# Smoking On Board



## Reno89502

So I just got back from my vacation from HBG to NOL. I am a smoker, and I am used to the smoke stops that Amtrak has, and I don't have a problem with it. But what I am curious about is why Amtrak employees are allowed to smoke on board? I was in my sleeper car and I asked the conductor if I could step off the train at the next stop to have a cigarette (We were to be at the station for 13 minutes), and he told me in a stern voice NO. Of course while he was telling me this he reaked of smoke. Now he didn't reak of smoke when I ran into him 10 minutes earlier, but he sure did now!

The other thing is why do Amtrak conductors tell people that smoking on board is illegal? If it was illegal, they wouldn't allow smoking on-board the Auto Train.


----------



## ParrotRob

Reno89502 said:


> The other thing is why do Amtrak conductors tell people that smoking on board is illegal? If it was illegal, they wouldn't allow smoking on-board the Auto Train.



Not true. The Auto Train has a specially isolated smoking area. Smoking outside of that area is illegal. If your train doesn't have a dedicated and isolated smoking area, which it doesn't, then it is, in fact, illegal to smoke on board.

It's no different than a restaurant or bar - if there's a dedicated smoking area it's legal in that area. But if there isn't one and your waiter tells you it's illegal to smoke, he's correct.


----------



## guest

Both Amtrak policy and federal law prohibit smoking, except for that one Auto Train room. However, employees can REGULARLY be found smoking in the dining car kitchen (on Superliners), as well as in the baggage car and even in the dorm car, if they think they can get away with it. It endangers the health and safety of all aboard the train, but repeated complaints to management haven't even gotten a general memo sent out to crew bases. I do know, however, of at least two employees who are having serious secondary-smoke-related health issues that they are considering suing Amtrak over.


----------



## RRUserious

Have you tried the e-cigarette? The Empire Builder specifically told smokers "this stop is l ong enough for a smoke". So it isn't like Amtrak is flipping off smokers. They seem quite cooperative. I always thought Canada's approach was better (not trains, restaurants). In every restaurant I went to in Toronto, there was a closed room dedicated to having a smoke. So they weren't freezing their tush in the winter months like they do here in the USA. I wonder if it is technologically so difficult to have a "smoking car". Maybe charge a few extra bucks for admission. With the price of smokes nowadays, I don't see smokers as an impoverished class.


----------



## ParrotRob

RRUserious said:


> Have you tried the e-cigarette? The Empire Builder specifically told smokers "this stop is l ong enough for a smoke". So it isn't like Amtrak is flipping off smokers. They seem quite cooperative. I always thought Canada's approach was better (not trains, restaurants). In every restaurant I went to in Toronto, there was a closed room dedicated to having a smoke. So they weren't freezing their tush in the winter months like they do here in the USA. I wonder if it is technologically so difficult to have a "smoking car". Maybe charge a few extra bucks for admission. With the price of smokes nowadays, I don't see smokers as an impoverished class.


Not sure if you meant on-board or not, but e-cigarettes are not allowed on board either.

All Amtrak trains, Thruway buses and stations are *entirely non-smoking* except for the Auto Train.


Electronic smoking devices, such as electronic cigarettes, are not allowed in any area on trains, on Thruway services, in stations or in any other location where smoking is prohibited.


----------



## Ispolkom

RRUserious said:


> I wonder if it is technologically so difficult to have a "smoking car". Maybe charge a few extra bucks for admission. With the price of smokes nowadays, I don't see smokers as an impoverished class.


There used to be smoking lounges on Superliner trains, built into baggage coaches, I think. They didn't work out so well, because, among other things, smokers would leave the doors open because the lounges became too smokey. No, that doesn't make any sense to me, either.


----------



## Anderson

RRUserious said:


> Have you tried the e-cigarette? The Empire Builder specifically told smokers "this stop is l ong enough for a smoke". So it isn't like Amtrak is flipping off smokers. They seem quite cooperative. I always thought Canada's approach was better (not trains, restaurants). In every restaurant I went to in Toronto, there was a closed room dedicated to having a smoke. So they weren't freezing their tush in the winter months like they do here in the USA. I wonder if it is technologically so difficult to have a "smoking car". Maybe charge a few extra bucks for admission. With the price of smokes nowadays, I don't see smokers as an impoverished class.


I think the Auto Train has a waiver because:

A) The smoking area is isolated (it's downstairs in one of several cafe cars, IIRC); and

B) It's essentially a non-stop run for 14-18 hours (depending on OTP and so forth).

If you had a dedicated area on a single-level train, it would have to be on one end of the train (to avoid a pass-through issue) and would _probably _require another waiver (the ban was a result of a blanket federal ban on smoking in public transportation) or the issuance of a general waiver. On bilevels...a downstairs area could be used somewhere in the train, but you'd probably just want to convert a car for the purpose. The problem you run into, however, is "What if the rest of the train sells out?" If there's lousy ventilation, forcing anyone to sit in that car would be a problem.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Amtrak already has too little cars. If they make smoking cars for each consist, they simply don't have enough cars to make it worthwhile. It's not even physically possible, even worse when you count in the other problems, like some that previous posters said.


----------



## the_traveler

I for one do not ever want to see a "smoking car" on Amtrak! I am not, never was and never will be a smoker.

Unless the "smoking car" is the last car of the train. But that would cut off the railfan window from the other passengers, unless they wanted to stand in the smoke! Or it was any other car, those non-smokers would have to walk thru the "smoking car" to get elsewhere on the train! (Think the BOS sleeper on the LSL or the PDX sleeper on the EB!) And if they had it on a Superliner lower level, where does smoke go?




Surprise - it rises up to the upper level!





I for one was glad when airlines banned smoking on airlines (as least US domestic flights)! The "smoking section" was at the back of the plane. And where are the rest rooms for coach?



At the back of the aircraft! So you *HAD* to walk thru the smoke, and if all the rest rooms were occupied, you had to *STAND AND WAIT* in the smoke!


----------



## ParrotRob

I agree 1000%, traveler. Personally, I wish they'd do a better job of enforcing not just on the train but also on the platform. Every time the Crescent stops for more than five minutes, a handful of people have to congregate right outside the open doors and puff away. Too much to ask to step away from the train, I guess.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

If I recall correctly the smoking restrictions for Amtrak do no apply to locations that are not "public" areas. This loophole presumably allows for smoking by staff in the kitchen on Superliners and in the baggage car on any train that has one. Until those loopholes are closed, either by Amtrak or an appropriate regulatory agency, they will likely remain a source of unmitigated hypocrisy as described in this thread.



the_traveler said:


> I for one was glad when airlines banned smoking on airlines (as least US domestic flights)! The "smoking section" was at the back of the plane. And where are the rest rooms for coach? At the back of the aircraft! So you *HAD* to walk thru the smoke, and if all the rest rooms were occupied, you had to *STAND AND WAIT* in the smoke!


