Smoking Protocols on Dive Boats?

[cdiver2]

I agree wholeheartedly with Cathie - I think the point that is missed or misconstrued is that it is not about Don's right to smoke. Or anyone else's right to smoke. That doesn't bother me in the least. In fact, if that's what he wants, then I would like nothing more than for him to be able to do the things he wants to do including smoking. I just don't want it to affect me or others that want nothing to do with it.

As someone pointed look for a boat with a no smoking policy or put up with it. I as a smoker have to look for a boat that allows smoking or put up with the fact that I can not smoke, thats your choice and my choice. On a smoking boat the stern is usualy the place designated to smoke for obvious reasons and thats were I will go, if a none smoker objects, then I see them as being unreasonable they have chosen to come on a smoking boat, have the run of the whole boat but object to me having my little corner and try to make it a non smoking boat.

 

[pasley]

Sorry, but it is a dirty habit and unfortunately far too many smokers believe the world is their ashtray and toss the butts everywhere.

I accept they have a right to smoke, just as I have a right not to smoke. I also have a right to breath. I have to breathe, they do not have to smoke. So if it comes to it, no smoking should rule over smoking as one is required the other is optional. If I had a choice of dive boats and one offered no smoking period, that is the boat I would take.

This morning I took a walk with my daughter and dog (yes we take a bag for the doggie doo doo) on a local nature trail. I brought home no less than 30 butts left by the world is my ashtray crowd.

My $0.02 on the subject.

 

[Warren_L]

Melvin, those are some of my pet peeves as well. But the point to consider is that if there is something that is designated for smokers (such as a dive boat, restaurant, or whatever) there has to be a degree of tolerance for the smoker. As non-smokers, we have the choice not to go or not to be there. It's when that choice is taken away from us by inconsiderate smokers that I have issue with.

And yes, I'm not sure why it is that people tend to think cigarette butts are not garbage. Unless people are ok with throwing cig butts on the floor of their own home they shouldn't be doing it anywhere else.

 

[fdog]

After reading this thread for the last several days, I've seen a constant referal to the stern being a "designated smoking section".

I've been diving for a little while, and I haven't heard this once during a boat briefing.

This is not a slam on either side, just an observation that I obviously haven't been on the same boats as you.

Also, I know there are good folks out there; the considerate smokers try their best to smoke where it won't be a problem, and the considerate non-smokers do their best to move away from it and not be pushy. It seems the inconsiderate folks, of both sides, are the ones we remember and paints the stereotype for us.

It also appears the smokers are in disbelief that the small amount of smoke they produce can be a problem. Obviously it is. Also, it's obvious that the non-smokers can't understand that it is difficult for smokers to go without for 4 hours. Just as obviously, they can't. Being considerate means understanding the other person's needs, too.

Not taking any "sides" here, just observing.

All the best, James

 

[GeekDiver]

People get Sick riding in cars, boats and airplanes but you don't see anyone claiming that it's a health hazzard to ride in them. There are lots of things that can cause you to have physical reactions and be sick with out actualy being a true health risk.

When I went to the Flower Gardens I couldn't enter the galley because the smell from everyone getting sea sick was enough to gag you. I have had to pick dog poop up from my yard that the smell and look makes me gag. People pass out from the sight of blood.

How would people react if we took the same approach as smoking to these issues. I have never had any problems with motion sickness, when you do I don't want to have to smell your sickness. When you get sick you produce fowl smelling odors that cause me problems. The sight and smell cause me to gag. What if people couldn't ride on a boat if you were prone to get sea sick. Should they make you ride in a Sea Sick only boat so us Non-Sea Sick prone people won't have to endue smell and oders that would cause us to gag. What about planes should they implement a non-motion sickness plane so that I don't won't have to smell or see the people who do. This is the same argument most Non-Smokes use. They do this to the point of intolerance and rudeness.

Lets start to take the same extream positions that most non-smokers do. Yep next time I'm on a boat I will insist that persons who get Sea Sick must move to the back of the boat and If a non Sea Sick person wants to hang out on the stern then the sick persons must instantly stop being sick so I won't have to smell them or else I will throw them overboard. If I'm in a car and someone gets sick they will have to get out and walk.

 

[Warren_L]

Lets start to take the same extream positions that most non-smokers do. Yep next time I'm on a boat I will insist that persons who get Sea Sick must move to the back of the boat and If a non Sea Sick person wants to hang out on the stern then the sick persons must instantly stop being sick so I won't have to smell them or else I will throw them overboard. If I'm in a car and someone gets sick they will have to get out and walk.

Comparing sea sickness to smoking is not exactly the same in terms of effects. Someone being seasick beside me may produce unpleasant sights and odours, but I doubt that it would potentially expose me to easily ingestible chemicals that can cause life threatening illnesses like cancer.

 

[Neckbone]

I love issues like this- people get so empassioned. The corpse is barely even horse-shaped anymore, but here I go taking a swing...

I don't think the comparison between sea-sickness and smoking is a fair one, as I don't know a single sea-sickness prone person who *elects* to chum the waters, as it were. Smoking is a conscious choice, sea-sickness is not.

That being said, if a person were to be truly allergic to smoke- that is, their reaction to smoke is so severe as to prevent their diving as the previous poster's poor wife is, then that person owes it to his-or-herself to ensure that they dive from boats which prohibit smoking, period. Much like someone with a peanut allergy should avoid the Chinese Buffet.

If there are no such boats available, the diver should recognize the limitation presented by their disability.

That being said, should a smoker pursue someone around a boat blowing smoke in their face? Clearly not. Should someone wear excessive perfume on a crowded boat? Clearly not. Should someone try to sell me Amway/insurance/their religion while I'm sitting on a plane? Clearly not.

If their doing so would do me harm, is it incumbent upon me to avoid the situation? Clearly.

 

[Neckbone]

Comparing sea sickness to smoking is not exactly the same in terms of effects. Someone being seasick beside me may produce unpleasant sights and odours, but I doubt that it would potentially expose me to easily ingestible chemicals that can cause life threatening illnesses like cancer.

I really don't mean any offense, but I think the potential dangers inherent to scuba diving kind of outweigh those of getting cancer from a few minutes' exposure to second hand cigarette smoke....

 

[Warren_L]

I really don't mean any offense, but I think the potential dangers inherent to scuba diving kind of outweigh those of getting cancer from a few minutes' exposure to second hand cigarette smoke....

I don't quite see what one has to do with the other, quite honestly. Scuba for me isn't dangerous (i.e. hazardous to your health) when you are trained properly, dive within your limits and plan properly. Inhaling carcinogens is always hazardous to my health all the time, no matter the amount.

 

[Neckbone]

I don't quite see what one has to do with the other, quite honestly. Scuba for me isn't dangerous (i.e. hazardous to your health) when you are trained properly, dive within your limits and plan properly. Inhaling carcinogens is always hazardous to my health all the time, no matter the amount.

I'm the first to admit that I'm a newbie here, but I clearly remember my instructor mentioning that the moment one stops thinking of diving as potentially dangerous is the moment it becomes really dangerous.

I recognize that this is an emotional issue for many, but I still assert that *statistically speaking* you put yourself in harm's way more by flying/driving to the dive site, getting on a boat and diving than you do by spending a couple minutes in the presence of second-hand cigarette smoke.

Do people who spend a lot of time exposed to second-hand smoke suffer far higher rates of cancer? Yep- but that's not what we're talking about. A few minutes' exposure to second-hand smoke.

Second-hand smoke.

This isn't Sarin gas we're talking about.