the airline ban.

    As for their losing smoking customers, I think they must already have lost us when they banned us from on board restaurants, bars, and finally inside cabins. You’d have had to be nuts to pay to be made that uncomfortable, so they’re only losing a few masochists.

    . Finally, I note that in the US even cheap hotel chains are banning smoking in all rooms in an effort to appear tony. Then, too, by now smokers have a hard time renting a car so if you want to avoid a no- smoking cab ride to a no- smoking terminal to a no- smoking plane or train ( and the same bullshit upon arrival) you can’t drive there either. And then why would you want to drive to a no- smoking hotel? Thus they keep us out of sight and out of mind– except as classless undesirables.

    Re: yesterday. Frank, I won’t quarrel with your take and take it for granted you know what you’re talking about. US news here from either side of the political spectrum has never that I know of reported anything about US etc involvement in the kickoff in Kiev.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Both the EU and US were active in Ukraine supporting anti-government protests prior to the toppling of the pro-Russian government. e.g. BBC

      EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton was cheered by crowds on a visit to Kiev’s main protest site.

      Ashton is (or was) EU vice-president. And she flew into Kiev days after the coup to lend her support.

      EU Ashton in Kiev as new government accuses ousted Yanukovich of mass murder

      And then there was John McCain in Kiev before the coup:

      John McCain, the American senator, has told protesters in the Ukranian capital Kiev that their country’s destiny lies with Europe – despite an EU official saying talks with the EU were ‘on hold’

    • nisakiman says:

      I use the Agoda site for booking hotels, not in major western cities, but fairly obscure places (Vientiane and Pakse in Laos, Siem Reap in Cambodia, and recently I’ve been looking at Hanoi in Vietnam) and certainly not five star places, mostly three star. Almost without exception, when you go to the hotel description etc, they proudly declare in their list of facilities: “NON-SMOKING ROOMS”, as if it’s an added bonus! WTF?

      I now have to look for rooms with balconies, just to be on the safe side. I have to admit that last year I booked a hotel in Pakse, southern Laos which had the “Non-Smoking Rooms” descriptor (so I made sure there was a balcony), and when I got there, the first thing I noticed was an ashtray on the table in the room, so they were obviously just going with the flow on the Agoda site and paying lip service to the meme. On the other hand, one I booked in Bangkok had big “No Smoking” signs in the rooms. (But again, I’d made sure there was a balcony). And nearly all the ones I’ve been looking at in Hanoi are the same. Although in many of these hotels, they also advertise that they have a ‘smoking area’, whatever that may be.

      It’s thoroughly depressing, even if, like the hotel in Pakse, they’re only paying lip service. I’m guessing that this is coming from the operators of the site (not sure, but I think it’s American), who are putting pressure on the hotels to go ‘smoke free’. They’re probably telling them that all their clients want non-smoking rooms.

  9. Chris says:

    More proof, if any was needed, that smokers are (forced to be?) more patriotic than non-smokers. Their disposable income is spent on a product in their own Country rather than on foreign luxuries. Unfortunately Governments fail to respect this direct contribution to the economy so maybe we have a duty to seek out alternative suppliers so we can support other less draconian regimes.

  10. The Blocked Dwarf says:

    Driving back from Budapest recently, I had to pull off the Autobahn in the former DDR and use a Motel (I’m no longer young enough to drive 12 hours in one go nor to sleep in the car). Went to the reception and booked the room when suddenly the Receptionist asked ‘smoking or non smoking?’.

    As the Bestes Frau In The Whole Wide World is a virulent Non-Smoker, normally I would have answered ‘Nicht Raucher (Non Smoking)’ of course but I was so gobsmacked-in-a-good-way that a hotel anywhere would still WANT my custom that I said ‘Raucher’ even though I didn’t intend to actually ‘rauch’ in the room.

    It was all a little ironic because the hotel in Budapest we had stayed in that weekend, was the hotel She and I met in 25 years ago. Back in Soviet times when the hotel was a ‘Hostel for International Workers and Friends Of The Glorious Republic’ or some such and even after 25 years of capitalism remains a very ‘bare bones’ affair-mainly renting rooms long term to migrant workers from Russia etc. It has also recently gone NON SMOKING – although the entire staff and seemingly every ‘guest’ ,aside from my wife, were smokers! The entire hotel, including the owner/manager dutifully traipsed outside the front door to smoke.