Commercial airlines had smoking sections in different locations, including at least one that simply alternated rows. If I recall correctly, originally it was the FAA that banned smoking on flights under a certain duration. That duration was then extended over time. Eventually the US airlines saw the writing on the wall and decided to simply ban all smoking network wide. At this point I believe no US based airline and no commercial flights into or out of the US can allow smoking by law. This is probably true in most European countries as well. Supposedly there were a few airlines that still allowed smoking in places like the Middle East, but even that may no longer be true today. All I know is that it has been a very long time since I've seen anyone smoke up an airplane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPtRENYb4D4



ParrotRob said:


> I wish they'd do a better job of enforcing not just on the train but also on the platform. Every time the Crescent stops for more than five minutes, a handful of people have to congregate right outside the open doors and puff away. Too much to ask to step away from the train, I guess.


Amtrak used to have double-stops for this very reason. The first stop would be a little before the station where the smokers would get off and light up. The train would then move down to the official station stop and the smokers would receive their drug addict fix and make their way toward the station to re-board. I don't know why Amtrak decided to discontinue this system. Maybe someone else can chime in on their reasoning?


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Anderson said:


> If you had a dedicated area on a single-level train, it would have to be on one end of the train (to avoid a pass-through issue) and ...





the_traveler said:


> Unless the "smoking car" is the last car of the train. But that would cut off the railfan window from the other passengers, unless they wanted to stand in the smoke! Or it was any other car, those non-smokers would have to walk thru the "smoking car" to get elsewhere on the train! (Think the BOS sleeper on the LSL or the PDX sleeper on the EB!)


Why can't one take a single level car like the Viewliner sleeper, and turn the H room and the two bedrooms into a smoking lounge? Non-smoking passengers would still be able to walk by the smoking lounge thru the hallway. Proper ventilation design will help ensure clear air vents into the lounge, and not smokey air out, when the door is open. Matter of fact, if the lounge's door is where the H room's door is today, the "natural" air flow of the vestibule should keep the area pretty clear.

I know the cruise line industry has a really good method of eliminating any trace of smoke in a cabin, when the cabin was occupied by a heavy smoker. The next occupant has absolutely no hint of the smoking. Amtrak could do something similar to any such smoking lounge so that there is not a build-up of smoke smell from one trip to the next, over the course of years.

I am not "for" smoking, but there are solutions if one really wants one.


----------



## GaSteve

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Why can't one take a single level car like the Viewliner sleeper, and turn the H room and the two bedrooms into a smoking lounge? Non-smoking passengers would still be able to walk by the smoking lounge thru the hallway. Proper ventilation design will help ensure clear air vents into the lounge, and not smokey air out, when the door is open. Matter of fact, if the lounge's door is where the H room's door is today, the "natural" air flow of the vestibule should keep the area pretty clear.


That would be taking revenue away, because most of the time those rooms are sold now with sleepers running full.


----------



## benjibear

Amtrak could making a smoking room that has negative pressure and make the rest of the car around it positive. They would have to account that the door could be open which may cause alot of airflow in the rest of the car making it dry.

There would be some expense to do this. I for one would not want to pay for it and the smokers should have to pay for the room. Would there be enough smokers willing to pay just to go into a room and puff one cigarette?

Also, with Amtrak having limited extra car space, would they really want to take room off a train?


----------



## Railroad Bill

Of course, the ultimate solution would be for smokers to give up their drug habit :giggle:

One of the better things about riding on a train is not having to put up with second hand smoke 

And there is always comedy relief when you get to watch the smokers with an unlit cigarette in their mouth, waiting in the doorway to get onto the platform at a smoke stop :lol:


----------



## PaulM

GaSteve said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't one take a single level car like the Viewliner sleeper, and turn the H room and the two bedrooms into a smoking lounge? Non-smoking passengers would still be able to walk by the smoking lounge thru the hallway. Proper ventilation design will help ensure clear air vents into the lounge, and not smokey air out, when the door is open. Matter of fact, if the lounge's door is where the H room's door is today, the "natural" air flow of the vestibule should keep the area pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be taking revenue away, because most of the time those rooms are sold now with sleepers running full.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Choo Choo was being sarcastic, just pointing out the extreme measures required to accommodate smokers other than with smoke stops.


----------



## RRUserious

ParrotRob said:


> I agree 1000%, traveler. Personally, I wish they'd do a better job of enforcing not just on the train but also on the platform. Every time the Crescent stops for more than five minutes, a handful of people have to congregate right outside the open doors and puff away. Too much to ask to step away from the train, I guess.


I thought it was due to a fear of being left behind. Some stops are not in places you'd want to be left.


----------



## the_traveler

RRUserious said:


> ParrotRob said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 1000%, traveler. Personally, I wish they'd do a better job of enforcing not just on the train but also on the platform. Every time the Crescent stops for more than five minutes, a handful of people have to congregate right outside the open doors and puff away. Too much to ask to step away from the train, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was due to a fear of being left behind. Some stops are not in places you'd want to be left.
Click to expand...

I feel if someone wants to smoke that bad, they deserve to be left behind!





At every smoke/"fresh air



" stop, I've heard announcements for smokers to "stay at least XX feet from any open door"! Most comply.


----------



## ParrotRob

RRUserious said:


> ParrotRob said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree 1000%, traveler. Personally, I wish they'd do a better job of enforcing not just on the train but also on the platform. Every time the Crescent stops for more than five minutes, a handful of people have to congregate right outside the open doors and puff away. Too much to ask to step away from the train, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was due to a fear of being left behind. Some stops are not in places you'd want to be left.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have thought that at all. Trains don't exactly suddenly hurl themselves from a station with no warning whatsoever.  Even standing 30 feet from the door you'd be able to tell when they were fixin to close the door and move on.


----------



## Ben_G

Believe it or not the air quality used to be better on planes and trains when they allowed smoking. The last few rows of seats as said were smoking seats. They used to have very good ventilation in trains and planes to remove any smoke thru the system. These days not so much, that why flying or in a train it's more likely you will catch a bug. Think of traveling in a large petri dish. I recall going thru the Moffet tunnel once where they forgot to shut down the system to prevent outside diesel fumes from entering the coach. The fumes got to the point several passengers were chokeing. When we hit fresh air again it cleared out in seconds, there was that much air being pushed thru the system.


----------



## Trogdor

Ben_G said:


> Believe it or not the air quality used to be better on planes and trains when they allowed smoking.


I do not believe it. I'd like to see some actual evidence that air quality on a plane (or a train, for that matter) was better back then than it is today.


