# Use of electric cigarettes in sleeper



## BillVas (Feb 3, 2010)

My friend would get off to smoke at the smoke stops, but now has those phoney cigarettes that are just a mist of air. can these be used in our compartment without getting thrown off the trains??


----------



## Acela150 (Feb 3, 2010)

That's a great question that I think might stump us all. I would call Amtrak to find out. That's my take on this topic. If it's just a mist of air I would guess yes but not sure. If you he or she does use them in your sleeping compartment shut the door and blinds. So you don't get caught and get thrown off. Or tell the SCA that you have the fake cigarettes and is it ok if you use them in the compartment.

Good luck on this new topic!

Steve


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 3, 2010)

yeah i would check with the car attendent they might not have heard of them and at first glance might think your smoking for real.


----------



## Chris J. (Feb 4, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> yeah i would check with the car attendent they might not have heard of them and at first glance might think your smoking for real.


I saw someone smoking one of these in a bar a few weeks ago and It did look like they were smoking a normal cigarette. I think it was only the lack of smoke coming from it that made me realise it was one of these fake electronic ones.

I'd ask the attendant before "lighting up" (switching on?) - you don't want to be thrown off the train at a grade crossing in Nowheresville over a misunderstanding!


----------



## deimos (Feb 4, 2010)

A friend of mine mentioned a similar situation where someone was using an electronic cigarette in a non-smoking area in a restaurant. Apparently, the restaurant staff didn't mind, or at least they didn't see any reason to ask that person to not use the device since it was not creating any smoke and none of the other patrons seemed to mind. Granted, I am not a smoker - I think this may actually be a bigger problem for those who smoke as opposed to those who don't since it would entice smokers to think about lighting up.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2010)

Chris J. said:


> I'd ask the attendant before "lighting up" (switching on?) - you don't want to be thrown off the train at a grade crossing in Nowheresville over a misunderstanding!


IMHO, that would be far better than calling Amtrak customer service. It would be the attendant who makes the, on-the-spot, judgement call.


----------



## caravanman (Feb 4, 2010)

As a non smoker, I am guessing that it is the smoking by burning part that that is frowned upon. If one can inhale "nicotine" or whatever without it being released into the air I imagine that would be ok for most people.

Anyone know if there is a spliff electric joint available?

Ed


----------



## rrdude (Feb 4, 2010)

caravanman said:


> As a non smoker, I am guessing that it is the smoking by burning part that that is frowned upon. If one can inhale "nicotine" or whatever without it being released into the air I imagine that would be ok for most people.
> Anyone know if there is a spliff electric joint available?
> 
> Ed


I've seen these things close up, and there is absolutely no smoke, but the mere "Thought" of someone breaking the rules sends the do-gooders into shock.

He has told me story after story about people who "Don't believe" they are not at risk for second-hand smoke.

Your last sentence, good idea......


----------



## wayman (Feb 4, 2010)

caravanman said:


> Anyone know if there is a spliff electric joint available?


Vaporizers may accomplish the same smokeless objective.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 4, 2010)

The TV commercials for these gizmos are pretty cocky. Shows a guy just blatanly puffing away in a restaurant booth and when approached by the server, he jabs it into his hand to prove he's not breaking the rules.

In the privacy of a roomette, or even in coach if everyone else is sound asleep, I don't have a problem with it, but to "switch on" in the middle of the lounge car is probably just inciting a hostile environment.


----------



## Asst Conductor OKJ (Feb 4, 2010)

In short the answer is no. We recived an update about them in regaurds to amtraks smoking policy and we were told that they are NOT allowed to be used on board the train, and should be enforced the same way as smobody smoking a real cig. sorry.


----------



## caravanman (Feb 4, 2010)

Oh well, it's back to the hash cookies and vodka then...

Ed


----------



## rile42 (Feb 4, 2010)

Last spring I sat behind a guy from Denver to Chicago that had some type of fake cigarette in his mouth the entire time. I thought for a long time it was a real cigarette just unlit. It didn't emit anything. He never tried to hide it and nobody bothered him about it.


----------



## sunchaser (Feb 4, 2010)

Asst Conductor OKJ said:


> In short the answer is no. We recived an update about them in regaurds to amtraks smoking policy and we were told that they are NOT allowed to be used on board the train, and should be enforced the same way as smobody smoking a real cig. sorry.


Bummer. I almost bought some for the long train trip last summer, but they are bit expensive. Now I'm glad I didn't buy any. I certainly would not want to cause an uproar.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 4, 2010)

Asst Conductor OKJ said:


> In short the answer is no. We recived an update about them in regaurds to amtraks smoking policy and we were told that they are NOT allowed to be used on board the train, and should be enforced the same way as smobody smoking a real cig. sorry.


Why? What is the concern?


