# Should Amtrak allow smoking again?



## MIrailfan

I say yes but only in sleepers and a coach lounge.


----------



## John Santos

MIRAILFAN said:


> I say yes but only in sleepers and a coach lounge.


NO! (And it will NEVER happen!)


----------



## MIrailfan

They could save time with shorter smoke stops


----------



## John Santos

I think the long stops are mainly to do train stuff... refuel, refill the water tanks, pump out the waste tanks, remove garbage and load fresh food, change crews, etc. (Usually the onboard staff stays with the train for the whole trip, though sometimes my Sleeping Car Attendant has changed in the middle, but I think the engineers usually don't sleep on the train but change every 8-10 hours or so, whatever the maximum allowable continuous shift is. Changing crews takes some time.) I don't think the reason for "Smoke Stops" is primarily for the convenience of smokers.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

MIRAILFAN said:


> They could save time with shorter smoke stops


Smoke stops are not for smokers, they’re for crew changes.
And NO, smoking should not be allowed on trains.


----------



## Trogdor

If Amtrak wanted to lose lots of revenue from non-smokers, and increase cleaning costs while opening themselves up to potential lawsuits from employees should any of them develop lung cancer, then yes. Otherwise, no.


----------



## greatwestern

Absolutely not.

The thought of going into any relatively enclosed environment where smoking is happening or has happened makes me shudder. The prospect of being put into a sleeper previously occupied by a smoker is "UNTHINKABLE".

When I was in charge of several sites way back in the 1980's on my way home I would occasionally have to call into one of those sites where there were smokers. Even though I might only spend a minute or so in the office, my wife would always know that I had called in due to the odour that had infiltrated into my clothing.

Even today, when smoking is banned in all public indoor spaces, if I happen to be walking outside I can often detect a smoker from 20 - 30 yards away simply from the smell in the air - and it is not pleasant !

I make these comments as someone who has not actually got any objection to people smoking, (tobacco NOT cannabis), as long as their smoking does not impact on me personally. Indeed I spent my whole working life in a company associated with and dependent on the tobacco industry.


----------



## Maverickstation

No !


----------



## PaTrainFan

Of course these lengthened stops are primarily for operational reasons, but as a non smoker I appreciate the opportunity to step off the train for a "fresh air break." That is, if I can get away from the smokers.


----------



## Everydaymatters

NO NO NO I am on oxygen and in addition to the console I use at home, I have a portable unit. When I am near someone who is smoking, the smoke goes through the air, into my portable unit, and into my lungs.


----------



## John Bobinyec

The trouble with smoke is it doesn't stay "where it's supposed to." Back when smoking was allowed, the smoke from the people in the next compartment would drift into our compartment - especially because it's a shared ventilation system.

The only way it would work is if each smoking compartment had its own ventilation system which would blow air through there like a hurricane, so that the smoke wouldn't soil the curtains and other surfaces.

jb


----------



## jiml

It may not be up to Amtrak:






Carper Introduces Bill to Ban Smoking on Amtrak


WASHINGTON, D.C. – In honor of Lung Cancer Awareness Month, this week, Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.), former Amtrak Board Member and top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, introduced legislation that would ban smoking on Amtrak. Senator Carper’s legislation, the...




www.epw.senate.gov


----------



## jis

NO!


----------



## Mystic River Dragon

No.

I am allergic to smoke. I cannot be in an enclosed space with people smoking for more than a couple of minutes before my eyes start watering, my nose stuffs up, and I start coughing.

If smoking were allowed again on the train, that would be the end of my train travels, and since I don’t fly, the end of any long-distance trips.


----------



## tim49424

No, no, no and more NO! Smokers should never be catered to, especially in this fashion. They smoke by choice, not by need. Want to smoke whenever you want while travelling? Drive your own car.


----------



## MARC Rider

I remember a ride on the Crescent back in 1990. No smoking, except in the lounge/cafe car. They had some kind of incredibly powerful HVAC system that seemed to be able to clear the smoke to the point that you couldn't even smell the smoke from a person puffing away across the table from you. But, of course, back then, the background reek from tobacco was much more common, so perhaps if I got into a time machine and was able to go back and ride in the same car, I would now notice the smell..

Oh, and in the "golden age" before Amtrak, most railroads allowed smoking in special "smoking cars." These reeked of tobacco, even if no one was smoking, and, except for the smokers, nobody wanted to ride in them. I found that out the hard way on one of my early joyrides, when I found an almost empty car on a crowded PRR NEC train. I didn't take me long to figure out why that car was empty. 

Just to round out the tales of the past, back when I was in college, I smoked a pipe, and would you believe it, but TWA allowed my to smoke my pipe on an _*airplane*_ in flight! In retrospect, I'm surprised the other passengers didn't pitch me out the door without a parachute!

In sort, No, No, NO, never allow smoking on the train again. If necessary, they should have nicotine gum for sale in the cafe car.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

MIRAILFAN said:


> I say yes but only in sleepers and a coach lounge.


Have you ever seen anyone die from lunge failure??? With covid now... that's how it kills. 

But when I was 19 and in college I had to go to the hospital with hives... a nervous condition. My room mate was dying of lung cancer. His breathing was forced and sounded dreadfully painful. He had been a heavy smoker. 

Smoking causes lung cancer... for those who smoke and from those who breath in the fumes from the smoker's cigarette and breath. Smoking is a toxic killer.

My biggest question is regarding this thread. There is positively no argument that can support smoking. If anyone has a smoking problem go and get help before it kills you.

And please remove this entire thread.☹


----------



## Eric S

If the concern is that "smokers' stops" unnecessarily lengthen schedules and delay trains, shouldn't the answer be to remove/shorten those stops (at least those that exist to accommodate smokers and not for some other operating reason)?


----------



## jis

I think on the whole a healthier program for all would be to help smokers to stop smoking than to pander to them and allow smoking in places where they are not allowed now.


----------



## John Bredin

Never has an idea been shot down faster and more decisively on these forums than this one. It's a heartening sign that, despite the intractable "feuds" that arise whenever toilets in roomettes or pets on trains are mentioned, we all agree on something.


----------



## sttom

Only about 15% of the US population smokes, why should Amtrak do anything more to accomodate them? I would much rather there be tavern cars on Amtrak than smoke lounges. Tavern cars would at least make money, whereas attracting only 15% of the population with an equal or greater loss from nonsmokers would be a dumb idea.


----------



## JayPea

Absolutely, positively, not.