----------



## Reno89502

The one thing about me is that I am a "Polite" smoker. I step away from the train doors, I step away from people that don't smoke, hell, I don't even smoke in my own house, I do it on the patio. It doesnt bother me to go 4-5 hours without smoking. I just think that if passengers cant smoke on the train, neither should the crew. If I have to wait, so can they.


----------



## LWB

Given the time it takes to heard the smokers back onto the train at each smoke stop, I suspect an hour could be cut from each western long distance schedule if a smoking lounge was added to the train. I agree that a smoking lounge must have a negative pressure ventalating system. The problem with the smoking lounges in the coach-baggage cars was that the return air vents located upstairs at the end of the car would literally suck the smoke upstairs each time the door to the smoking lounge was opened. I would like to see the transition cars converted into coach-sleeper-lounge smoking cars. I suspect the space could be sold at a premium. The crew would get new baggage dormitory cars. LWB


----------



## Guest

Trogdor said:


> Ben_G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not the air quality used to be better on planes and trains when they allowed smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe it. I'd like to see some actual evidence that air quality on a plane (or a train, for that matter) was better back then than it is today.
Click to expand...

This is true. It was actually the airlines who lobbied for the legal ban on onboard smoking. The filters that they used to have to routinely replace were very expensive and they wanted to eliminate the cost. Now, they don't filter the air at all.


----------



## Ben_G

Just a quick search turned up this, several more articals if you do a search for smoking on planes air quality.

http://www.helium.com/items/755295-smoking-on-airplanes-banned-yet-problems-persist


----------



## guest

LWB said:


> Given the time it takes to heard the smokers back onto the train at each smoke stop, I suspect an hour could be cut from each western long distance schedule if a smoking lounge was added to the train. I agree that a smoking lounge must have a negative pressure ventalating system. The problem with the smoking lounges in the coach-baggage cars was that the return air vents located upstairs at the end of the car would literally suck the smoke upstairs each time the door to the smoking lounge was opened. I would like to see the transition cars converted into coach-sleeper-lounge smoking cars. I suspect the space could be sold at a premium. The crew would get new baggage dormitory cars. LWB


Then again, given the time it takes to HERD the smokers back onto the train at each smoke stop, I suspect an hour could be cut from each Western long distance schedule if the smoking stops were eliminated.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Guest said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben_G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not the air quality used to be better on planes and trains when they allowed smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe it. I'd like to see some actual evidence that air quality on a plane (or a train, for that matter) was better back then than it is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is true. It was actually the airlines who lobbied for the legal ban on onboard smoking. The filters that they used to have to routinely replace were very expensive and they wanted to eliminate the cost. Now, they don't filter the air at all.
Click to expand...

Are you unfamiliar with the term "evidence" or are you simply admitting you have none?



Ben_G said:


> Just a quick search turned up this, several more articals if you do a search for smoking on planes air quality.
> 
> http://www.helium.com/items/755295-smoking-on-airplanes-banned-yet-problems-persist


Patrick Sills? You mean the guy who has gems of wisdom like these...



> Prior to 1989, nobody had an issue with smoking sections on airline flights.


I certainly had an issue with them, Mr. Sills. So did millions of others you couldn't be bothered to notice.



> The belief that minuscule whiffs of smoke will somehow travel to the front of the cabin, no less through a curtain, and wreak deadly havoc upon nonsmoking passengers, is a testament to the complete idiocy and lack of common sense that has evolved since "secondhand smoke" became a part of our vocabulary.


Oh, they traveled. Right up to the first row. I was there. I saw it and breathed it and smelled it over and over again.

Just to be clear this man doesn't link to any actual sources either. The only link he has is to a vague secondary listing of other "air quality" posts that don't seem to back up anything he says. There is an entry for airline air quality that makes no claims as to worsening air quality over time due to changes in filtration. Most of what it refers to appears to be second or third hand conjecture and the actual incidents it mentions are from before modern smoking bans were in effect.

So who is this Patrick Sills guy anyway?



> Patrick Sills
> I stumbled onto Helium by pure chance as I was browsing My Space in an attempt to promote my two novels. It didn't take long for me to become addicted to this site. To say that I have not enjoyed success as a novelist would be a gross understatement. I lost a considerable amount of money in marketing efforts that simply don't work. Helium has enabled me to focus on article writing, and as my portfolio grows, so do my earnings. No matter how small, a positive income is far more satisfying than trying to sell a set number of books just to recover costs. I plan to stay here for a long, long time and eventually hope to submit my material to various publications. I'm 51, married with one daughter, and live in America's Icebox: Wisconsin. Efforts to convince my wife to embrace a warmer, sunnier locale have thus far failed.


We're still waiting for something other than "random google hit on unemployed martyr addict" that backs up anything you've said.


----------



## jis

Ben_G said:


> Just a quick search turned up this, several more articals if you do a search for smoking on planes air quality.
> 
> http://www.helium.com/items/755295-smoking-on-airplanes-banned-yet-problems-persist


I have traveled on planes in the smoking allowed times and in the no smoking allowed times. Planes with smoking allowed were insufferable no matter where in the plane smoking was allowed. Fortunately no one will allow the return of smoking to planes again. The reason that so many people trying to smoke surreptitiously on planes get caught is because it is almost impossible to mask the effect it has on the circulating air.

If the problem is that non replacement of filters is causing some additional organisms to circulate the solution is to do better filter replacement, not bring back smoking so that people can suffer both of infection and cancer instead of just an occasional infection. It is also more important to increase the level of oxygen and moisture as is being done in A380s and 787s and going forward in all new planes than let anyone smoke on the planes.


----------



## AlanB

Amtrak used to have smoking lounges on all of its trains for a while. In the case of the Superliner's, there was a specially enclosed room on the lower level of certain selected coach cars that had been rebuilt for the lounge. The room was a negative pressure room, with an exhaust fan to take away the smoke. On the single level train, one section of the Amfleet II cafe car was a glass enclosed room, again with negative pressure. This was prior to all cafe cars being rebuilt into Diner-Lite cars.

Despite all of that, one could still smell smoke when walking through the cars. Even today, one can smell it at times in the Auto Train's cafe cars even upstairs. It was one thing to have that problem in a cafe car where people actually have an option to move. It was an entirely different matter when one was assigned to the Superliner coach car with the smoking room downstairs. And while many attendants would permit a move if one asked, there were as always a few that would insist that one remain in their assigned seat and they would not/could not be bothered to consider allowing you to move.

Making matters worse and while less of a problem on the single level trains, since the cafe attendant would yell, on the Superliner cars the room would at times get too smoky for even the smokers, as too many would be in the room at once. So they'd wander around looking for something to prop open the door to the room, that normally would close on its own. This of course then allowed volumes of smoke to move into the entire car.