----------



## Rafi (Feb 4, 2010)

Here's the Amtrak statement on the matter:



> ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES PROHIBITEDELECTRONIC CIGARETTES OR E-CIGARETTES ARE BEING MARKETED AS A SAFER ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING TOBACCO PRODUCTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ADDICTED TO OR WANT TO USE NICOTINE. MANY OF THESE ELECTRONIC DEVICES ARE DESIGNED TO LOOK LIKE CIGARETTES, CIGARS AND PIPES. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME INSTANCES OF PASSENGERS SMOKING E-CIGARETTES ON AMTRAK TRAINS AND IN AMTRAK STATIONS. THESE ELECTRONIC DEVICES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE FDA AS BEING SAFE TO USE.
> 
> AN E-CIGARETTE CONSISTS OF A METAL OR PLASTIC TUBE THAT CONTAINS A LITHIUM BATTERY PACK, A HEATING ELEMENT, ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS, AND, IN THOSE DESIGNED TO LOOK LIKE CIGARETTES, AN LED AT ONE END THAT MIMICS THE GLOW OF A LIT CIGARETTE WHEN THE USER DRAWS AIR THROUGH IT. WHEN A USER DRAWS AIR THROUGH THE DEVICE, A HEATING ELEMENT VAPORIZES THE NICOTINE CONTAINING PROPYLENE GLYCOL SOLUTION, AND THE VAPOR IS INHALED INTO THE LUNGS. WHEN THEY ARE PUFFED, A VAPOR IS EMITTED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. THE VAPOR EMITTED CAN BE VISUALLY SIMILAR TO CIGARETTE SMOKE. THERE IS ALSO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE EXHALED AEROSOL FROM AN E-CIGARETTE COULD CONTAIN NICOTINE, PROPYLENE GLYCOL OR OTHER VOLATILE MATERIALS.
> 
> AMTRAK DOES NOT ALLOW THE USE OF THESE ELECTRONIC SMOKING DEVICES IN ANY AREA ON TRAINS, ON THRUWAY BUSES, IN STATIONS, OR IN ANY OTHER AREA WHERE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 4, 2010)

That seems to make the most sense of anything I've seen about these electric suck sticks. At first, I thought it was silly to say that they weren't approved by the FDA as being safe to use. Would that mean that holistic (legal) vitamins are also banned?

But the part about the 2nd hand vapor makes a bit more sense. Amtrak's SA's and conductors need to be able to articulately relay this to passengers to avoid a major disrutption by someone having a nic attack.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 4, 2010)

The solution to all this would be if Amtrak had an air tight smoking room where the smokers could puff on their cigarettes. If the room was completely air tight it would not annoy the rest of the passengers as all of the smoke would be tightly contained in there. When you are a smoker the more smoke the better the enjoyment!


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Feb 4, 2010)

if you have to smoke get off at the smoke stops or brings lots of nicotine gum or those patches.


----------



## Chris J. (Feb 4, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> The solution to all this would be if Amtrak had an air tight smoking room where the smokers could puff on their cigarettes. If the room was completely air tight it would not annoy the rest of the passengers as all of the smoke would be tightly contained in there. When you are a smoker the more smoke the better the enjoyment!


One problem would be getting from that air-tight room to the rest of the train; the other might be they'd use all the air in their air-tight smoking area; and that might be bad...


----------



## BigBlueBuddha (Feb 4, 2010)

caravanman said:


> As a non smoker, I am guessing that it is the smoking by burning part that that is frowned upon. If one can inhale "nicotine" or whatever without it being released into the air I imagine that would be ok for most people.
> Anyone know if there is a spliff electric joint available?
> 
> Ed


Vaporizers exist, both in stationary and portable, rechargeable models. How would I know this? 

Edit: I guess wayman beat me to this! Hmm. . .


----------



## caravanman (Feb 4, 2010)

Airtight rooms reminds me of an amtrak travel book I read.. Daydreaming and smoking around America, by Jenny Diski

Admittedly, the cover pic is a bit pre-amtrak, but she mentions the Smoking Cabins provided before the full ban..

Ed


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> The solution to all this would be if Amtrak had an air tight smoking room where the smokers could puff on their cigarettes. If the room was completely air tight it would not annoy the rest of the passengers as all of the smoke would be tightly contained in there. When you are a smoker the more smoke the better the enjoyment!


Amtrak tried that; it didn't work.

Select Superliner coaches had an enclosed room on the lower level where the baggage areas are in some cars today. Despite the vent to the outside, too many smokers would go inside at one time and it would get too smoky for even them. So they'd find some way to prop the door open, venting smoke to the entire car. And of course no matter what you tried, a little always escapes every time someone goes in or out of the room.

Another big problem with those rooms is that the smoker's turned it into a pig sty. They'd bring a cup of soda or a can of soda in, use it as an ashtray instead of those provided, then leave the can/cup behind. The train would hit a bump and now you have a sticky mess with ashes mixed in. Cleaning costs were off the wall.

So between the door propping issues and the cleaning issues, the smokers killed their ability to smoke on the train.