----------



## tim49424

The way I look at it is anyone who would support the return of smoking on Amtrak is a narcissist.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

BTW... Amtrak is considered a Federal program... which would preclude that there can absolutely be no smoking within 'x amount of feet' of the train. 

Most people don't smoke. Could you imagine the outrage nationwide if Amtrak were to allow smoking??? 

This is an archaic idea which isn't going to happen. Why even discuss it further???


----------



## me_little_me

tim49424 said:


> The way I look at it is anyone who would support the return of smoking on Amtrak is a narcissist.


Or suicidal.


----------



## tim49424

me_little_me said:


> Or suicidal.



Or homicidal thanks to second hand smoke.


----------



## Trogdor

Eric S said:


> If the concern is that "smokers' stops" unnecessarily lengthen schedules and delay trains, shouldn't the answer be to remove/shorten those stops (at least those that exist to accommodate smokers and not for some other operating reason)?



There are no stops in the schedule of any train that are lengthened specifically to accommodate smokers. Every extended dwell stop has some other reason, such as servicing, crew change, typically heavy boarding/alighting, and/or slot timing or scheduled recovery.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

MIRAILFAN said:


> Should Amtrak allow smoking again? I say yes but only in sleepers and a coach lounge.


Nope. I would never support it and in my view Amtrak already caters to smokers enough as it is. If anything I'd want Amtrak staff to be more aggressive with keeping smokers away from the train since it often wafts inside.



tim49424 said:


> Or homicidal thanks to second hand smoke.


Not endangerment, negligence, or even manslaughter, but _homicide?_


----------



## tim49424

Trogdor said:


> There are no stops in the schedule of any train that are lengthened specifically to accommodate smokers.



Just the opposite. The train will not wait for smokers to get one last drag. You’re on the train when the conductor and engineer signal or you’re left behind. No ifs ands or buts about it.


----------



## zephyr17

MIRAILFAN said:


> I say yes but only in sleepers and a coach lounge.


No.

I rode when smoking was allowed.

Sleepers have a common HVAC system. Smoke is distributed and smoke is detectable through the whole car.

There was a period when smoking was banned except in the lounge. The lounge car was filled with smokers and the air was unbreathable and the lounge basically unusable by non-smokers.

As others have pointed out, most of the fresh air/smoking stops are long stops anyway due to operational reasons. When the train is running late those stops are shortened to the greatest extent possible already. Allowing onboard smoking would have zero impact on on time performance.

Smoking has gone from a normal, common activity to something that is now largely socially unacceptable. No need to turn the clock back.


----------



## jis

I remember with horror those smoke filled lounges of the Broadway Limited and the Montrealer. Too bad I was not as aware about N95 masks back then. They would have come in handy. We don't need to go back to those times. Even the Sleepers and Coaches carried a permanent stench of smoke even when no one was smoking. Yuck! And those Nicotine soaked Carpets on the walls did not help either.


----------



## Mailliw

Absolutely not; this is the most backwards idea I've heard of.


----------



## leemell

NO! NO! NO!


----------



## Exvalley

A huge "no" from me. If Amtrak allowed smoking I would no longer ride Amtrak.

But the discussion about the smoke smell being spread throughout the train car makes me wonder about Covid-19. If you can smell someone else's exhaled smoke particulates, aren't you also exposed to their respiratory particles?


----------



## Dakota 400

I'll add my NO! Besides, you might catch your mask on fire if you are smoking.


----------



## John Bobinyec

We have a situation which happens from time to time when 92 (Silver Star) stops at Cary, NC, the stop before Raleigh. In fact, it happened last weekend.

Cary has a relatively short platform, which requires two stops. So the train stopped to handle the coaches. Normally this would be a quick stop. However, for a half a year now the fax machine in Hamlet has been out of commission. So the agents at Cary hand the necessary NS movement paperwork to the conductor. The conductor walks a copy of the paperwork down to the engineer and then walks back. This makes the coach stop longer than usual.

So last weekend, while making the coach stop, four or five smokers piled out onto the platform to light up. Cary is not a smoking stop. I believe Raleigh is, because it's a crew change point. Anyway, now the agent had to try to round them up and herd them back into the car. She was unsuccessful. By now the conductor had walked back from the engine and told them to get back on 'right now' or else they would get left. They got on. The train then pulled down to make its second stop.

I don't know why they think they can get off in Cary and smoke, but sometimes they do.

jb


----------



## NS VIA Fan

jis said:


> I remember with horror those smoke filled lounges of the........Montrealer.



_'Le Pub'_.....How I used to enjoy that especially on a Friday night out of NYP with the ski crowd heading for Vermont.....but certainly not the 'Smoky' Atmosphere. I could only take it so long!


----------



## TinCan782

I quit 22 years ago this month.
I'll just sit back and let this thread evolve.


----------



## MIrailfan

I'm a non smoker myself. Smoke has never bothered me, but can see how it would to people. It just seems like since its a legal product there should be concession, with respect to nonsmokers rights to breath smoke free air howevet.


----------



## SarahZ

MIRAILFAN said:


> It just seems like since its a legal product there should be concession, with respect to nonsmokers rights to breath smoke free air howevet.


Years of "smoking sections" proved that's impossible. That's why you can't smoke indoors now.


----------



## Bob Dylan

MIRAILFAN said:


> I say yes but only in sleepers and a coach lounge.


Not only No, but Hell No!!!


----------



## Qapla

NO! Nai! Nee! Nein! Tidak! ]bù shì! Nej! NO!

It should not be allowed on the train, in the station, on the platform or even on the property!



MIRAILFAN said:


> It just seems like since its a legal product



So, the solution should not be to infringe on the rights of the non-smokers ... just make smoking tobacco illegal. Any other product that causes illness and/or death is taken off the shelves and/or market immediately - with all the illness and death tobacco causes why is it still on the market?!?


----------



## MIrailfan

Qapla said:


> NO! Nai! Nee! Nein! Tidak! bù shì! Nej! NO!
> 
> It should not be allowed on the train, in the station, on the platform or even on the property!
> 
> 
> 
> So, the solution should not be to infringe on the rights of the non-smokers ... just make smoking tobacco illegal. Any other product that causes illness and/or death is taken off the shelves and/or market immediately - with all the illness and death tobacco causes why is it still on the market?!?


Tax dollars, but I digress.


----------



## Exvalley

MIRAILFAN said:


> It just seems like since its a legal product there should be concession, with respect to nonsmokers rights to breath smoke free air howevet.