Additionally, cleaning these rooms was a nightmare. Especially because too many people somehow seem to think that Amtrak has this wonderful maid service that cleans up after everyone. This is not a problem by the way that is unique to smokers; as I see plenty of people leave their garbage behind in the lounge car. But returning to our story, smokers would put out their smokes on the floor, instead of the ashtrays provided. Or worse, they'd put it in a cup of coffee and/or soda, which then invariably managed to get spilled creating this wonderful sticky, ash filled mess.

So bottom line, thanks to some who couldn't follow the rules of common sense, all smokers got punished when Amtrak decided that it just cost too much to continue to deal with and clean these special smoking rooms. Instead, save the Auto Train which makes no stops, smokers must now bide their time until the next smoke stop.


----------



## ParrotRob

Guest said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben_G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not the air quality used to be better on planes and trains when they allowed smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe it. I'd like to see some actual evidence that air quality on a plane (or a train, for that matter) was better back then than it is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is true. It was actually the airlines who lobbied for the legal ban on onboard smoking. The filters that they used to have to routinely replace were very expensive and they wanted to eliminate the cost. _Now, they don't filter the air at all._
Click to expand...

Complete and utter hogwash. Try learning something and doing your homework before you make up bogus "facts".


----------



## pennyk

AlanB said:


> So bottom line, thanks to some who couldn't follow the rules of common sense, all smokers got punished when Amtrak decided that it just cost too much to continue to deal with and clean these special smoking rooms. Instead, save the Auto Train which makes no stops, smokers must now bide their time until the next smoke stop.


I personally do not think the Auto Train should allow smoking. They probably would not lose too many riders if they prohibited smoking. A few months ago, I took a "tour" of the Auto Train, after it was cleaned and before anyone boarded it. The smoking room still reeked of cigarette smoke.

Back when I was a smoker, in the 1970's, I traveled from Waldo, FL to Fayetteville and was able to smoke in the ladies' lounge on the train. It was very comfortable for smokers (I hung out for quite a while sitting on the couch smoking and talking), but I assume it was awful for the non-smokers (who wanted to use the facilities).


----------



## reefgeek

I flew extensively for business during the smoking era and would dispute any claim the aiir quality on planes was better. So metimes you couldn't see the back of the cabin for the fog.


----------



## ParrotRob

pennyk said:


> I personally do not think the Auto Train should allow smoking. They probably would not lose too many riders if they prohibited smoking. A few months ago, I took a "tour" of the Auto Train, after it was cleaned and before anyone boarded it. The smoking room still reeked of cigarette smoke.


Agree. It's 17 and a half hours. Tough it out like they do on planes.


----------



## jebr

ParrotRob said:


> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally do not think the Auto Train should allow smoking. They probably would not lose too many riders if they prohibited smoking. A few months ago, I took a "tour" of the Auto Train, after it was cleaned and before anyone boarded it. The smoking room still reeked of cigarette smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. It's 17 and a half hours. Tough it out like they do on planes.
Click to expand...

What flight is seventeen and a half hours? A flight is much shorter than that (I think the longest is 10-12 hours, and that's international flight.)


----------



## PRR 60

jebr said:


> ParrotRob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally do not think the Auto Train should allow smoking. They probably would not lose too many riders if they prohibited smoking. A few months ago, I took a "tour" of the Auto Train, after it was cleaned and before anyone boarded it. The smoking room still reeked of cigarette smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. It's 17 and a half hours. Tough it out like they do on planes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What flight is seventeen and a half hours? A flight is much shorter than that (I think the longest is 10-12 hours, and that's international flight.)
Click to expand...

SQ 21: EWR-SIN - 18hr 40min non-stop using an A340-500. A member here has had the pleasure.


----------



## ParrotRob

jebr said:


> ParrotRob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally do not think the Auto Train should allow smoking. They probably would not lose too many riders if they prohibited smoking. A few months ago, I took a "tour" of the Auto Train, after it was cleaned and before anyone boarded it. The smoking room still reeked of cigarette smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. It's 17 and a half hours. Tough it out like they do on planes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What flight is seventeen and a half hours? A flight is much shorter than that (I think the longest is 10-12 hours, and that's international flight.)
Click to expand...

I've been on two flights over 16 hours. Los Angeles to Melbourne, and Dallas to Brisbane. There are even flights over 18 hours when you start going to Singapore or Thailand, for instance. And those aren't smoking


----------



## Guest

Doe Amtrak have onboard air filtration systems?


----------



## EB_OBS

Reno89502 said:


> The one thing about me is that I am a "Polite" smoker. I step away from the train doors, I step away from people that don't smoke, hell, I don't even smoke in my own house, I do it on the patio. It doesnt bother me to go 4-5 hours without smoking. I just think that if passengers cant smoke on the train, neither should the crew. If I have to wait, so can they.


Amtrak employees are prohibited from smoking at any time when in uniform, on-duty whether in the station, platform or on-board. They may not smoke at anytime in any dormitory car or other crew car or any passenger car at anytime. Smoking is also strictly prohibited in the kitchen. So basically, Amtrak employees are not allowed to smoke at all.

It's an unenforceable policy. Amtrak does not and cannot ask nor discriminate in it's hiring practices whether you are a smoker or non-smoker. OBS employees work from one to three days and two to three nights on-board depending upon the train you work.

If employees cannot smoke on platforms, in uniform or in front of passengers, cannot smoke on-board anywhere including the baggage car AND you want these rules enforced then I can predict many unhappy and frustrated smoking passengers in that case. Be careful what you wish for. Push it and you'll find smoking banned 100% across the board at station AND on the platforms. Smoke breaks will be eliminated and no one will be allowed to smoke for the duration of a train trip.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

jebr said:


> What flight is seventeen and a half hours? A flight is much shorter than that (I think the longest is 10-12 hours, and that's international flight.)


There are actually many flights that are in excess of twelve hours and have been for decades now.

Link with lists of long haul flights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stop_flight

My longest individual flight segments were about 14 hours on itineraries with a total of 24 hours of actual flying each way.

To be honest I don't find ultra-long-haul flights to be all that desirable and prefer to keep individual segments closer to ten hours or so. Longer than that and I start to get sick of the experience. One of the things I really love about trains is that it stops once in a while and lets you off for a break. That can make all the difference in the world when it comes to burnout.


----------



## EMDF9A

"Amtrak does not and cannot ask nor discriminate in it's hiring practices whether you are a smoker or non-smoker. "

This is not true. Smokers are not a protected class. There are plenty of private employers that do not hire smokers and state so in their hiring materials. The most prominent ones close to me are Fransiscan Healthcare Systems and Providence. These employers not only prohibit smoking on their property but any and all smoking by employees and conduct drug tests for the presence of nocotine.