----------



## sunchaser (Feb 4, 2010)

amtrakwolverine said:


> if you have to smoke get off at the smoke stops or brings lots of nicotine gum or those patches.


It's funny. I brought the lozenges along for us 'just in case'. Never even opened them, even though we were a bit behind (2 hours) for the scheduled stop at Reno. There was enough going on to keep us focused elsewhere.

I didn't know they used proplylene glycol and lithium batteries. I can see why they would be unacceptable. I definitely will not buy them now. As I have said before, I don't mind smoking outside. That's what we do at home. IF it were ok on the train in the sleeper, I would be opening the window if I could. I know it's not ok, not about to try getting away with it.


----------



## rrdude (Feb 4, 2010)

What if I just walk around with an UN-lit cigarette? Is that also banned by Amtrak?


----------



## wayman (Feb 4, 2010)

rrdude said:


> What if I just walk around with an UN-lit cigarette? Is that also banned by Amtrak?


How 'bout these?


----------



## TVRM610 (Feb 4, 2010)

AlanB said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > The solution to all this would be if Amtrak had an air tight smoking room where the smokers could puff on their cigarettes. If the room was completely air tight it would not annoy the rest of the passengers as all of the smoke would be tightly contained in there. When you are a smoker the more smoke the better the enjoyment!
> ...


Even worse Alan, do you remember when they converted half of some of the single level lounges into smoking rooms? I really didn't like the idea of taking up half the lounge for that purpose... and yes the smokers of course trashed up the place like you said.

I must admit, I wouldn't want someone puffing on one of these things sitting next to me, if for no other reason than its just plain annoying.


----------



## nferr (Feb 4, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> The solution to all this would be if Amtrak had an air tight smoking room where the smokers could puff on their cigarettes. If the room was completely air tight it would not annoy the rest of the passengers as all of the smoke would be tightly contained in there. When you are a smoker the more smoke the better the enjoyment!


Everyone you open the door to that "air-tight" compartment the smoke pours out into the rest of the car. Amtrak tried those smoking compartments and it was a disaster.


----------



## rrdude (Feb 4, 2010)

TVRM610 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


Ever chew gum? Have braces as a kid? Cough?


----------



## D T Nelson (Feb 4, 2010)

Back when I was a smoker, before nicotine gum, when I found myself for a long time in a place where smoking was not allowed, I chewed Red Man. It satisfied the nicotine craving, that's for sure.

I tried them all -- Mail Pouch, Beech Nut, etc. -- but Red Man tasted the best.

Probably, in coach, nicotine gum would be a better choice, but in a sleeper, chew and spit away.


----------



## rrdude (Feb 4, 2010)

D T Nelson said:


> Back when I was a smoker, before nicotine gum, when I found myself for a long time in a place where smoking was not allowed, I chewed Red Man. It satisfied the nicotine craving, that's for sure.
> I tried them all -- Mail Pouch, Beech Nut, etc. -- but Red Man tasted the best.
> 
> Probably, in coach, nicotine gum would be a better choice, but in a sleeper, chew and spit away.


YUCK.

*Note to self, "Don't drink what's in the cup when you enter the roomette."*


----------



## sunchaser (Feb 4, 2010)

AlanB said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > The solution to all this would be if Amtrak had an air tight smoking room where the smokers could puff on their cigarettes. If the room was completely air tight it would not annoy the rest of the passengers as all of the smoke would be tightly contained in there. When you are a smoker the more smoke the better the enjoyment!
> ...


The venting issue should have been solved with fans to the outside-one small fan sucking air into to the room, another, much larger fan venting outside.

It's really a shame that some smokers can be that sloppy. Maybe because they figure someone else is cleaning it up? I guess we are an exception-we smoke outside, empty & clean ashtrays regularly, avoid smoking or move away around non-smokers. When we took the train, I saved an empty plastic bottle with the lid, put a bit of water in it & used it for a butt collector at smoke stops. Works like a charm. There's really no reason to be a pig.


----------



## dlagrua (Feb 4, 2010)

nferr said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> > The solution to all this would be if Amtrak had an air tight smoking room where the smokers could puff on their cigarettes. If the room was completely air tight it would not annoy the rest of the passengers as all of the smoke would be tightly contained in there. When you are a smoker the more smoke the better the enjoyment!
> ...



BTW, the sealed smoking rooms still exist on the AutoTrain on the lower level of the lounge car. Last time we were on it in June 2009, it was lightly used but the smokers tended to leave garbage behind. Soime smoke did seep out when the door was opened. I always wondered why smoking was banned on all routes but allowed on the AutoTrain. Now if we go back to the 1930s 40's 50's and 60's smoking was allowed everywhere in the lounge car and I believe in the dining cars too. Must have been a very unhealthy environment back then.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2010)

sunchaser said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


I'm quite sure that they had a fan venting, not sure about one pulling in outside air. It is possible that the fans were too small, I can't really say and I never ventured into one of the rooms.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> nferr said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


I'm sure that if Amtrak could, they'd probably dump the box on the AT also. However, with no scheduled stops, there is no way to give anyone a chance to smoke during the entire journey, so they keep the boxes on the AT and try their best to get people not to be slobs.