There are many things that are legal but not appropriate to do in a train car.


----------



## SarahZ

Qapla said:


> So, the solution should not be to infringe on the rights of the non-smokers ... just make smoking tobacco illegal. Any other product that causes illness and/or death is taken off the shelves and/or market immediately - with all the illness and death tobacco causes why is it still on the market?!?


Prohibition does not work. This has been proven time and time again.

Many things can kill you, so making tobacco illegal is a slippery slope. You could argue that sugary and fatty foods kill people, so maybe we should make Doritos and Snickers illegal too.

Tobacco is a choice (just like sugary and fatty foods), so this is not the same as taking a particular medication off the shelf because it is found to cause death. The warnings are printed right on the package. People who smoke (and eat Snickers) know exactly what they're getting into.


----------



## bratkinson

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

Many have already responded with numerous reasons why not.

But I'd like to add to that:
1. Perhaps only a few on this forum remember the time when smoking was only allowed in the lounge car. Every time I walked in, I was greeted by a thick cloud of smoke. When I got back to my room, my clothing stunk so bad I had to remove it and put on a fresh change after showering to get the stench off my body as well. My biggest concern was for the lounge car attendant. He or she had to endure perhaps 35 hours or more on a CHI-LAX trip behind the counter sucking in all that 2nd hand smoke! I figured it was the equivalent of smoking 20 packs per day. Not 20 cigarettes! If I were a LSA today and assigned to a lounge car with smoking, I would quit on the spot! Would anyone in their right mind take that position???

The attempt to 'contain' the smoke in an enclosed section of each lounge car helped, but only a bit. The times I walked by and someone opened the door, I got blasted. The smoke was so thick in there I'm surprised anybody even went in!

2. Even after only 1 or 2 cigarettes are smoked in a room in someones' house, the room continues to stink for DAYS afterward!! When I was a hotel night auditor in 2003 or so, we had smoking and non-smoking rooms and I always asked the guests upon checking in which they preferred. A couple of times I had guests that I checked into non-smoking rooms return and tell me the room stunk to high heaven of cigarette smoke from the previous nights' guest(s). When that happened, I had to give them a different room, then 'block off' that room in the computer with orders to sanitize it the next day. That entailed washing all bedding, linen, and even the drapes, and wiping down the walls and all furniture with some deodorizing chemicals. At the Radisson, we always strove to maintain high levels of customer satisfaction and cleanliness.

Consider a roomette that someone smoked a couple cigarettes in...there have been perhaps as many as a dozen or more roomettes I walked into in the past 20 years that stunk of cigarette smoke. Whether that was from someone smoking in the roomettes or simply with very stinky smoke-smell clothing, I don't know.

And, for what it's worth, I used to smoke 4 packs per day until I quit September 19, 1985. I haven't touched one since! And as a smoker, I never had a clue that I smelled so badly due to the smoke. I smoked up a storm in a lot of roomettes before that time! A couple months after I quit, I could smell the smoke on other peoples' clothing as they passed by or I was talking with them. Nowadays, I can smell them from 10-15 feet away!


----------



## Qapla

Eating candy bars has less of an impact on others around the person eating them while smoking (and chewing) impacts everyone in the vicinity.

The aroma of someone in the train car drinking coffee or eating chocolate may not be pleasing to everyone on board but the smell does not carry carcinogenic compounds to those who can smell it like smoking does ... side-stream smoke is lethal just like the primary smoke is to those who choose to smoke.


----------



## jiml

SarahZ said:


> Prohibition does not work. This has been proven time and time again.
> 
> Many things can kill you, so making tobacco illegal is a slippery slope. You could argue that sugary and fatty foods kill people, so maybe we should make Doritos and Snickers illegal too.
> 
> Tobacco is a choice (just like sugary and fatty foods), so this is not the same as taking a particular medication off the shelf because it is found to cause death. The warnings are printed right on the package. People who smoke (and eat Snickers) know exactly what they're getting into.


I haven't heard of too many people dying of the second-hand fumes of Doritos and Snickers. Not sure the same could be said of burning tobacco...


----------



## SarahZ

You guys are missing the point and making the wrong comparison.

It is illegal to smoke indoors for the very reasons you both mentioned.

It does not make sense to make smoking itself illegal when smoking in the privacy of your home or car *does not affect other people. *That is where the line is drawn (and should be drawn).

It's like alcohol - it's fine as long as you don't drive and put others in danger.


----------



## Qapla

In all fairness, it is possible for someone to get sick from the smell of someone eating Snickers® since they contain peanuts



SarahZ said:


> You guys are missing the point and making the wrong comparison.



Not really, they took lead out of bullets because it rubbed off on the hands of hunters while loading their guns. This is a private thing and does not impact others - but was still done.


----------



## SarahZ

Qapla said:


> In all fairness, it is possible for someone to get sick from the smell of someone eating Snickers® since they contain peanuts


And if I were alerted that someone near me were allergic to peanuts, I would not eat a Snickers near them.


----------



## Qapla

It does not take an "allergy" for tobacco smoke to adversely affect others like it does with peanuts ... But, setting this aside, since the thread is didn't mention candy bars ...

I still hold that smoking should not be allowed on the train. in the station, on the platform (fresh air stops) or anywhere else that would impact the non-smokers.


----------



## SarahZ

Qapla said:


> It does not take an "allergy" for tobacco smoke to adversely affect others like it does with peanuts ... But, setting this aside, since the thread is didn't mention candy bars ...
> 
> I still hold that smoking should not be allowed on the train. in the station, on the platform (fresh air stops) or anywhere else that would impact the non-smokers.


Are you even reading anything I write? I AGREE that smoking should not be allowed on trains, and not just because of allergies. What I'm saying is that smoking itself (in your private home/car) should not be illegal.

The candy bar comparison was to illustrate that just because something is bad/risky does not necessarily mean that thing itself should be illegal. If you make cigarettes illegal because they might harm the person smoking them (IN THEIR OWN HOME OR CAR), you could use the same argument to make candy bars and other things illegal. Hence the slippery slope.

I am not saying people should be able to smoke on trains!


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Qapla said:


> Not really, they took lead out of bullets because it rubbed off on the hands of hunters while loading their guns. This is a private thing and does not impact others - but was still done.


Hmm, might it have also been because the lead could get into the ground? Or maybe because the hunter went home and his baby licked his fingers before he washed them...