David

Seattle


----------



## EB_OBS

EMDF9A said:


> Amtrak does not and cannot ask nor discriminate in it's hiring practices whether you are a smoker or non-smoker. of a train trip.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not true. Smokers are not a protected class. There are plenty of private employers that do not hire smokers and state so in their hiring materials. The most prominent ones close to me are Fransiscan Healthcare Systems and Providence. These employers not only prohibit smoking on their property but any and all smoking bye employees and conduct drug tests for the presence of nocotine.
> 
> David
> 
> Seattle
Click to expand...

Wow! That's extreme. You are correct though, "smoking" is not a protected class.

However, Amtrak being Amtrak I would imagine the suits, as in lawsuits, and would-be lotto winners would come out like bees from the hive should Amtrak attempt to outright and upfront ban hiring smokers.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

EB_OBS said:


> EMDF9A said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EB_OBS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak does not and cannot ask nor discriminate in it's hiring practices whether you are a smoker or non-smoker.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not true. Smokers are not a protected class. There are plenty of private employers that do not hire smokers and state so in their hiring materials.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow! That's extreme. You are correct though, "smoking" is not a protected class. However, Amtrak being Amtrak I would imagine the suits, as in lawsuits, and would-be lotto winners would come out like bees from the hive should Amtrak attempt to outright and upfront ban hiring smokers.
Click to expand...

In reality it can be exceedingly difficult to _prove_ your employer took action (or failed to take action) due to a specific status of a given employee, protected or not.


----------



## RRUserious

Texas Sunset said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> 
> What flight is seventeen and a half hours? A flight is much shorter than that (I think the longest is 10-12 hours, and that's international flight.)
> 
> 
> 
> There are actually many flights that are in excess of twelve hours and have been for decades now.
> 
> Link with lists of long haul flights: http://en.wikipedia....Non-stop_flight
> 
> My longest individual flight segments were about 14 hours on itineraries with a total of 24 hours of actual flying each way.
> 
> To be honest I don't find ultra-long-haul flights to be all that desirable and prefer to keep individual segments closer to ten hours or so. Longer than that and I start to get sick of the experience. One of the things I really love about trains is that it stops once in a while and lets you off for a break. That can make all the difference in the world when it comes to burnout.
Click to expand...

Is it possible to survive a maximum flight with a nicotine patch or gum? Or I suppose a person could just order a drink every couple of hours.


----------



## Anderson

EMDF9A said:


> "Amtrak does not and cannot ask nor discriminate in it's hiring practices whether you are a smoker or non-smoker. "
> 
> This is not true. Smokers are not a protected class. There are plenty of private employers that do not hire smokers and state so in their hiring materials. The most prominent ones close to me are Fransiscan Healthcare Systems and Providence. These employers not only prohibit smoking on their property but any and all smoking by employees and conduct drug tests for the presence of nocotine.
> 
> David
> 
> Seattle


Considering the generally legal status of cigarettes (and other tobacco substances), I can't help but wonder if aggressively enforcing such a ban wouldn't generate an ADA lawsuit from one or more existing employees. Considering all of the literature on the matter, while smokers may not be a protected class, someone with an effectively unbreakable nicotine addiction (again, considering that the substance is legal, and particularly presuming that the employee was an employee before such enforcement became normal) might have a case that their addiction was, in effect, a form of disability. Of course, this would probably require a rather specific fact pattern to make work.


----------



## ParrotRob

Anderson said:


> 1334542517[/url]' post='361205']
> 
> 
> EMDF9A said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1334537187[/url]' post='361177']"Amtrak does not and cannot ask nor discriminate in it's hiring practices whether you are a smoker or non-smoker. "
> 
> This is not true. Smokers are not a protected class. There are plenty of private employers that do not hire smokers and state so in their hiring materials. The most prominent ones close to me are Fransiscan Healthcare Systems and Providence. These employers not only prohibit smoking on their property but any and all smoking by employees and conduct drug tests for the presence of nocotine.
> 
> David
> 
> Seattle
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the generally legal status of cigarettes (and other tobacco substances), I can't help but wonder if aggressively enforcing such a ban wouldn't generate an ADA lawsuit from one or more existing employees. Considering all of the literature on the matter, while smokers may not be a protected class, someone with an effectively unbreakable nicotine addiction (again, considering that the substance is legal, and particularly presuming that the employee was an employee before such enforcement became normal) might have a case that their addiction was, in effect, a form of disability. Of course, this would probably require a rather specific fact pattern to make work.
Click to expand...

So if one's disability is alcoholism, should one be able to do shots at work?


----------



## Guest

ParrotRob said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1334542517[/url]' post='361205']
> 
> 
> EMDF9A said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1334537187[/url]' post='361177']"Amtrak does not and cannot ask nor discriminate in it's hiring practices whether you are a smoker or non-smoker. "
> 
> This is not true. Smokers are not a protected class. There are plenty of private employers that do not hire smokers and state so in their hiring materials. The most prominent ones close to me are Fransiscan Healthcare Systems and Providence. These employers not only prohibit smoking on their property but any and all smoking by employees and conduct drug tests for the presence of nocotine.
> 
> David
> 
> Seattle
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the generally legal status of cigarettes (and other tobacco substances), I can't help but wonder if aggressively enforcing such a ban wouldn't generate an ADA lawsuit from one or more existing employees. Considering all of the literature on the matter, while smokers may not be a protected class, someone with an effectively unbreakable nicotine addiction (again, considering that the substance is legal, and particularly presuming that the employee was an employee before such enforcement became normal) might have a case that their addiction was, in effect, a form of disability. Of course, this would probably require a rather specific fact pattern to make work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if one's disability is alcoholism, should one be able to do shots at work?
Click to expand...

I don't think you read and understood the posts before you provided your kind response.

No, a person should not be able to work under the influence of alcohol, and Anderson never said that a hiring ban on smokers might generate a lawsuit from employees suggesting they be able to smoke while punching your ticket or serving your food in the diner. The posts you responded to were in reference to not hiring employes who smoke at all, not employe smoking at work.


----------



## RRUserious

> Considering the generally legal status of cigarettes (and other tobacco substances), I can't help but wonder if aggressively enforcing such a ban wouldn't generate an ADA lawsuit from one or more existing employees. Considering all of the literature on the matter, while smokers may not be a protected class, someone with an effectively unbreakable nicotine addiction (again, considering that the substance is legal, and particularly presuming that the employee was an employee before such enforcement became normal) might have a case that their addiction was, in effect, a form of disability. Of course, this would probably require a rather specific fact pattern to make work.


What case law has established addiction as a "disability" under ADA. Practically every addiction has a track record of being broken. A "disability" is not something you can end through medical treatment.