----------



## TVRM610 (Feb 4, 2010)

dlagrua said:


> nferr said:
> 
> 
> > dlagrua said:
> ...


Actually this was still the case in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. The lounge cars used to be FULL of smoke. It's funny how that never bothered me then. There also used to be "smoking" and "non-smoking" coaches, again at least until the late 80's.


----------



## oldtimer (Feb 5, 2010)

AlanB said:


> sunchaser said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I was involved in the first Superliner smoker coach conversion. It was done as an experiment in Chicago and it was well thought out and engineered before the start. First of all the Superliner ventilation system provides for a slight positive air pressure (if you pay attention as the vestibule doors are closed you can hear the air rush in the last few inches of door closing) so it was deemed that only an exhaust fan would be needed for the lower level so a high volume fan was connected to the return air duct work for the lower level and additional exhaust vents were added to the smoking section. All fabric and any other material that was considered smoke permeable was removed and replaced. the engineering theory was that the smoking compartment was at a lower internal air pressure than the rest of the car thus when the door was opened the smoke would not escape. This theory was great until the vestibule doors were opened and the positive pressure disappeared. This was also the time that the occupants of the smoke chamber also made a break for outside air. This problem was exacerbated by the train crews using this car for their short distance passengers, therefore the vestibule door was opened every stop Another problem that was an oversight of the engineers was that the passengers that returned to their seats had all of their clothes stinking of smoke. These smokers, if the were coach passengers, tended to congregate in this car, hence it stank!

Alan B II

:blink: :blink: :blink:


----------



## AlanB (Feb 5, 2010)

Thanks for that interesting and detailed description of how things were setup. I learned quite a bit from your post. Many Thanks! 

In fact, I'll go take you off the Pizza Ban for that. :lol:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 5, 2010)

Chris J. said:


> One problem would be getting from that air-tight room to the rest of the train; the other might be they'd use all the air in their air-tight smoking area; and that might be bad...


That is debatable.



rrdude said:


> Ever chew gum? Have braces as a kid? Cough?


I generally don't like smokers as a group. I've met a few that are ok. Sunchaser seems to be one of them. Those few are considerate of the fact that while you might happen to enjoy your habit or need your habbit, the rest of the world doesn't enjoy it at all, and try to avoid annoying us with their choice.

The rest of them seem to not give a flying [poop] about the fact that we don't like it. Some, like you, are even downright hostile about that fact that we have a problem with breathing in your smoke. You want to poison your lungs with smoke, dude? Go right ahead. I won't stop you. You should have the right to kill yourself, be it with cyanide, a knife, a bullet, or a cigarette.

But you know what? I don't like the way you smell when you smoke in closed quarters. I don't like the smell of your cigarette, either. You probably wouldn't like it if we were in a small enclosed room, and after eating, say, beans, I let forth a force-ten pants buster that stank up the place to high heaven. Would you? Didn't think so. And that isn't particularly damaging to your health, it just smells bad. And by the way, if I needed to do something of that nature, I'd probably take a trip to the bathroom.

But smoking? Lordy lord, that's different. You should be able to do that where ever you please.

Generally, I'm a laid back person. Live and let live. I'm a straight, monogamous person with some pretty solid Judeo-christian moral beliefs, which I generally hold myself accountable to. If people want, behind closed doors, to engage in breaking each of those beliefs in turn, so long as all members are capable of deciding to participate of their own free will, its there business. Group sex? Gay sex? Crack? Cocaine? BDSM? Drink until you passout/vomit? Go right ahead. Just don't involve me in it. Consenting adults can go around privately making their decisions, stupid as they might be. I believe strongly in personal freedom.

But dear god, don't involve me in it. Don't drink and drive on a road I'm on. Don't try to push your crack/cocaine on anyone I know that doesn't use it and doesn't care to. Don't pressure me or someone I know who isn't interested into various moral depravities that please you. And don't breathe cigarette smoke at me. Or smoke in places that a reasonable person must go through in order to navigate reasonably.

Smoke all you want- or take place in any number of other things listed or not listed. All I ask is I don't suffer from the consequences of your decisions.


----------



## oldtimer (Feb 5, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Thanks for that interesting and detailed description of how things were setup. I learned quite a bit from your post. Many Thanks!
> In fact, I'll go take you off the Pizza Ban for that. :lol:



Even after what I just posted here. New Food in Lounge Car

I guess that I'll be banned for life, especially after I tell you from hundreds of trip to St. Louis that there is no good pizza place in St Louis!

Alan B II (maybe I should be Alan B. SR as I retired with 37 years RR service)

:huh: :huh: :huh:


----------



## GG-1 (Feb 5, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The rest of them seem to not give a flying [poop] about the fact that we don't like it.