----------



## SarahZ

Qapla said:


> Not really, they took lead out of bullets because it rubbed off on the hands of hunters while loading their guns. This is a private thing and does not impact others - but was still done.


This is STILL not the same thing.

When I pick up a bullet, I don't expect to put my health at risk because of something unknown in that bullet. Once they realized lead was leeching out of bullets, they changed them.

When I pick up a pack of cigarettes that have warning labels all over them saying I could die, I know damn well I could die if I smoke.


----------



## boxcar479

As I read through the post I notice noone complained about the smokers who light up as soon as they have two feet on the ground literally 2' from the door, then take move a little further but not far enough. It really stinks when you try to get off the train for a fresh air break and your hit with the smell of tobacco smoke. Please move away from the train before you light up, be mindful of the wind direction and don't infringe my right not to smoke.! And No, smoking on the train is the most terrible idea.


----------



## Qapla

boxcar479 said:


> As I read through the post I notice noone complained about the smokers who light up as soon as they have two feet on the ground



What part of


Qapla said:


> *smoking should not be allowed* on the train. in the station, *on the platform (fresh air stops)* or anywhere else that would impact the non-smokers


does not cover that?


----------



## flitcraft

I'm bemused about this thread. Clearly in today's world, allowing smoking anywhere on an Amtrak train is a non-starter--ridership would plummet. So no one in their right mind would even consider such a policy. Unless, of course, you were desperate to find a way to finally kill off the LD trains. Then allowing smoking would finish the job that the three day a week schedule and flex meals have started. 

Have we discovered Richard Anderson's burner account?


----------



## Cal

MIRAILFAN said:


> I say yes but only in sleepers and a coach lounge.


Definitely not. That will ruin many other passengers (including mine) trips. I cannot stand the smell of smoke. It's also a clear hazard and promoting a terribly bad habit. 

And Amtrak shouldn't, and wouldn't stop smoke breaks. 

A: They are needed to re-stock, re-fuel, and change crews for the train. 

B: Some passengers really need the ability to step off every few hours and get a fresh breath of air. I wouldn't want to spend 60 hours on the Texas Eagle without being able to step off.


----------



## PVD

Interestingly, there are a few places where the trains stop where the platforms fall under local laws that prohibit smoking


----------



## boxcar479

Qapla said:


> What part of
> 
> does not cover that?





Qapla said:


> What part of
> 
> does not cover that?


Well I'll be hanged.! I reckon I glossed right over your post. Excuse me for missing that !


----------



## zephyr17

MIRAILFAN said:


> I'm a non smoker myself. Smoke has never bothered me, but can see how it would to people. It just seems like since its a legal product there should be concession, with respect to nonsmokers rights to breath smoke free air howevet.


Smoke moves and and smoking sections do not restrict the impact to those outside the section. Plus it is remarkably persistent and penetrative of upholstery. 

There is a concession. The fresh air stops, though not all are smoke stops. Such as San Jose where smoking is prohibited on station property, including the platforms, by ordinance and CalTrain policy.


----------



## zephyr17

Eric S said:


> If the concern is that "smokers' stops" unnecessarily lengthen schedules and delay trains, shouldn't the answer be to remove/shorten those stops (at least those that exist to accommodate smokers and not for some other operating reason)?


It doesn't. The length of those stops is dictated by operations. If it is shortened because the train is running late, it is just too bad for the smokers.


----------



## railiner

Wow...smoking or not, is as much a "hot-button" issue here, as it is on Cruise Critic's forum...


----------



## Qapla

Cal said:


> And Amtrak shouldn't, and wouldn't stop smoke breaks.
> 
> A: They are needed to re-stock, re-fuel, and change crews for the train.
> 
> B: Some passengers really need the ability to step off every few hours and *get a fresh breath of air*. I wouldn't want to spend 60 hours on the Texas Eagle without being able to step off.



Fresh air is not smoking ... yes, keep the crew stops and, if "fresh air" is what someone wants - a group of people smoking will not provide that - a strict "no smoking" policy would.


----------



## Cal

Qapla said:


> Fresh air is not smoking ... yes, keep the crew stops and, if "fresh air" is what someone wants - a group of people smoking will not provide that - a strict "no smoking" policy would.


In my experience, not too many people smoke on the platforms. And if/when they do, it's pretty far away and doesn't bother me. As opposed to smoking inside a pretty small train, with it having no where to go.


----------



## zephyr17

Qapla said:


> Fresh air is not smoking ... yes, keep the crew stops and, if "fresh air" is what someone wants - a group of people smoking will not provide that - a strict "no smoking" policy would.


"Fresh air" stop has long been the euphemism that Amtrak uses for smoking stops. It is easy enough to get away from smokers on the platform, so as far as I am concerned, it isn't a big deal that the nicotine addicts have to fix there. Besides, the platforms often are not under Amtrak control, and some do not allow smoking. An example of which is San Jose, no smoking is allowed anywhere on the station grounds and the "fresh air" stop there is clearly announced as not allowing smoking. Once you step off the train, Amtrak's authority often is at an end.


----------



## HenryK

I can't believe we're even having this discussion.


----------



## Palmland

While I certainly agree an enclosed space or anywhere near crowds is not the place for smoking regardless of when or where it is, I have hard time saying no smoking anytime, anywhere.

One of the highlights of a small ship cruise we had with my son was smoking a cigar with him on the stern of the ship with no one around to celebrate our grand adventure to Alaska. I believe a glass of brown liquor was also part of that as we steamed north. No, neither of us are smokers. There is a time and place for everything (that’s legal).


----------



## TrackWalker

New proposed Amtrak smoking car now in pre-testing phase. (Viewliner version)


----------



## railiner

HenryK said:


> I can't believe we're even having this discussion.


What's next? Tipping, Dress Code, Chair "hogs", bringing own booze, or what?


----------



## toddinde

This is crazy. It’s not 1975. That ship sailed twenty years ago. I’m not going to pay big bucks for a sleeper that smells of stale smoke. There aren’t very many truly bad ideas, but this one quite literally stinks.


----------



## John Bredin

TrackWalker said:


> New proposed Amtrak smoking car now in pre-testing phase. (Viewliner version)


The Superliner version adds a ladder and a sign advising smokers to sit down for bridges.