----------



## ParrotRob

Guest said:


> 1334545514[/url]' post='361220']
> 
> 
> ParrotRob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1334544161[/url]' post='361212']
> 
> So if one's disability is alcoholism, should one be able to do shots at work?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you read and understood the posts before you provided your kind response.
> 
> No, a person should not be able to work under the influence of alcohol, and Anderson never said that a hiring ban on smokers might generate a lawsuit from employees suggesting they be able to smoke while punching your ticket or serving your food in the diner. The posts you responded to were in reference to not hiring employes who smoke at all, not employe smoking at work.
Click to expand...

I read and understood all of them just fine, thank you. Perhaps you didn't read the posts that led to this point in the discussion, about crew smoking on board.


----------



## ParrotRob

RRUserious said:


> 1334557330[/url]' post='361239']
> 
> 
> 
> Considering the generally legal status of cigarettes (and other tobacco substances), I can't help but wonder if aggressively enforcing such a ban wouldn't generate an ADA lawsuit from one or more existing employees. Considering all of the literature on the matter, while smokers may not be a protected class, someone with an effectively unbreakable nicotine addiction (again, considering that the substance is legal, and particularly presuming that the employee was an employee before such enforcement became normal) might have a case that their addiction was, in effect, a form of disability. Of course, this would probably require a rather specific fact pattern to make work.
> 
> 
> 
> What case law has established addiction as a "disability" under ADA. Practically every addiction has a track record of being broken. A "disability" is not something you can end through medical treatment.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Quit smoking already.


----------



## me_little_me

RRUserious said:


> A "disability" is not something you can end through medical treatment.


Not true. People have had heart operations that have restored them to health. True also for operations for back, knee and other problems.I was disabled for months with spinal problems. could not walk more than a few steps without help. Needed a Disabled placard for a month Shots in my spine ended my problems although they could return in the future,

Sometimes treatment is temporary. Other times it is "permanent".


----------



## Donctor

Trogdor said:


> Ben_G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not the air quality used to be better on planes and trains when they allowed smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe it. I'd like to see some actual evidence that air quality on a plane (or a train, for that matter) was better back then than it is today.
Click to expand...

You don't need evidence. Everything was better "back then." It's just a fact.


----------



## lthanlon

Are smokeless tobacco products permitted on Amtrak? There doesn't seem to be policy against the stuff, but I've never seen anybody dipping.

When I have a long layover at many airports, I'll enjoy a break in the smoking lounge -- despite being a nonsmoker. There's a minimum drink purchase, but I've always found these places a lot less crowded than the bars and restaurants down on the concourse. I've found the air surprisingly well-filtered. So, I wouldn't necessarily object to a properly maintained smoking-lounge car on Amtrak.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

lthanlon said:


> Are smokeless tobacco products permitted on Amtrak? There doesn't seem to be policy against the stuff, but I've never seen anybody dipping. When I have a long layover at many airports, I'll enjoy a break in the smoking lounge -- despite being a nonsmoker. There's a minimum drink purchase, but I've always found these places a lot less crowded than the bars and restaurants down on the concourse. I've found the air surprisingly well-filtered. So, I wouldn't necessarily object to a properly maintained smoking-lounge car on Amtrak.


Can you point to a *train* that has a "properly maintained smoking lounge" which doesn't let the smoke escape? I've been on smoking trains myself and they all let the smoke escape one way or another. If Amtrak can't keep the sewage from escaping their toilets I don't see why we'd expect them to keep smoke from escaping their lounges. Nor do they have the money to start making those kinds of changes anyway. Amtrak has little to fear from smoking addicts. The only other option they have is driving on $4 a gallon gasoline.


----------



## Reno89502

Just a little humorous story. One time I was taking the train over to RNO from CHI, and I was standing far away from everyone on the platform in DEN having a smoke. A man and wife walked by me, and she said to me "They need to ban smoking everywhere because all of you smokers are polluting the air! We have a right to breathe you know!" I looked at her and politely said "Mam, I understand where you are coming from, but, I gave up my car years ago because I wanted to take public transit to help cut down all of the pollution in the air. Now, do you think I should have the right to tell people that they cant drive down MY street because the car exhaust is polluting the air and I have the right to not breathe their fumes? What do you think causes more pollution, cars, trucks, buses, even trains, or all of the cigarette smokers in the world"? She looked at me and said "You know, you have a VERY valid point!", smiled at me, and walked off with her husband. Now, I can see where smoking indoors can be a problem, but smoking outside, on platforms, away from the doors should not be a problem.


----------



## Bierboy

Ispolkom said:


> RRUserious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if it is technologically so difficult to have a "smoking car". Maybe charge a few extra bucks for admission. With the price of smokes nowadays, I don't see smokers as an impoverished class.
> 
> 
> 
> There used to be smoking lounges on Superliner trains, built into baggage coaches, I think. They didn't work out so well, because, among other things, smokers would leave the doors open because the lounges became too smokey. No, that doesn't make any sense to me, either.
Click to expand...

When we road the Cardinal in summer of 2002, smoking was allowed only in one half of the single level lounge car. Which, of course, was ridiculous because there was nothing to block the smoke from drifting to the other half of the car.


----------



## Ispolkom

Smoking sections rarely make much operational sense. My favorite was a Turkish Airlines flight, Istanbul-Ashgabat. The left side of the plane was smoking, the right nonsmoking. I had an aisle seat, and the gentleman across the aisle chain-smoked the whole flight.


----------



## jis

jebr said:


> ParrotRob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pennyk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I personally do not think the Auto Train should allow smoking. They probably would not lose too many riders if they prohibited smoking. A few months ago, I took a "tour" of the Auto Train, after it was cleaned and before anyone boarded it. The smoking room still reeked of cigarette smoke.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree. It's 17 and a half hours. Tough it out like they do on planes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What flight is seventeen and a half hours? A flight is much shorter than that (I think the longest is 10-12 hours, and that's international flight.)
Click to expand...

I regularly fly to India on flights that are around 15 hours. I have flown Newark to Singapore on the nonstop that is over 18 hours. You get to fly over the North Pole.  There are plenty of 14+ hour flights these days. Just Newark hosts about half a dozen each day.


----------



## fillyjonk

I remember one crowded trip on the TE, back when they still had a car with a smoking lounge. I complained that I had lowgrade asthma and was allergic to cigarette smoke, and they STILL insisted on seating me in the car that had the smoking lounge because "This is the car for people getting off at your stop." I was a lot younger and a lot less crankier than I am now so I didn't complain (but was pretty unhappy and miserable, and yes, the car smelled of smoke)

Shortly after that I discovered the sleeper car option (I was still in 'grad student must do everything as cheaply as possible' mode back then) and then shortly after that, they banned smoking on the TE.