What a revolting sight/thought, Poop flying  :lol: :lol: Do you think the TSA would inspect flying poop.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 5, 2010)

oldtimer2 said:


> I guess that I'll be banned for life, especially after I tell you from hundreds of trip to St. Louis that there is no good pizza place in St Louis!


We'll just have to have someone stop at Giordanno's on the way down to St. Louis and then find some place to reheat. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Actually, in all seriousness, I'm not too worried about Pizza in St. Louis. We really only have to worry about food on Friday, and I already know where we'll do lunch. Saturday and Sunday will see us eating on the train. 



oldtimer2 said:


> Alan B II (maybe I should be Alan B. SR as I retired with 37 years RR service)
> :huh: :huh: :huh:


While it might cause a bit of confusion with people; you do actually have the ability to change your display name to anything you like. So you could certainly change it to Alan B. Sr. should you wish to do so.


----------



## DET63 (Feb 5, 2010)

AlanB said:


> oldtimer2 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess that I'll be banned for life, especially after I tell you from hundreds of trip to St. Louis that there is no good pizza place in St Louis!
> ...


Of course, then everyone will think oldtimer2 is AlanB's dad.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Feb 5, 2010)

Until such time as all antismoking crusaders cease belching untold millions of tons of carcinogens and greenhouse gases into MY air from their motor vehicles, they remain the most crass of hypocrites. Easy for the tyrannical majority to single out the minority while denying or attempting to justify their own, far more massive, willful contribution to the truly major causes of air pollution, disease, and global warming.


----------



## Tony (Feb 5, 2010)

BillVas said:


> ... , but now has those phoney cigarettes that are just a mist of air.





Rafi said:


> Here's the Amtrak statement on the matter:
> 
> 
> > ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES PROHIBITED... , A HEATING ELEMENT VAPORIZES THE *NICOTINE CONTAINING PROPYLENE GLYCOL SOLUTION*, AND THE VAPOR IS INHALED INTO THE LUNGS. WHEN THEY ARE PUFFED, A VAPOR IS EMITTED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. THE VAPOR EMITTED CAN BE VISUALLY SIMILAR TO CIGARETTE SMOKE. THERE IS ALSO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE EXHALED AEROSOL FROM AN E-CIGARETTE COULD CONTAIN *NICOTINE, PROPYLENE GLYCOL OR OTHER VOLATILE MATERIALS*.
> ...


I guess it isn't just a mist of clean air, or a puff of pure water, that is being exhausted out of those things.


----------



## MattW (Feb 5, 2010)

GML, much as you can irritate even me, you're spot on! The only problem is that people aren't content to not involve other people. If it were up to me, I'd ban tobacco products from the United States (the world if I could get away with it).

As for spewing toxins into the air, blame the government and big-oil. I'd happily drive an electric or nuclear-electric vehicle if they had them (Google Ford Atom), but I can't, and Atlanta does not have workable transit thanks to our incompetent government. Plus, don't smokers spew more toxins than non-smokers who drive? Last I checked, there was no big correlation between smoking and using transit (if it exists) so in addition to their vehicles (which I doubt are all 60mpg hybrids) they're putting pollutants directly into the air directly from the paper in their mouth. I thought about doing a science project in High School which would compare pollution levels from cigarettes to coal, gasoline, natural gas etc., but couldn't figure out how to truly make it work.


----------



## sunchaser (Feb 5, 2010)

MattW said:


> GML, much as you can irritate even me, you're spot on! The only problem is that people aren't content to not involve other people. If it were up to me, I'd ban tobacco products from the United States (the world if I could get away with it).As for spewing toxins into the air, blame the government and big-oil. I'd happily drive an electric or nuclear-electric vehicle if they had them (Google Ford Atom), but I can't, and Atlanta does not have workable transit thanks to our incompetent government. Plus, don't smokers spew more toxins than non-smokers who drive? Last I checked, there was no big correlation between smoking and using transit (if it exists) so in addition to their vehicles (which I doubt are all 60mpg hybrids) they're putting pollutants directly into the air directly from the paper in their mouth. I thought about doing a science project in High School which would compare pollution levels from cigarettes to coal, gasoline, natural gas etc., but couldn't figure out how to truly make it work.


Interesting comparison-cars vs smoking. I would think that even if you could measure the amount of pollution from cigarettes vs car emissions, the cigarette amounts would be significantly smaller. I also think it depends on what brand you smoke. There are brands that only contain tobacco (which are the ones we smoke), and others that have tons of additives. I know we are an exception to the rule, but we drive very little, and when we were working, we used mass transit a majority of the time. I think you would have to smoke A LOT to really cause any major pollution, even as a group.

Just remember, the government subsidizes growing tobacco, then taxes the it very heavily. If cigarettes were outlawed, the government would lose a lot of tax revenue.