----------



## MARC Rider

SarahZ said:


> Prohibition does not work. This has been proven time and time again.
> 
> Many things can kill you, so making tobacco illegal is a slippery slope. You could argue that sugary and fatty foods kill people, so maybe we should make Doritos and Snickers illegal too.
> 
> Tobacco is a choice (just like sugary and fatty foods), so this is not the same as taking a particular medication off the shelf because it is found to cause death. The warnings are printed right on the package. People who smoke (and eat Snickers) know exactly what they're getting into.


The difference between smoking tobacco and eating sugary and fatty foods is that someone can sit and eat a Snickers bar or a bag of Doritos across the table from me and the sugar and fat from the Snickers or Doritos doesn't enter my body and compromise my health, unlike the dose of second-hand smoke I'd get if someone sitting near me was puffing away. 

I don't think that smoking tobacco should be illegal, it's just that people who smoke should not be able to do it around other people who don't want to deal with the second-hand smoke.


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> In all fairness, it is possible for someone to get sick from the smell of someone eating Snickers® since they contain peanuts
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, they took lead out of bullets because it rubbed off on the hands of hunters while loading their guns. This is a private thing and does not impact others - but was still done.


I thought they took the lead out of bullets (and shotgun shot) because the lead sitting around in the dirt or bottom of the pond leaches out into the environment and messes up the wildlife. So even if the hunter misses the target, the bullets can still kill.


----------



## SaharaKumlu

Absolutely not! No Smoking on the train!


----------



## PVD

Lead shot (and even small lead fishing tackle) is banned in many states because of the wildlife issue. Lead bullets are still around, but lead in the air is a real issue, particularly in indoor ranges


----------



## Barb Stout

It doesn't sound like too many, if any, people on this forum are smokers, but just in case some still are, I would like to share a story that will hopefully "light a fire" to motivate you to quit. I was talking with a hospice nurse and she mentioned that the worse deaths she has attended were people dying of COPD which most cases, but not all including my sister, are caused by smoking. She said those COPD cases were even worse than the ones who were dying of cancer. She mentioned the high anxiety and panic the COPD person suffers during his last days because of not being to breathe. I'm not looking forward to when my sister reaches that stage.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Barb Stout said:


> It doesn't sound like too many, if any, people on this forum are smokers, but just in case some still are, I would like to share a story that will hopefully "light a fire" to motivate you to quit. I was talking with a hospice nurse and she mentioned that the worse deaths she has attended were people dying of COPD which most cases, but not all including my sister, are caused by smoking. She said those COPD cases were even worse than the ones who were dying of cancer. She mentioned the high anxiety and panic the COPD person suffers during his last days because of not being to breathe. I'm not looking forward to when my sister reaches that stage.


Unfortunately there are some people who just can't quit, no matter how hard they try. I know of two from my past.


----------



## SarahZ

MARC Rider said:


> The difference between smoking tobacco and eating sugary and fatty foods is that someone can sit and eat a Snickers bar or a bag of Doritos across the table from me and the sugar and fat from the Snickers or Doritos doesn't enter my body and compromise my health, unlike the dose of second-hand smoke I'd get if someone sitting near me was puffing away.
> 
> I don't think that smoking tobacco should be illegal, it's just that people who smoke should not be able to do it around other people who don't want to deal with the second-hand smoke.


You missed my point too. Please read my responses to Qapla on the same issue.


----------



## Barb Stout

AmtrakBlue said:


> Unfortunately there are some people who just can't quit, no matter how hard they try. I know of two from my past.


Yep, I have heard how people who quit decades ago still sometimes have a strong desire/urge to smoke.


----------



## tim49424

Barb Stout said:


> Yep, I have heard how people who quit decades ago still sometimes have a strong desire/urge to smoke.



I must be an outlier. I quit (for good) 15 years ago and have no urges whatsoever to go back. Maybe, it's because I was never a heavy smoker to begin with.


----------



## me_little_me

My experience with smokers on trains these days (prior to Covid) is that they don't stand far enough from the doors when lighting up even when there are signs and it is not enforced by staff. Worse, is when it's the conductor that is smoking.
Then there is the SCA that says "stay right by the door" and one realizes you have to stand across from the middle of the car to get away from smokers on both sides.


----------



## Qapla

SarahZ said:


> You missed my point too. Please read my responses to Qapla on the same issue.



It's not that we missed your point - we just have a different point of view

Regardless, I still hold that NO Smoking on the train, in the station (and that includes in the restrooms), on the platform of even in the parking lot walking to the station office.


----------



## SarahZ

Qapla said:


> It's not that we missed your point - we just have a different point of view


No, you missed my point about prohibition in general and took it to mean I was referring to SECONDHAND effects, which I was not, but I’m tired of trying to explain it to you.


----------



## PaTrainFan

It's almost inconceivable now to think back to the days when smoking was allowed on a train, a bus or airplane, or a workplace. The thought of it now makes me nauseous. Thank goodness we have moved well beyond that. The only thing I would like to see is the ability to take as many "fresh air" breaks in the workplace as smokers seem to get!


----------



## nferr

No way it will ever be allowed on the trains again. I remember the smelly lounge cars. No thanks. And I'm an ex heavy smoker. Stopped 27 years ago.


----------



## me_little_me

I decided the smokers won the vote and the non-smokers were trying to steal the vote by bring in non-riders, stuffing the reply boxes and replying more than once.


----------



## JayPea

me_little_me said:


> My experience with smokers on trains these days (prior to Covid) is that they don't stand far enough from the doors when lighting up even when there are signs and it is not enforced by staff. Worse, is when it's the conductor that is smoking.
> Then there is the SCA that says "stay right by the door" and one realizes you have to stand across from the middle of the car to get away from smokers on both sides.



Here in the state of Washington smokers must stay at least 25 feet from any doors and Amtrak personnel in my experience have been good about enforcing this at smoke stops within the state. The last couple of times going to/coming from Seattle, though, it has been a moot point at the Wenatchee stop because of smoke from forest fires at the times I've ridden.


----------



## Michigan Mom

Just no on this one. :-/


----------



## IndyLions

Hmmm...90 posts in less than 36 hours...we’ve found a topic that “lights up” a thread faster than dining!


----------



## pennyk

I am also a definite no to smoking on the train. However, back in 1972, I took my first out of state trip from Waldo, FL to Fayetteville, NC (changing in JAX) when I was young and a smoker. There was a "women's lounge" on the train to Fayetteville where smoking was permitted. I recall at the time thinking that the lounge was very comfortable and a very "cool" place to congregate. Thinking back, this was an awful set up. Any woman that wanted to use the restroom had to walk through a thick cloud of smoke to use the facilities. Yuck!! I have been a reformed ex-smoker for about 35 years and cannot stand the smell of smoke. 