I wouldn't have a problem with a smoking lounge PROVIDED they gave non smoking passengers the choice NOT to sit in the car with the smoking lounge. Or, if they had enough cars, just make one whole car the smoking lounge and stick it either up front or on the rear of the train.

(I also had a seatmate one trip who got up every 45 minutes to go for a smoke. He insisted on sitting at the window seat - so every 45 minutes, all through the night, "Hey, can I get past you?" and then he would come back reeking of smoke. It was a full train so I couldn't move.)


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

lthanlon said:


> Are smokeless tobacco products permitted on Amtrak? There doesn't seem to be policy against the stuff, but I've never seen anybody dipping.


You mean like chewing tobacco?


----------



## lthanlon

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> lthanlon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are smokeless tobacco products permitted on Amtrak? There doesn't seem to be policy against the stuff, but I've never seen anybody dipping.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like chewing tobacco?
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## OBS

lthanlon said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lthanlon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are smokeless tobacco products permitted on Amtrak? There doesn't seem to be policy against the stuff, but I've never seen anybody dipping.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like chewing tobacco?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...

People chew all the time...


----------



## Robyn

I think it's BS how some places are banning E-Cigaretts! Really??? And why??? Because if smokers stop smoking real Cigaretts then the Government will lose money with their illegal taxation laws!!!!! Bull Crap!!!


----------



## leemell

This is an old thread.


----------



## RRrich

Lets hear it for guest posts h34r:


----------



## SarahZ

Robyn said:


> I think it's BS how some places are banning E-Cigaretts! Really??? And why??? Because if smokers stop smoking real Cigaretts then the Government will lose money with their illegal taxation laws!!!!! Bull Crap!!!


How does banning e-cigarettes have anything to do with that? Regular cigarettes are banned too. It's not like Amtrak is saying regular cigarettes are okay but e-cigarettes aren't. ^_^


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Sorcha said:


> Robyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's BS how some places are banning E-Cigaretts! Really??? And why??? Because if smokers stop smoking real Cigaretts then the Government will lose money with their illegal taxation laws!!!!! Bull Crap!!!
> 
> 
> 
> How does banning e-cigarettes have anything to do with that? Regular cigarettes are banned too. It's not like Amtrak is saying regular cigarettes are okay but e-cigarettes aren't. ^_^
Click to expand...

I agree that Amtrak should ban ALL cigarettes, cigars, and tobacco pipes.


----------



## Nathanael

Ben_G said:


> Believe it or not the air quality used to be better on planes and trains when they allowed smoking.


This is simply untrue. I was on planes when smoking was allowed, and I left extremely sick, routinely.

Cigarette smoke is very, VERY bad for you. And they didn't ventilate it hardly at all.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Nathanael said:


> Ben_G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not the air quality used to be better on planes and trains when they allowed smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. I was on planes when smoking was allowed, and I left extremely sick, routinely.
> 
> Cigarette smoke is very, VERY bad for you. And they didn't ventilate it hardly at all.
Click to expand...

While I fully agree, please note that Ben G posted a long time ago.


----------



## zephyr17

Swadian Hardcore said:


> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's BS how some places are banning E-Cigaretts! Really??? And why??? Because if smokers stop smoking real Cigaretts then the Government will lose money with their illegal taxation laws!!!!! Bull Crap!!!
> 
> 
> 
> How does banning e-cigarettes have anything to do with that? Regular cigarettes are banned too. It's not like Amtrak is saying regular cigarettes are okay but e-cigarettes aren't. ^_^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that Amtrak should ban ALL cigarettes, cigars, and tobacco pipes.
Click to expand...

They do, except on the AutoTrain.


----------



## leemell

Nathanael said:


> Ben_G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not the air quality used to be better on planes and trains when they allowed smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. I was on planes when smoking was allowed, and I left extremely sick, routinely.
> 
> Cigarette smoke is very, VERY bad for you. And they didn't ventilate it hardly at all.
Click to expand...


For aircraft that isn't true. The cabin air turns over two to three times every minute and the air is filtered that reduces the germ level by ;92-98%.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

zephyr17 said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorcha said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robyn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's BS how some places are banning E-Cigaretts! Really??? And why??? Because if smokers stop smoking real Cigaretts then the Government will lose money with their illegal taxation laws!!!!! Bull Crap!!!
> 
> 
> 
> How does banning e-cigarettes have anything to do with that? Regular cigarettes are banned too. It's not like Amtrak is saying regular cigarettes are okay but e-cigarettes aren't. ^_^
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that Amtrak should ban ALL cigarettes, cigars, and tobacco pipes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do, except on the AutoTrain.
Click to expand...

I know, but Robyn said that Amtrak should not ban E-cigarettes.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

leemell said:


> Nathanael said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ben_G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not the air quality used to be better on planes and trains when they allowed smoking.
> 
> 
> 
> This is simply untrue. I was on planes when smoking was allowed, and I left extremely sick, routinely.
> 
> Cigarette smoke is very, VERY bad for you. And they didn't ventilate it hardly at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For aircraft that isn't true. The cabin air turns over two to three times every minute and the air is filtered that reduces the germ level by ;92-98%.
Click to expand...

Source?

Germ is really more of a vague marketing term than any sort of scientific designation. My understanding is that the ventilation rate of cabin air depends on multiple factors including the specific aircraft type, airspeed, engine rotation, altitude, and rate of ascent/descent. The ventilation rate itself is most directly controlled by automatic release valves which are designed to maintain a specific cabin pressure rather than a given refresh rate and during some stages of flight virtually no cabin air is released at all. Even if you wanted to replace the air two or three times every minute it's by no means guaranteed this would be possible within the limits of conventional jet engines, air packs, and airframes. Assuming you could heat and cool the air to a reasonable temperature fast enough, and assuming the cabin air release mechanism could somehow keep up, such a fast ventilation rate would still require a near constant whirlwind of continuous air movement and would almost certainly result in nearly immediate oxygen depletion. Not something you'd want to worry about on a commercial passenger airliner.


----------



## Skim

Another problem is when passengers smell of smoke on the train. Sitting next to someone who has smoked or been in a room with smokers is never pleasant. Disallowing smoking on platforms and other station grounds would only go so far; smokers need to wear clothing on the train that hasn't been around cigarette smoke.


----------



## andersone

Two packs a day for thirty years got me two radical head and neck cancer surgeries, a trachea for the rest of my life, rad scars that are permanent, and a completely different life. I smoked on planes and trains (one of the old joys of a sleeper) and everywhere else. When my buddy jumps in the golf cart and lights one up, i still want one but too many people have spent too much time to save my life to consider it. I know full well the addictive power of nicotine, and have compassion for those who are under it's sway. I can only hope you can find a way to quit before you have to experience what the last five years of my life have been. I don't have to worry about Hell, I am living it but the bottom line is I am alive. Sounds like it will put me in good stead for my August encounter with EB.