  11. Rose says:

    Irritating article of the day.

    Ban supersized foods, says health committee chairman

    “Supersized” food and drinks should be banned by law in a bid to combat Britain’s obesity epidemic, the new head of the Commons health select committee has said.

    Dr Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative MP and former GP, said the state had a “duty to intervene” to protect current and future generations from unhealthy habits threatening to shorten their lives.”

    “The former GP called for a direct ban on “supersized” foods and drinks, so that manufacturers would be restricted to producing chocolate bars, junk food meals and fizzy drinks in standard sizes.”

    Clearly the concept of “sharing” is foreign to this person.

    • XX Clearly the concept of “sharing” is foreign to this person.XX


      We can get XXXXXL Schnitzels here. Up to about five kilo pig meat in a breadcrumb batter, deep fried, and with more chips on the plate than Harry Ramsden could even dream about. (And a half leaf of limp lettuce and a tomatoe slice to appease the veggys.)

      BUT! Normally, it will be ordered by a table of four, six, or eight people.

      SOME try and eat a whole one to them selves. I have never seen them suceed. But the idea is no different to a Chinese restraunt having a “Menu for six people,” or whatever.

      Of course the mutherfucking prats that want these bans are the same types that when they go to a restaraunt are quite happy with a finger nail size piece of un-named meat, hiding under a slice of carrot, and dribbled on by the chef with something resembling the spittle of a baccy chewer.

      To them, a standard “Fish chips and mushy peas is XXXL.

    • Supergran says:

      The pricks that sold off all the play areas around schools should be answerable for young people getting bigger. My mam (bless her soul) fed us all like kings. Old fashioned, down to earth good food (full fat, full sugar blah blah) but we played sport at school and played out as long as we could (daren’t go in for a wee in case your mam said “its time you were in now”!! Marvellous times. No worries about anything really those days. Everyone was tolerant of everyone else and life was nicer.

  12. Bill says:

    Like any ban it is COULD be easily overturned by people choosing to no longer spend their hard earned on an enjoyable activity that is now deemed ‘banned’ by those who benefit financially from that activity.
    All smokers need to do is stop buying cruises. Faced with a loss of profitability or even going out of business I’d lay odds the ban would suddenly disappear.

    Trouble is people have become so cowed they will only walk on the designated one way street. Divide and conquer in action.

    • Supergran says:

      Ahhh Bill, look at the poor buggers (pub landlords) who TRIED. Really tried. They got trouble and fines until in the end, they had no choice. The most worrying thing for me, and thats why I love reading Frank (for his continued optimism), is that once they ban it – they will NEVER un-ban it. Its truly bloody awful. I would NEVER go on a cruise due to the smoking ban, although I did do one, and we could smoke mostly anywhere on the ship then.

  13. wobbler2012 says:

    Cruise companies what a bunch of wankers eh? I would say f**k them and still light up in the cabin, unless they had smoke detecting alarms you would get away with it. But why any smoker would want to willfully part with thousands of pounds to companies so anti-smoking is a mystery to me.

    • Supergran says:

      Hey Wobbler, I went to a hotel recently (in the South of England) and there were DIRE warnings about smoking. They said, if we detect even a whiff of smoke, you will be forced to pay £100 for cleaning the room. Bastards

  14. magnetic01 says:

    Interesting article on a psychogenic effect in asthmatics (from NCCLASH facebook)

    The article is referring to a psychogenic effect – psychologically-mediated physical symptoms. Contemporary antismoking and its inflammatory propaganda has produced nocebo effects galore, e.g., anxiety disorder, somatization. And where it has certainly been seen is in asthmatics complaining that their symptoms have been produced by exposure to tobacco smoke. It was known decades ago that asthma symptoms can be produced through a psychological reaction, e.g., fear. Antismoking nut cases actively promote psychogenic effects to advance their deranged “cause”, i.e., nocebo effect. This latest study is not breaking new ground. Rather, the question should be why the last time such research was conducted was back in the 1970s (e.g., Luparello). In greater context, this latest research also does not ask the question as to why some people arrive at the irrational belief that exposure to “X” is “harmful”. Again, concerning antismoking, zealots actively promote irrational beliefs about the “harmfulness” of exposure.