I find it very uncomfortable when smokers stand near the doors of the train during the "fresh air" breaks.


----------



## caravanman

As with sending kids up chimneys to clean the soot, the world has moved on from thinking smoking is desirable or healthy. Sadly, folk do get addicted quickly to tobacco, but that then becomes their problem to deal with, not other train users.


----------



## Ferroequinologist

If smoking were allowed, wouldn't smoking marijuana have to be permitted when trains pass through states that allow marijuana? Marijuana has a vile smell, far worse than cigarette tobacco.


----------



## PVD

No, unless it were made legal by the Federal gov't.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

PVD said:


> No, unless it were made legal by the Federal gov't.


Amtrak follows the state laws regarding serving alcohol so why wouldn't they follow state laws regarding smoking marijuana if smoking tobacco is allowed?


----------



## railiner

AmtrakBlue said:


> Amtrak follows the state laws regarding serving alcohol so why wouldn't they follow state laws regarding smoking marijuana if smoking tobacco is allowed?


Federal prohibition on alcohol ended a long time ago. Federal prohibition on marijuana has not....


----------



## Ziv

I remember smoking on flights. It seems hard to believe now, but we smoked right next to people that hated the smell and we though nothing of it. The non-smokers? Not so much.
There was usually the question "Mind if I smoke?" but it took intestinal fortitude in those days to say, "Yes, I mind."


----------



## PVD

channeling Morticia Adams "Mind if I Smoke"


----------



## Ziv

For those that missed that episode...



Carolyn Jones was smoking hot!



PVD said:


> channeling Morticia Adams "Mind if I Smoke"


----------



## MARC Rider

Ferroequinologist said:


> If smoking were allowed, wouldn't smoking marijuana have to be permitted when trains pass through states that allow marijuana? Marijuana has a vile smell, far worse than cigarette tobacco.


I believe that Amtrak, being some sort of "Federal property," prohibits the use of weed on its trains (and probably in the stations, too) even in the states where it's legal. I suppose this would also prohibit the use of edibles and other forms that aren't smoked. I'm fine with people using weed (as long as they're not driving while stoned), but I agree that the reek of weed is even worse than that of tobacco. I think it's the new varieties, as I don't remember the smell of pot being that vile back when I was in college. Or maybe it was masked by the pervasive smell of tobacco smoke back then  Come to think of it, I'm surprised that my lungs are functional now after all that secondhand smoke.


----------



## Barb Stout

me_little_me said:


> My experience with smokers on trains these days (prior to Covid) is that they don't stand far enough from the doors when lighting up even when there are signs and it is not enforced by staff. Worse, is when it's the conductor that is smoking.
> Then there is the SCA that says "stay right by the door" and one realizes you have to stand across from the middle of the car to get away from smokers on both sides.


Yes, to me the "fresh air" stops are definitely smoking stops as the stream of smoke always heads my way no matter how the wind is blowing. Same with campfires. I therefore don't usually step out during the "fresh air" stop because I am amazingly sensitive to cigarette smoke. I stretch my legs by walking around the train and up and down the stairs.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

caravanman said:


> As with sending kids up chimneys to clean the soot, the world has moved on from thinking smoking is desirable or healthy.


Many countries around the world continue to smoke as if there are no health concerns and even in countries like the US smoking tobacco is being replaced by other products like dip and vaping.



Ferroequinologist said:


> If smoking were allowed, wouldn't smoking marijuana have to be permitted when trains pass through states that allow marijuana?


Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone is forced to allow it. No shirt, no shoes, no service. As a federally regulated entity Amtrak would also be at risk of future liability if they allowed marijuana as a matter of policy.


----------



## Lana J C

Maintaining smoke free Amtrak cars is essential. If they want to add an open air smoking car that 'might' be okay as long as it doest allow smoke to drift into other cars. They need to work with platform managers to provide butt cans at every fresh air (haha)/ smoke stop and locations away from the doors for smoking.


----------



## Lana J C

In addition to mortality amongst protected CA Condors from eating discarded carcass parts from animals killed with lead bullets, Lead from bullets can also make it unsafe for human consumption. (Sorry a little off topic)


----------



## Cal

pennyk said:


> I am also a definite no to smoking on the train. However, back in 1972, I took my first out of state trip from Waldo, FL to Fayetteville, NC (changing in JAX) when I was young and a smoker. There was a "women's lounge" on the train to Fayetteville where smoking was permitted. I recall at the time thinking that the lounge was very comfortable and a very "cool" place to congregate. Thinking back, this was an awful set up. Any woman that wanted to use the restroom had to walk through a thick cloud of smoke to use the facilities. Yuck!! I have been a reformed ex-smoker for about 35 years and cannot stand the smell of smoke.
> 
> I find it very uncomfortable when smokers stand near the doors of the train during the "fresh air" breaks.


Good for you! I also cannot stand the smell of smoke, although I've never smoked.


----------



## jpakala

An unmentioned factor is the huge healthcare costs bourne by all of us owing to smoking. My wife & I recall feeling ill when in sleeping car bedrooms years back that had smoke odor from years of smokers using them. It penetrates and remains, just as you can find in used clothing worn by smokers.


----------



## Palmetto

toddinde said:


> This is crazy. It’s not 1975. That ship sailed twenty years ago. I’m not going to pay big bucks for a sleeper that smells of stale smoke. There aren’t very many truly bad ideas, but this one quite literally stinks.



Well, I'm an ex-smoker, and I agree. I used to like the smell of smoke. I can't stand the smell these days.


----------



## Larry H.

jpakala said:


> An unmentioned factor is the huge healthcare costs bourne by all of us owing to smoking. My wife & I recall feeling ill when in sleeping car bedrooms years back that had smoke odor from years of smokers using them. It penetrates and remains, just as you can find in used clothing worn by smokers.


I agree 100%. In the Golden Era of rail I used to hate going into to cars that wreaked from years of cigarette smoking. One time coming home from College for the week end on the Missouri Pacifc from Kansas City to St Louis the cars were pretty much full but a man sitting across the aisle from me was smoking cigars, and to me that is even worse. Finally he finished it and I thought, good now maybe it won't be so awful. A minute later he started a new one he smoked the rest of the trip.. I never smoked but if you hung around at a bar on a train car with smokers when you took your shirt off you could smell the smoke as you pulled it over your head, ugh.