----------



## FormerOBS

One post said smoking is permitted on Auto Train. That information is outdated. AUTO TRAIN IS NON-SMOKING. The ban includes all forms of smoking, including e-cigarettes. I think this is the consistent policy throughout the Amtrak system.


----------



## Ryan

When was that changed?

Most of the thread dates from 2012, dredged up to the surface by a guest poster who authored the longest run on sentence ever.


----------



## SarahZ

RyanS said:


> When was that changed?
> 
> Most of the thread dates from 2012, dredged up to the surface by *a guest poster who authored the longest run on sentence ever*.


And used his full name as his guest name, which is awesome because he admitted to breaking the rules. I'd laugh if a conductor checked his ticket and his name had some kind of flag.


----------



## FormerOBS

Auto Train policy was changed about a year ago. I don't have the date at hand.


----------



## PRR 60

FormerOBS said:


> Auto Train policy was changed about a year ago. I don't have the date at hand.


"About a year" was great recollection. The change took place June 1, 2013.


----------



## Ryan

You were off by a week.

Try and do better next time.


----------



## FormerOBS

I am duly chastened. I went to work intending to confirm the date, & was CAUGHT BY THE EVER-ALERT FORUM MEMBERS before I could report back. Fortunately for me, I'll probably be retired before anybody can get around to firing me!


----------



## andersone

thou has never read Faulkner nor Hemingway?


----------



## Paul CHI

I've been on planes during the smoking era. Usually the rear was designated for smokers, but it didn't really matter. At the end of the trip, our clothing smalled of smoke regardless of where we sat. It was a miserable experience.

Smokers do not realize how penetrating and lasting tobacco smoke is, since they live with it all the time.


----------



## EB_OBS

Paul CHI said:


> Smokers do not realize how penetrating and lasting tobacco smoke is, since they live with it all the time.


My grandmother, who is a smoker, used to send my children gifts, before she switched to cash. Whenever we opened them they always just completely reeked of cigarette smoke. If it was clothing, washing it two or three times was required.

I personally have had just about all I can stand from the inconsiderate, rude and sometimes just plain Jerks who are smokers.

Most will stand right in the doorway and light up or remain standing in a narrow corridor where Everyone has to walk thru their smoke and think nothing of it.

There are sixteen NO SMOKING signs around the building on the platform here and yet I have to tell the smokers to move away every single train.

Even when they know where the designated smoking area is they will still light up while still in the non smoking area and will continue to smoke when walking back into the non smoking area.

I've told people to move more than 25 feet away from the building, as that is WA state law and some jackasses will actually attempt to pace off 25 feet and go no further.

I used to be sympathetic to smokers, mostly for the employees who smoke sake but not anymore. I'd ban it completely if I had the power.


----------



## the_traveler

I live in a non-smoking apartment building, yet thru the vents at 3 am the distinct odor of cigarette smoke enters my apartment. I can't - and never could - stand smoking. I too would ban it completely!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Smoking is one of the most selfish activities in the world. The people who partake in it reflect that.

To those who are different, no offense. It's a pity the rotten 99.8% ruin it for the good ones.


----------



## me_little_me

Green Maned Lion said:


> Smoking is one of the most selfish activities in the world. The people who partake in it reflect that.
> 
> To those who are different, no offense. It's a pity the rotten 99.8% ruin it for the good ones.


And it isn't just the smoke. Look at the ground around where smokers have been. So many are pigs! I imagine marijuana smokers will act the same, with their roaches.

I remember at the I-75 freeway exit north of Atlanta in Marietta. There was a long light at the end of the ramp and the curb was just piled high with cigarette butts. People would just empty their ash trays on the ground while waiting for the light. Almost every day, I'd see at least one person dumping their butts.


----------



## SarahZ

me_little_me said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smoking is one of the most selfish activities in the world. The people who partake in it reflect that.
> 
> To those who are different, no offense. It's a pity the rotten 99.8% ruin it for the good ones.
> 
> 
> 
> And it isn't just the smoke. Look at the ground around where smokers have been. So many are pigs! *I imagine marijuana smokers will act the same, with their roaches.*
Click to expand...

Doubt it, since you can't smoke it in public.

Additionally, roaches aren't like cigarette filters. A roach is smoked down as far as possible, leaving just the slightest sliver of paper left, if that. Most people use a hemostatic clip or tweezers to hold it so they don't waste any.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Pot smoking, which I engaged in once in my life and did not enjoy (at all) is very different. The culture behind it is totally different. The kinds of people who do it are totally different.

Certainly a lot less sense of entitlement. A lot less damage to other people around you. Frankly less damage to yourself.


----------



## chakk

Paul CHI said:


> I've been on planes during the smoking era. Usually the rear was designated for smokers, but it didn't really matter. At the end of the trip, our clothing smalled of smoke regardless of where we sat. It was a miserable experience.
> 
> Smokers do not realize how penetrating and lasting tobacco smoke is, since they live with it all the time.


On my last flight on LOT Polish Airlines in 1987, the non-smoking section was left side of the aisle all the way from front to back. Smoking section -- right side of the aisle!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Bob Dylan

Green Maned Lion said:


> Pot smoking, which I engaged in once in my life and did not enjoy (at all) is very different. The culture behind it is totally different. The kinds of people who do it are totally different.
> 
> Certainly a lot less sense of entitlement. A lot less damage to other people around you. Frankly less damage to yourself.


You sound like a politician discussing pot Lion! Remember Bill Clinton's " I tried it but I didn't inhale!" LOL


----------



## Bob Dylan

chakk said:


> Paul CHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on planes during the smoking era. Usually the rear was designated for smokers, but it didn't really matter. At the end of the trip, our clothing smalled of smoke regardless of where we sat. It was a miserable experience.
> 
> Smokers do not realize how penetrating and lasting tobacco smoke is, since they live with it all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> On my last flight on LOT Polish Airlines in 1987, the non-smoking section was left side of the aisle all the way from front to back. Smoking section -- right side of the aisle!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...

Bada Boom!,Badda Bing! But seriously folks... LOL


----------



## OlympianHiawatha

I cannot understand why this Dead Dog will not DIE! Plain and simple in regards to smoking on board - *NEIN! VERBOTEN!*


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I tried it thoroughly. Guilty as charged. I didn't enjoy it. I think if should be legal. I think it being illegal while caffeine is fully legal for a two year old is ludicrous.

We gotta meet at Dodge City, Hudson. You done there insulted me. A politician? *draws*


----------



## the_traveler

This 2+ year old thread was reopened needlessly. I think it has run it's course.


----------

