[Wright is right!]

"A friend of my brother's got put off in Barbados for smoking."

Yuppers, and he had to pay his own way home, too. Carnival's Nazis are ruthless about this policy. One cig on your person and you're off, luggage on the pier, on your own.

It should also be pointed out that Carnival owns several "brands," having acquired all their once independent cruise operators. Carnival owns Holland America, P&O's Princess Line and a couple of others. All of the acquisitions were hostile to semi-hostile. Fortunately, Carnival has allowed its brands to operate pretty much autonomously, since they are all profitable.

Michael

[Gabz]

Carnival made a business decision to have a non-smoking ship......they made another business decision to scrap that plan because it didn't work out financially.

The market decided for them as it should do in all cases. The anti-smoker gnatzies have no clue that government mandates are unnecessary, the market can and does make the decisions when left on their own.

[Hodar]

"A friend of my brother's got put off in Barbados for smoking."

Ok, here's where I disagree. The cruise ship had a zero tolerance policy. This was doubtlessly made very clear before he boarded, and I'd wager that it was also prominently displayed as such before he bought his tickets.

He bought his tickets with the zero-policy in place. He was made aware of the policy prior to leaving. He made the conscious decision to 'be above the laws' that were in place for his fellow passengers. If I book a cruise on a non-alcoholic cruise (does one exist?), and I tried to smuggle some beer on board; I would expect the same treatment.

[johnb838]

Ummm... I made that up about my brothers friend. Not surprising though.