It's also been my observation that some nonsmokers go out of their way to hassle smokers, even to the point of going where smokers are, do the fake cough, then inform you that you should quit. I don't follow people around & tell them what they should do or not do.


----------



## Karl (Feb 5, 2010)

Car vs Cigarette polution? Ha! How many house fires have been started by carelessly dicarded running cars vs lit cigarettes? Seriously are we making foreward progress even if baby steps? I think so. Do we have more and better rail and other transit options than we did in 1980? Enough said.

GML, cigarette smokers, christians, homosexuals, and train fanatics all have in common as groups some who are the in you face type, who you immediatly resent (unless you happen to share that interest), while the vast majority quietly go about their business with caution and respect for others. The second segement you will not likely know are in a group from a casual encounter.

Now, if Amtrak were to provide a true smoking area, how about an open end observation with the last 1/3 of the car open for smoking, and a vestibule (two doors) seperating from the non smoking area of the train. They could even get extra revenue from renting buffalo robes to smokers in the northern states during winter!


----------



## sunchaser (Feb 5, 2010)

Karl said:


> Now, if Amtrak were to provide a true smoking area, how about an open end observation with the last 1/3 of the car open for smoking, and a vestibule (two doors) seperating from the non smoking area of the train. They could even get extra revenue from renting buffalo robes to smokers in the northern states during winter!


I think PETA would not like smokers using Buffalo Robes. 

I also think Amtrak would have a difficulty locating enough of them to go around. 

I do like the open end observation car idea, though.

I think the only way it could work would be by putting it after all the coaches.

I don't see anything like that in the works, so it's basically a pipe dream for now.......


----------



## lthanlon (Feb 5, 2010)

Could smokers use a nicotine patch or smokeless tobacco for a trip that didn't allow enough stops to smoke? I do see a couple of vendors in Union Station and Ogilvie Center proudly advertising they have fresh Copenhagen.


----------



## sunchaser (Feb 5, 2010)

lthanlon said:


> Could smokers use a nicotine patch or smokeless tobacco for a trip that didn't allow enough stops to smoke? I do see a couple of vendors in Union Station and Ogilvie Center proudly advertising they have fresh Copenhagen.


Smokers certainly can use patches, gum & lozenges, most of them probably do. There is no way I'm going to use chew!!!

We can easily go for four or five hours during the day without smoking. Six is pushing it. As I mentioned earlier, I brought some lozenges just in case they were needed. We were two hours behind schedule on the #6 California Zephyr last summer, which meant instead of five hours between stops, it was seven. We still didn't use the lozenges. We aren't heavy smokers, others may not be able to go that long.

I know it's unlikely that smoking in any area on the other trains will ever return-but I would like to be able to choose if and when I can smoke, just as others choose not to.


----------



## GG-1 (Feb 5, 2010)

Aloha

I am not sure I am using the correct name, but what about funnels. Like on a boat to refresh the air for the smoking area.


----------



## Ryan (Feb 5, 2010)

You're thinking of a Dorade Box:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorade_box

Named after the first vessel to sport them:


----------



## GG-1 (Feb 5, 2010)

Ryan said:


> You're thinking of a Dorade Box:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorade_box


Aloha

That's what I was thinking of.

Mahalo


----------



## BillVas (Feb 5, 2010)

Rafi said:


> Here's the Amtrak statement on the matter:
> 
> 
> > ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES PROHIBITEDELECTRONIC CIGARETTES OR E-CIGARETTES ARE BEING MARKETED AS A SAFER ALTERNATIVE TO SMOKING TOBACCO PRODUCTS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ADDICTED TO OR WANT TO USE NICOTINE. MANY OF THESE ELECTRONIC DEVICES ARE DESIGNED TO LOOK LIKE CIGARETTES, CIGARS AND PIPES. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME INSTANCES OF PASSENGERS SMOKING E-CIGARETTES ON AMTRAK TRAINS AND IN AMTRAK STATIONS. THESE ELECTRONIC DEVICES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE FDA AS BEING SAFE TO USE.
> ...


Okay thanks I will tell my friend.


----------



## PetalumaLoco (Feb 5, 2010)

BillVas said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the Amtrak statement on the matter:
> ...


I agree with Amtrak's decision.

However, the FDA hasn't the authority to approve or disapprove e-cigarettes.

But it wants authority.


----------



## DET63 (Feb 6, 2010)

Karl said:


> Car vs Cigarette polution? Ha! How many house fires have been started by carelessly dicarded running cars vs lit cigarettes? Seriously are we making foreward progress even if baby steps? I think so. Do we have more and better rail and other transit options than we did in 1980? Enough said.
> GML, cigarette smokers, christians, homosexuals, and train fanatics all have in common as groups some who are the in you face type, who you immediatly resent (unless you happen to share that interest), while the vast majority quietly go about their business with caution and respect for others. The second segement you will not likely know are in a group from a casual encounter.
> 
> Now, if Amtrak were to provide a true smoking area, how about an open end observation with the last 1/3 of the car open for smoking, and a vestibule (two doors) seperating from the non smoking area of the train. They could even get extra revenue from renting buffalo robes to smokers in the northern states during winter!