    A nocebo is negative expectation (irrational fear) that can then manifest in physical symptoms. Good, short video on the “nocebo effect”

    Contemporary antismoking should be viewed in this nocebo context, through the constant baseless claim of “hazard” (e.g., secondary smoke, “thirdhand smoke”) under the guise of “authority”.

    • magnetic01 says:

      Psychogenic effects aren’t confined to asthmatics. A nocebo effect can be produced in otherwise physically healthy individuals. Some of the physical symptoms of irrational fear – headache, eye or throat irritation, palpitations, breathlessness, labored breathing, chest tightness, dry mouth, feeling of choking, fear of sudden death, dizziness, hot flushes or cold chills. Concerning ambient tobacco smoke, the public has been exposed to all manner of baseless claims made by so-called “authorities” concerning “hazard”. There is a segment of the population that will react (psychogenic) to smoke or even the prospect of smoke with physical symptoms such as above. Not only have they been conditioned/manipulated (brainwashed) into psychogenic effects but the authorities that have promoted these nocebo effects are also telling sufferers that these are physical reactions to the physical properties of smoke, i.e., a normalization of mental dysfunction.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The anti-smoking nazis PSYCHOSIS has been studied and found non-harmful and they can seek treatment!

        Toxicol Rev. 2003;22(4):235-46.

        Idiopathic environmental intolerance: Part 1: A causation analysis applying Bradford Hill’s criteria to the toxicogenic theory.

        Staudenmayer H, Binkley KE, Leznoff A, Phillips S.


        Behavioral Medicine, Multi-Disciplinary Toxicology, Treatment and Research Center, Denver, Colorado 80222, USA.


        Idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI) is a descriptor for a phenomenon that has many names including environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity and chemical intolerance. Toxicogenic and psychogenic theories have been proposed to explain IEI. This paper presents a causality analysis of the toxicogenic theory using Bradford Hill’s nine criteria (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, biological plausibility, coherence, experimental intervention and analogy) and an additional criteria (reversibility) and reviews critically the scientific literature on the topic. The results of this analysis indicate that the toxicogenic theory fails all of these criteria. There is no convincing evidence to support the fundamental postulate that IEI has a toxic aetiology; the hypothesised biological processes and mechanisms are implausible.

    • carol2000 says:

      It’s not just “pschogenic.” They mess themselves up metabolically by over-breathing. It causes asthma and heart symptoms, which they then blame on secondhand smoke (or whatever).

      Hyperventilation syndrome. A brief review. JC Missri, S Alexander. JAMA 1978 Nov 3;240(19):2093-2096. They note that dianosis is often missed, because many patients don’t demonstrate classic symptoms. “The ECG changes caused by hyperventilation seem related to alteration of autonomic nervous system tone, both sympathetic and parasympathetic rather than to hemodynamic changes. Less likely, local changes in electrolyte concentration, particularly potassium, may play a role. In the Figure, great downward depression of the ST segment and flattening and inversion of the T waves can be noted. This response is fairly typical, but ST segment depression or T wave changes alone have also been described both in the resting and exercise ECG.”

      Hyperventilation syndrome: a diagnosis begging for recognition. GJ Magarian, DA Middaugh, DH Linz. West J Med 1983 May;138(5):733-736. “Hypocapnea and respiratory alkalosis develop rapidly upon onset of hyperventilation and can easily be maintained indefinitely, by nearly imperceptible hyperventilation, such as by taking an occasional deep breath while maintaining a normal respiratory rate. Without knowing this, physicians may directly observe the subtle, chronic form of hyperventilation without recognizing it or, upon considering the diagnosis, inappropriately reject it because the anticipated hyperventilatory respiratory pattern is not present.” “Respiratory alkalosis increases the avidity of oxygen binding to hemoglobin such that oxygen becomes less readily released to tissues (the Bohr effect). Hypophosphatemia develops rapidly and persists for the duration of respiratory alkalosis, probably related to intracellular shifts of phosphorus. With persistent hyperventilation, hypophosphatemia would impair generation of 2,3-diphosphoglycerate (2,3-DPG), further reducing oxygen availability for tissue utilization…. Finally, several investigators have shown coronary vasoconstriction induced by hyperventilation in some patients with Prinzmetal’s angina and others with fixed coronary occlusive disease.” Table 2, hyperventilation can cause general symptoms including weakness, fatigue, and blurred vision; anxiety, depression, phobias, feeling far away, sensations of unreality; numbness and tingling in limbs, lightheadedness, dizziness, fainting, and headaches; a feeling of being unable to take a satisfying deep breath; and musculoskeletal chest wall pain (chest wall syndrome).