----------



## Barb Stout

Devil's Advocate said:


> Many countries around the world continue to smoke as if there are no health concerns and even in countries like the US smoking tobacco is being replaced by other products like dip and vaping.


What is dip? 

I haven't been around anyone vaping, but I assume there is some kind of gas being produced given the name is rendered from "vapor". Does it have a smell that bystanders can detect? Does it bother other people's eyes or nose? Is there any literature that sidestream from vaping can cause health problems? I know there is some that indicates problems for the vaper him/herself, but I don't think I have heard anything about bystanders.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Barb Stout said:


> What is dip?
> 
> I haven't been around anyone vaping, but I assume there is some kind of gas being produced given the name is rendered from "vapor". Does it have a smell that bystanders can detect? Does it bother other people's eyes or nose? Is there any literature that sidestream from vaping can cause health problems? I know there is some that indicates problems for the vaper him/herself, but I don't think I have heard anything about bystanders.







__





Dipping tobacco - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Ferroequinologist

Devil's Advocate said:


> Many countries around the world continue to smoke as if there are no health concerns and even in countries like the US smoking tobacco is being replaced by other products like dip and vaping.
> 
> 
> Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone is forced to allow it. No shirt, no shoes, no service. As a federally regulated entity Amtrak would also be at risk of future liability if they allowed marijuana as a matter of policy.



I would not travel on Amtrak if any sort of smoking were allolwed, especially marijuana smoking, but I don't see why Amtrak would have legal problems allowing marijuana smoking where allowed any more than they would have problems allowing smoking of cigarettes - in separate areas of course.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ferroequinologist said:


> I don't see why Amtrak would have legal problems allowing marijuana smoking where allowed any more than they would have problems allowing smoking of cigarettes - in separate areas of course.


You don't see how federal regulations can affect the use of a controlled substance in the service of interstate commerce?



Ferroequinologist said:


> If smoking were allowed, wouldn't smoking marijuana have to be permitted when trains pass through states that allow marijuana? Marijuana has a vile smell, far worse than cigarette tobacco.


⬆ Your original claim was that Amtrak would _have_ to permit marijuana if they allowed tobacco smoking but you still haven't explained what that theory was based upon or how you came up with it.



Barb Stout said:


> I haven't been around anyone vaping, but I assume there is some kind of gas being produced given the name is rendered from "vapor". Does it have a smell that bystanders can detect? Does it bother other people's eyes or nose? Is there any literature that sidestream from vaping can cause health problems? I know there is some that indicates problems for the vaper him/herself, but I don't think I have heard anything about bystanders.


Vaping emits a cloud of moisture and chemicals on exhalation. Out in the open it may not be a problem but when people are driving and vaping there are periods where you cannot see them through clear windows because the resulting fog is so thick. Vaping is still in the wild west era with chemical cocktails that are considered a trade secret and regulations that are mainly focused on advertising and selling to children. In an enclosed area I would not want to be around a bunch of overly trusting vaping addicts who think anything that is not a cigarette must be safe.


----------



## flitcraft

The federal rules on marijuana, assuming their validity, trump state rules; that's the supremacy clause of the constitution in action. When marijuana was legalized in Washington state, colleges had to warn students that, despite the fact that weed was legal in Washington, it was still totally banned anywhere on campus. We were told that permitting violation of federal law would risk the university's qualification for federal benefits, including federal research money and, more seriously, the right of students to receive federal financial aid. In theory, marijuana users and sellers in non-prohibition states could face federal criminal prosecutions. I believe Jeff Sessions threatened to make US attorneys do just that, early on in his stint as AG. 

No matter what happens in the future--I suspect that marijuana will ultimately be re-classified from its current federal classification--I highly doubt we will ever see Amtrak allow marijuana smoking on trains, in stations, or on platforms. Regardless of the law, it's highly annoying to a large number of customers. Businesses who make decisions that anger and annoy much of their customer base don't stay in business for long.


----------



## WWW

Like the airlines - ABSOLUTELY NO SMOKING - I worked for a major airline for 29 years and the cabin cleanliness difference was like night and day
when NO SMOKING was initiated. At first one could smoke anywhere on the plane and then it was restricted to a section (usually the back of the
cabin) and then no smoking none at all period.
All those dirty ash trays and the SMELL in the upholstery and unsightly stains were eventually weaned out of the cabin and a breath of fresh air restored.
It is still a bother when a smoker boards a flight and reeks of smoke - I would suppose that this would be true when traveling on Amtrak.
Not much can be done about that but this contempt for non smokers is a concern. This topic can get serious - my rights and the smokers -
I will leave it that - JUST SAY NO TO SMOKE "PLEASE" !


----------



## emd_e9

*No!* And *please* get rid of the air fresheners. They are almost as obnoxious as tobacco smoke.


----------



## Bob Dylan

emd_e9 said:


> *No!* And *please* get rid of the air fresheners. They are almost as obnoxious as tobacco smoke.


Especially Febrege!!


----------



## TheVig

As a smoker myself. My answer is NO.


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> Especially Febrege!!


Surely you mean Febreeze?

"Febrege" almost sounds like those famous jeweled Eggs, though that is spelled "Faberge" I think.


----------



## PVD

You are correct, but of course, the name also applied to a famous fragrance line....


----------



## bms

The smoking stops are so few and far between now. Really I feel bad for the smokers because there are so few smoke stops. They're good customers too.


----------



## Qapla

bms said:


> I feel bad for the smokers because there are so few smoke stops.



I do not feel bad for them at all - should we also feel bad that the trains don't stop at liquor stores for those addicted to alcohol? or drug stores for those addicted to prescription pain killers?

People must eat to live, it is not a choice but a requirement to keep living - I feel for those who don't have food they can eat while riding long distance (the current selections available onboard are not exactly health friendly) ... people do not have to smoke to live, it is a choice - not a requirement to keep living.


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> I do not feel bad for them at all - should we also feel bad that the trains don't stop at liquor stores for those addicted to alcohol? or drug stores for those addicted to prescription pain killers?
> 
> People must eat to live, it is not a choice but a requirement to keep living - I feel for those who don't have food they can eat while riding long distance (the current selections available onboard are not exactly health friendly) ... people do not have to smoke to live, it is a choice - not a requirement to keep living.


Well, they do sell alcohol on beard trains, and you're also allowed to drink on board. To deal with the problems encountered by nicotine addicts who can't get their fix, they could easily just sell nicotine gum in the cafe car.