I believe some Amtrak cars have an open-air penthouse area. All you have to do is (a) find a car with the open-air penthouse, and (b) find the stairway up to it. Unfortunately, the cars with the open-air penthouse look almost identical to those without, even from inside, so you might have to spend some time looking for the stairway to it. It's my understanding Sleeping Car Attendants all know the way, but don't want to let passengers in on the secret (where do you think they are when you can't find them?). A few of them might take a bribe tip to show you how to get to the penthouse, however.


----------



## catblue (Feb 6, 2010)

rrdude said:


> I've seen these things close up, and there is absolutely no smoke, but the mere "Thought" of someone breaking the rules sends the do-gooders into shock.



rrdude you use the term 'do-gooders" as if it is a bad thing.

When did standing up for truth, justice, and for the good of all society become a negative thing?

In my opinion we need rules. Without them there would be chaos.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2010)

catblue said:


> rrdude said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen these things close up, and there is absolutely no smoke, but the mere "Thought" of someone breaking the rules sends the do-gooders into shock.
> ...


It would be for the good of all society if people who didn't need them would stop driving SUVs and big trucks. You ready to make rules about that? How about banning soft drinks, they are bad for all of us as well.

Some rules are good, but rules can easily be taken too far.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 7, 2010)

Guest said:


> How about banning soft drinks, they are bad for all of us as well.


If you smoke, and I don't, and you do it in areas that I am, you pollute the atmosphere that I breathe. That is wrong. I see nothing wrong with someone smoking in their own personal atmosphere.

If I drink soda, and you don't, I damage my own health. Other than the potential trauma of seeing how fat I get from it, it doesn't affect you.

If people got their high from injecting tobacco into their veins, I'd have no problem with it at all.

I'm a huge believer in personal rights. Including my right to not be forced to inhale other people's cigarette smoke.

If you conclusively proved to me that all these electronic cigarettes output to the atmosphere is plain old water vapor, I'd have no problem with them at all.


----------



## catblue (Feb 7, 2010)

Guest said:


> catblue said:
> 
> 
> > rrdude said:
> ...


As with every thing there can be excess. Still we have to have some rules.

There is a rule that someone can't come to your home and take your stuff or beat you up. Is that a rule you think we should not have? I bet not!

So what rules some think are OK to break and what rules are not OK to break seems to be the debate. Who gets to choose which ones are OK to break? We could debate that forever and never come to a agreement.

The rules and laws we have are there for the good of the majority and are suppose to be followed in this country. If you don't like the rules/laws you try to get them changed or you could always try to find a place to live that has no rules or laws. Wonder how long it would be before you said, "We need some rules!"?

As long as it is a rule or the law you should obey it is what I am saying.

As others have said and as far as I am concerned, you can do what ever you want in your own space or home as long as it is does not endangering the health or well being of others.

As for SUV's being bad there have also been studies that say dogs leave a larger carbon footprint than SUVs and humans more than dogs or SUVs.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Feb 7, 2010)

> If I drink soda, and you don't, I damage my own health. Other than the potential trauma of seeing how fat I get from it, it doesn't affect you.


If you can prove that you haven't received one penny of my tax dollars for your healthcare then I will validate that argument.

I could care less, but there's a gaping hole in your train of thought.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 7, 2010)

I could go to the trouble of showing how I pay (considerable) sums of money for my and my girlfriends health care. But I won't. I'll just say I don't get public assistance for my healthcare.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Feb 7, 2010)

We'll see when you're on medicare if the amount you've paid in equals the amount you get back...


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 7, 2010)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> We'll see when you're on medicare if the amount you've paid in equals the amount you get back...


ALC: As one who IS on medicare and Social Security (as a retired govt. employee I also have a small pension and suuplemental health insurance)I have to point out that in my case it has been a life saver since I have had some serious medical problems since retirement! (were talking over $100,000+)and will receive my pension and social secirity the rest of my life! During my 50+ years of work I paid in a substantial amount of various taxes/fees/premiums etc. but already have received back more than even Bill Gates would get from these programs since really rich dont pay as much per capita as we do! (Warren Buffet, ne BNSF new owner says his secretary pays more taxes than he does, that he doesnt need any social programs but that working people do!) I certainly wouldnt be able to ride trains, or even be on this forum w/o medicare and my social security!

I have to say it's the best thing our Federal Govt. ever did and know of no-one retired that disagrees unless they are brain dead and believe what they read on the internet and hear on Fixed Noise! "Youth is so wasted on the young!" as Mark Twain said! " :lol: )"You could look it up!" as Casey Stengel said!


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Feb 8, 2010)

For the record Jim, I am a dues-paying member of SPUSA. I have no problem with either of those government programs... what I have a problem with is people making unsubstanciated claims that simply aren't true.