      Hyperventilation is another frequent cause of asthma symptoms: Prevalence of dysfunctional breathing in patients treated for asthma. M Thomas, RK McKinley, E Freeman, C Foy. BMJ 2001 May 5;322(7294):1098. Among 219 adult patients aged 17-65 with diagnosed asthma who were receiving treatment, “About a third of women and a fifth of men had scores suggestive of dysfunctional breathing… Abnormal breathing patterns have been shown to cause breathlessness, chest tightness, chest pain, light-headedness, paraesthesiae, and anxiety. This symptom complex has been described in different clinical situations and has been referred to as the hyperventilation syndrome, behavioural breathlessness, and dysfunctional breathing. It often occurs in association with hyperventilation.”

  15. Budvar says:

    Well here’s a chance for a cruise company to pick a boat shortly due for a refit, and promote a “Smoking allowed throughout the ship” cruise, and crew it with smokers. Should be interesting if there’s a bit of a demand.

    • Barry Homan says:

      what have they got to lose

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Since most deck hands and ships company tend to smoke just like hospitality workers do a smoking clientele should work out very well.

      In a Ky wkyt story run for the last 3 days Id been fighting every major Nazi in Ky as they try and jump start their sunkin ship on a ban.

      Id whipped them at every stage and as always in the end they were left with nothing but name calling and denial thru a run of 162 comments. I went back and refreshed this morning to find 62 comments deleted and not just mine but others too.

      They still left many points I posted standing as a glaring reminder of how these Nazis lie and spread propaganda.

      One even went so far as to put a pick up with a guy wearing a tin foil hat at me…………..I just laughed it off.

      But in Kentucky they don’t have much going for them other than media bought time to run their stupid stories. Last I checked they were pretty well bankrupt unless its the cincinatti based health group formerly owned on paper by J&J now a non-profit.

      This time they’ve admitted their going to video tape any individual who will show up and talk about themselves or anyone else who will admit SHS caused them harm just as CDC is doing on a tv blitz this summer across America………….

      I busted that all to hell by posting the want add CDC ran paying 2500 bucks to anybody that will perform on tv for the ads as long as they can get a doctor to state smoking caused their medical problem!

      Why cant CDC provide their own proof since they don’t have any to start with!

    • Whats a bet that as soon as you put a job avert in the paper for “Ships crew – Only smokers need apply,” that the PC/Equality fascists would be demanding you be hung drawn and quartered?

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        FT about 20 years ago Big Tobacco was looking for electronic/ electrical types to work in their Macon Ga. Cigarette Facilities. They used what was then called head hunters to get the type and color/nationality they were looking for. This is nothing new as most of the big boyz for the high paying jobs were doing it too and still are. Unfortunately they work looking for an under 30 crowd at the time. They let all of us go after testing that were over 35. Its not that we didn’t qualify its that they wanted a newer workforce to replace a workforce ready to retire and wanted a workforce to stay in place for at least the next 20-30 years without change. Trust me Id have been getting about 125 grand a year to start!

        That’s the only contact I ever had with any tobacco company. But I and the family had a paid for weekend and expense account for the whole weekend just for going to the interviews and testing on a Saturday morning.

        With ship employment likely the same is done there,the PC squad would never know what happened!

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Btw I grabbed about 12 cartons of me and the wifes brands………………They didn’t care in the world as every 20 feet was a ciggy stand with free lighters and free packs of smokes!

          Big Tobacco knows how to live I can tell ya that!