As for food, most passengers, even on the long distance trains aren't riding so far that they really need food. Serving decent food is really more of a way to entice travelers to make longer trips and pay premium fares that cross-subsidize the whole service, but if the cost of providing the enhanced on-board service is more than the fare premium, than it's really no financial benefit to Amtrak.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Qapla said:


> I do not feel bad for them at all - should we also feel bad that the trains don't stop at liquor stores for those addicted to alcohol? or drug stores for those addicted to prescription pain killers?
> 
> People must eat to live, it is not a choice but a requirement to keep living - I feel for those who don't have food they can eat while riding long distance (the current selections available onboard are not exactly health friendly) ... people do not have to smoke to live, it is a choice - not a requirement to keep living.


Nicorette Gum or Pills work fine for Nicotine Junkies while traveling.( ex Smoker for 35 years)


----------



## me_little_me

MARC Rider said:


> Well, they do sell alcohol on beard trains, and you're also allowed to drink on board. To deal with the problems encountered by nicotine addicts who can't get their fix, they could easily just sell nicotine gum in the cafe car.


But unlike alcohol which is a high profit item that can be sold to a lot of people in a short time (to both addicts and mostly, non-addicted), nicotine gum is something that only an addict would need but likely already have and if they didn't, one package would be enough - and they could be shared.


----------



## Cal

me_little_me said:


> But unlike alcohol which is a high profit item that can be sold to a lot of people in a short time (to both addicts and mostly, non-addicted), nicotine gum is something that only an addict would need but likely already have and if they didn't, one package would be enough - and they could be shared.


Exactly. Alcohol is something that many people drink, but aren't addicted to. The gum would only be for addicts, and I don't think it would look good on them for selling it.


----------



## TinCan782

Time for a little tobacco humor...
*Bob Newhart - Sir Walter Raleigh*


----------



## MARC Rider

me_little_me said:


> But unlike alcohol which is a high profit item that can be sold to a lot of people in a short time (to both addicts and mostly, non-addicted), nicotine gum is something that only an addict would need but likely already have and if they didn't, one package would be enough - and they could be shared.


Well, it's not like a few boxes of nicotine gum would take up a whole lot of space in the cafe car, and there are people who might run out or just noot be particularly organized, so it might be good to have it available, or the other passengers will have to deal with the second-hand fumes at the "fresh air" stops. Obviously, this is not going to be a major revenue stream for Amtrak, but it would make the journey more pleasant for both smokers and non-smokers.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> Well, it's not like a few boxes of nicotine gum would take up a whole lot of space in the cafe car, and there are people who might run out or just noot be particularly organized, so it might be good to have it available, or the other passengers will have to deal with the second-hand fumes at the "fresh air" stops. Obviously, this is not going to be a major revenue stream for Amtrak, but it would make the journey more pleasant for both smokers and non-smokers.


And do you think that people will be fine with Amtrak basically promoting the bad habit? I saw someone be annoyed at them calling fresh air stops "smoke breaks", I doubt having nicotine on board would help.


----------



## TrackWalker

Bob Dylan said:


> Nicorette Gum or Pills work fine for Nicotine Junkies while traveling.( ex Smoker for 35 years)



Amtrak branded Nicorettes- Collect all the routes!


----------



## MARC Rider

Cal said:


> And do you think that people will be fine with Amtrak basically promoting the bad habit? I saw someone be annoyed at them calling fresh air stops "smoke breaks", I doubt having nicotine on board would help.


What "bad habit?" Chewing gum? I know our K-12 teachers told us that chewing gum was a distasteful thing to do and banned it in class, I don't think we need to go and ban gum-chewing on Amtrak trains. 

Though nicotine is the addictive substance in tobacco, the bad health effects come from the other stuff in the smoke that smokers (and bystanders) inhale. So it really makes sense to encourage and enable a nicotine-addicted smoker to deal with his or her addiction by ingesting their nicotine in a form that doesn't endanger the health of other passengers.


----------



## Cal

MARC Rider said:


> What "bad habit?" Chewing gum? I know our K-12 teachers told us that chewing gum was a distasteful thing to do and banned it in class, I don't think we need to go and ban gum-chewing on Amtrak trains.


Talking about the nicotine.


----------



## Qapla

Of course, that is assuming that a smoker would "want" to use the gum instead of smoking. Many smokers I have to work around would never use the gum ... they want to actually smoke ... not chew gum.

Also, since Amtrak sells alcohol and nicotine gum is being suggested, what about those addicted to prescription drugs? Are we going to stop at drug stores or sell prescription drugs on board? (funny how this was passed over in the discussion about gum)


----------



## PVD

Here's a novel idea. If you are a nicotine addict and you know you will be in an environment that you can not smoke, why not buy a pack of nicotine gum before you leave and bring it with you? Why is it someone else's responsibility?


----------



## AmtrakBlue

Qapla said:


> Also, since Amtrak sells alcohol and nicotine gum is being suggested, what about those addicted to prescription drugs? Are we going to stop at drug stores or sell prescription drugs on board? (funny how this was passed over in the discussion about gum)


Really!?!


----------



## TrackWalker

Qapla said:


> ...Also, since Amtrak sells alcohol and nicotine gum is being suggested, what about those addicted to prescription drugs? Are we going to stop at drug stores or sell prescription drugs on board? (funny how this was passed over in the discussion about gum)



A good example of a "Whataboutism" argument.


----------



## MARC Rider

Qapla said:


> Of course, that is assuming that a smoker would "want" to use the gum instead of smoking. Many smokers I have to work around would never use the gum ... they want to actually smoke ... not chew gum.
> 
> Also, since Amtrak sells alcohol and nicotine gum is being suggested, what about those addicted to prescription drugs? Are we going to stop at drug stores or sell prescription drugs on board? (funny how this was passed over in the discussion about gum)


Why all this pushback about having a few packs of nicotine gum available for sale in the cafe car? You'd think I was suggesting that Amtrak sell weed and cocaine on board! Nicotine gm is perfectly legal and doesn't require a prescription, and doesn't take up much space. And if it helps people to not smoke, having it available helps everyone on board.


----------



## neroden

I'm actually in support of selling the nicotine gum onboard, but then I think tobacco smoking (including vaping) in public should be outlawed completely. No second-hand smoke, please. If selling the gum in the cafe reduced the rate of smoking at the stations, it would help.


----------