If you speak in absolutes you will always be wrong.

Double entendre and sarcasm implied.


----------



## DET63 (Feb 9, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I could go to the trouble of showing how I pay (considerable) sums of money for my and my girlfriends health care. But I won't. I'll just say I don't get public assistance for my healthcare.


Which actually presents a good argument against any sort of government-run healthcare.


----------



## Tony (Feb 9, 2010)

Rafi said:


> Here's the Amtrak statement on the matter:
> 
> 
> > ...THESE ELECTRONIC DEVICES HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE FDA AS BEING SAFE TO USE.
> ...


From CNN:



> In March[2009], the Food and Drug Administration imposed a ban on continued imports of the devices, pending regulatory review for any health risks....
> 
> But the units may deliver hazardous chemicals, according to preliminary checks by federal regulators. In a notice to importers, the FDA blocked continued shipments after finding diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans.
> 
> ...


----------



## Alice (Feb 9, 2010)

Tony said:


> Rafi said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the Amtrak statement on the matter:
> ...


The quotes from the linked article are kind of incomplete. The main point in the CNN article is that e-cigarettes "are as effective at nicotine delivery as puffing on an unlit cigarette," quoting the researcher.

Regarding the import ban, it was overturned in Federal Court last month. The judge said these are a nicotine delivery device, like traditional cigarettes, not a medical device, so the FDA can control them and control advertising for them but cannot ban them. "'This case appears to be yet another example of F.D.A.’s aggressive efforts to regulate recreational tobacco products as drugs or devices,' Judge Leon wrote." The FDA is appealing.

NY Times, "Judge Orders F.D.A. to Stop Blocking Imports of E-Cigarettes From China" Jan 14, 2010


----------



## VictoriaShe (Mar 5, 2010)

Okay! So, question for the non-haters: Does the Coast Starlight make any stops between Los Angeles and Oakland where there is time to get off the train and smoke just a puff or two? Going tomorrow!

Thanks,

V


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2010)

VictoriaShe said:


> Okay! So, question for the non-haters: Does the Coast Starlight make any stops between Los Angeles and Oakland where there is time to get off the train and smoke just a puff or two? Going tomorrow!
> Thanks,
> 
> V


If it's early into San Luis Obispo, there's usually 15 minutes or so for a smoke. Sometimes at Santa Barbara but I wouldn't count on it. And if the train is running late, you'll just have to suck it in, so to speak, until you get to Oakland.


----------



## VictoriaShe (Mar 5, 2010)

Guest said:


> VictoriaShe said:
> 
> 
> > Okay! So, question for the non-haters: Does the Coast Starlight make any stops between Los Angeles and Oakland where there is time to get off the train and smoke just a puff or two? Going tomorrow!
> ...


Thank you. After I posted, but before your response, I decided to call Amtrak to ask the question. The woman I spoke to must be a smoker, as she was sweet and kind.  She said that there should be time at most stops, what with loading luggage, helping people with disabilities to board, etc., -- but that we should stay very close to the train. I'm not talking about a full-on smoking break. Just 30 seconds to a minute or so can get us comfortably to the next stop.


----------



## sunchaser (Mar 5, 2010)

VictoriaShe said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > VictoriaShe said:
> ...


As a smoker, I brought some of those lozenges-but never used them. You may want to get some "just in case".


----------



## AlanB (Mar 5, 2010)

VictoriaShe said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > VictoriaShe said:
> ...


I regret to inform you that the employee you spoke with is wrong. They will not allow you off the train for even a quickie at each and every stop. Only those disembarking at each stop are allowed off the train when the train makes a brief stop. You will only be allowed off the train at designated smoke stops that the crew will announce. In general Amtrak tries to schedule such a stop every 4 to 5 hours, but there are no guarantees and if the train is running late, a smoke stop can be cancelled. On the other hand an early train might actually see extra smoke stops.


----------



## VictoriaShe (Mar 5, 2010)

Sunchaser, thank you for that suggestion. Might be worth a try.

And thanks for the info, Alan. I can do four or five hours... but twelve would be difficult.


----------



## dlagrua (Mar 5, 2010)

As for the the electric cigarettes there is no evidence offered as yet to support that they are harmless to people in the surrounding area. I am not advocating taking smokers rights away. They can inhale the poisonous cigarette smoke all they want , but at the same time the rights of nonsmokers not to breath the residual toxins need to be respected as well.


----------



## zephyr17 (Mar 5, 2010)

SLO is the only "guaranteed" smoke stop. If the train is running early it might hold for time at Salinas (happened both times I rode on the southbound last year) and you could smoke. Most of the time Santa Barbara will be, but may not.

Paso Robles, Oxnard, Simi Valley and Van Nuys are never, ever smoke stops.

The attendant will frequently not let you off if it isn't a declared smoke/"fresh air" stop, and if there are not passengers boarding or de-boarding in the car, he or she will not even open the door.


----------

