How wonderful to see so many people against this ridculous and unfair ban. My husband and I do not smoke - I have to be honest I hate it. BUT, I will fight for the right for every individual to smoke if they so choose - we are not children and should not be treated as such (unlike actual children who nowadays seem to be treated like adults - bizarre!). If P&O do not take notice of these comments I feel sure that their reputation will suffer, and hopefully, so will their profits!

Sally Willmer Portsmouth I have just returned from a trip on Oceana around the med. Unfortunately on the way we hit storm force winds for two days,but were still forced to go outside for a cigarette. iI find this totally unexceptable,everything about the cruise was perfect,but i certainly wont be going again. I paid just as much as the non smokers,but did not have the luxury. Talking to all the fellow smokers on board they feel exactly the same.I did learn the disco used to be a smoking area,but the non smokers complained about that.We visited it on the last night ,it was empty,WHERE WERE ALL THE NON SMOKERS IT WAS EMPTY

We have just returned from a trip on Aurora 15 of Oct ,we are smokers and both disabled the only bit of room we found under cover was the crows nest ,which we got to about 10am and all the window tables were taken not by smokers but by non smokers who moved into our places because all the non smokeing window places where taken and when we lit up they had the cheek to ask us to move as they did not smoke ,needless to say a few words were said but we won the day .but after 10 years of sailing with P&O and if they continue with more restrictions on smokers rights then they have lost my custom as well .Fred Olsen here we come////

The amount of views on this subject speak volumes. No other topic has received such a great deal of interest. P and O would do well to take notice. Even if three quarters of the views were anti smoking, that leaves a fair amount of people who agree smoking should be allowed at least somewhere as well as open decks. Get the extraction system working and we could all cruise comfortably together. If and when P and O ban smoking altogether cruise prices will rocket. But there will always be an alternative cruise line. From what we have heard Royal Caribbean have a marvellous extraction system in the smoking bars and no one will feel as though they had to by pass these areas. Even though we smoke we agree that you shouldnt have to suffer second hand smoke. Royal Caribbean seems to be the answer. But what will PandO do about the crew who smoke?

I will never book a cruise where I am obliged only to smoke on an open deck. Besides, is it safe to smoke on an open deck in rough seas and what happens when you are not allowed on deck in such conditions. What is even more disgusting is the smokers who pretend they don't. On one of my previous cruises I notice dozens (no exaggeration) of non smoking ?? passengers on a shore erxcursion having a crafty cigarette behind trees, houses etc.

P&O will not have my custom in future.I do not go to pubs in the u.k since the smoking ban and I am dam sure I will not stand on deck in the middle of the ocean to have a smoke!!!! Maggie.

When I first saw this article my initial response was one of anger at the cruise line management and, like ‘Vincent’, immediately decided I would never book a cruise with this company. BUT on reflection and after reading the arrogant, bigoted comment by 'Poole' I have thought again. (Thanks for the prompt Poole!) I will not book a cruise if the present situation continues, but the management may not warrant the anger I first experienced. ‘Poole’ highlights the "building up of a MASSIVE LIABILITY" in relation to future compensation claims by employees………..The flawed logic now makes sense!. The P&O management could not possibly be unaware of the damage such a move to ban smoking will inevitably make to their company and future profits. Examples of such damage are all too obvious in the demise or trading pressures of companies such as Punch Taverns, the 'Slug and lettuce' pub chain and others in the hospitality industry. The cruise business is not too far removed from businesses like these. Add to this the present financial climate and it is clear that no management team would ever be that stupid or cavalier as to risk the viability of their company even if they were avid, staunch, or brainwashed anti-smokers. So, why would the P & O management ban smoking on their ships when they are not required to do so by law? Call me naive if you will but it is clear to me that the company has been infiltrated and most likely threatened by ‘anti-tobacco’ in terms similar to the comment made by 'Poole'. The risk of being liable to massive compensation would be enough to frighten any company executive - if they were unaware of the true facts. ‘Anti-tobacco’ has a long history of 'bending' facts so with this in mind; I would like to draw attention to the following legal cases and information about ‘passive smoking’; United Kingdom; McTear v Imperial tobacco (2005)- http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html#causationandthelaw The case was lost by McTear- even on the lower standard of evidence of 'balance of probabilities' (as opposed to the more vigorous 'beyond reasonable doubt'). The conclusion was that there was insufficient evidence to show that smoking causes lung cancer! Taking this legal aspect further; One question during the case was why; [According to 'tobacco control'] ; "all the facts necessary to establish liability [that smoking causes lung cancer]were present from the late 1950s and at all material times thereafter, there had been no instance in the United Kingdom of a successful action against a tobacco manufacturer based on grounds similar to those in the present case, Mr McEachran (witness for the plaintiff) submitted that this was attributable to the power of the tobacco industry" ** NO SUCCESSFUL CASE - EVER!! in the UK **!! What does that tell you!! (Note the default argument to discredit by reference to ‘Big Tobacco’ money though!) European Union; Then there is this one, a claim for compensation from the EU commission, where an attempt was made to prove that passive smoking caused the lung cancer of an employee; http://englandexpects.blogspot.com/2008/07/nobody-died-of-pasasive-smoking.html Labate v Commission of the European Communities (2007) Mrs Labate is the widow of Mr Mario Labate. Mr Labate was an official with the European Commission for 29 years. Mrs Labate claimed that her husband was exposed to "large amounts" of second hand smoke during his 29 years of employment. Mr Labate contracted lung cancer and died. Mrs Labate asked for compensation, it was refused, so she took it to tribunal. Conclusion; "The claims for compensation …. are dismissed as manifestly unfounded" Note the terminology; ‘MANIFESTLY UNFOUNDED’ - how clear is that - passive smoking does NOT, according to the EU, cause or be specifically linked to lung cancer! United States; This one is a case brought by the US tobacco industry against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging the validity of their research and conclusions on passive smoking; http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm Judge Osteen, US Federal Court 1998 "Based on the weight of the available scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) presents a serious and substantial public health impact." Decision; VACATED In adults: "ETS is a human lung carcinogen responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers." Decision; VACATED (VACATED - means to annul; to set aside; to cancel or rescind; to render an act void; as, to vacate an entry or record, or a judgment.) Anti-tobacco has long been working to a goal set at New York’s 1975 World Conference on Smoking and Health; Quote; ‘That to eliminate smoking it would first be essential to “create an atmosphere in which it was PERCEIVED that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children…”. (Huber. Consumers Research Magazine. 04/92) Since then, they have tried their hardest to prove that Passive smoking was injurious to health – but have consistently failed and resorted to manipulation of the research findings to engender that ‘Perception’. Passive smoking has never been proved to cause harm over the last 30+ years and never will – unless there is more manipulation of scientific study and the abandonment of ethics, but that surely, will be exposed in any future legal case. This is one of many other articles that I could have brought to your attention; “Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer – official” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html The ‘Passive smoking’ term, first coined by Nazi eugenics doctors in the 1940’s, is NOT a scientific term, it is a propaganda one! (Roy Castle died of lung cancer – NOT – passive smoking!) If any employers are worried about future litigation then think again. Any future compensation claim based on ‘passive smoking’ harm is unlikely ever to be successful and rightly so!