    • jaxthefirst says:

      I have to admit, I’ve been surprised over the years that there hasn’t been some enterprising businessman/woman who hasn’t clocked the fact that smokers now represent a HUGE untapped market, simply because so many of the things they used to like doing they now don’t like doing, and so don’t do any more (as Frank’s ISIS study demonstrated). Within the constraints of whatever laws apply, there are plenty of opportunities for business folks to tap into this market. How about a hotel which only offers smoking rooms? Or a pub where only smokers are allowed onto the “smoking terrace?” Or, like you suggest, Budvar, an “all-smoking” cruise ship? Or “all-smoking” flights? (“Smintair” aside – which I understand was only ever mooted by a rather eccentric German millionaire resentful of anti-smoking policies on aircraft and never intended as a genuine service)

      I don’t know about anyone else on here, but I’m now so thoroughly p*ssed off with all these politically-correct, goody-two-shoes businesses scraping and bowing to the venal anti-smoking brigade – and boasting about it as if it’s some badge of pride – that I’m now not even interested in going to places where there is a vague possibility that some grudging provision might be made for smokers. I’m now looking for companies which put smokers first and which have the balls to say so. Not that, so far, I’ve managed to find one!

      Because it seems that even those companies which do provide facilities for smokers don’t like to advertise the fact – as if they’re afraid that they’ll lose thousands of customers if they do so (which begs the question why they don’t, like everyone else, ban smoking altogether if they genuinely believe it is such a deterrent to so many people). And, quite frankly, I’m just not interesting in spending any of my not-inconsiderable disposable income into the coffers of companies who seem slightly embarrassed to have me as a customer.

      The all-too-common small-print style statement – so often seen in the “listed features” of hotel websites etc – that there is a “smoking area” gives the impression of a money-grubbing little business that would love to go all non-smoking if the owners only had the courage, but who just can’t bear the idea that they might miss out on a measly buck or two, and so are grudgingly pandering, in the most minimal way possible, to the whims of all those pesky smokers in order to get their hands on their money. I realise that this might not always be the case, but it’s certainly the impression that comes across when a business doesn’t make a big “thing” of the fact that it is making an effort to cater for smokers. At least listing “comfortable, heated smoking area” or “well-furnished, attractive smoking area” rather than just the rather mealy-mouthed “smoking area,” as one of their “features” would sound like they actually wanted smoking customers to patronise their establishments. To my mind (and my wallet’s mind!), if they can’t offer their paid-for services with good grace and a sense of pride in offering a good service to all of their customers, then they just don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting my custom – or, by default, that of my non-smoking partner.

    • Supergran says:

      OMG yes Budvar!!!!!!!! Even if I had to borrow the money to go on it, I would, for the sheer fun of it. Yay!! Come on you cruiselines. It might make a few other places “take a bleedin chance too”

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    I was all over that cruise line story last week and on they’re facebook page for all the good it did.

    There were hundreds who cancelled, one booking agent had noted on the blog roll.

  17. smokingscot says:

    Seems cruise lines do indeed go bust, or “defunct” quite frequently.

    (Drag to about 60% down and there they are)

    Not investment grade stocks it seems. And that effort by Sir Stelios to set up a low cost cruise line for younger people (easycruise), well that didn’t catch on.

    IMO it’s still very much a “something” that many older people aspire to and the prospect of spending weeks cooped up in a steel hull with a bunch of reasonably wealthy end of life people has never been my idea of fun. Made very much worse by their propensity to wear shorts! Even worse, designer shorts! Varicose veins, liver spots, dry, thin skin. UGH!!!!!

    Carnival stated in 2012 that they’re targeting a new market. 35 – 54 year old females, because they do not have kids. But you betcha they’ll have cellulite… and attitude! You want your smoking gun (pun intended) it’s the DINKS (Dual Income No KidS)! And no they don’t go to pubs either, but they do make an awful lot of noise if they’re offended in any way.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      That’s funny a business plan to go bankrupt likely to have been a target of Progressive activist investors out to destroy anywhere a smoker goes! The thing is where did activist investors of the Liberal/progressive type get their investment capital to start with. Likely via 12 backdoors from the FED and stimulus grants.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.