Has this been publicized? I just found out from an agent. One more good reason to quit, but it ain't easy.

Airplanes have been non-smoking for years, so it only follows that Amtrak will join in.

Years ago, the Philip Morris folks were building a custom passenger train (the Marlboro Express) that would have been sort of a "western" version of the American Orient Express. It was to be welcome to smokers and non-smokers alike.

One of the difficulties they had was to build a venting system for smokers that would enable non-smokers to join them in the same car. Even with the strongest fans they still could not get the system to work that well. (The plans for the train were later dropped, though the engines were sold to a commuter agency - maybe Sounder).

Indeed, this policy will probably result in the return of customers to Amtrak that were revolted by the smell of second hand smoke that worked its way into the coach car.

I even look forward to seeing new passengers who never rode on a train in their life, climbing aboard Amtrak.

Yes, it will be a shame to lose a few tobacco-addicted passengers, and perhaps this new policy will serve as an incentive for them to quit indulging in a habit that some say is worse than heroin.

But I, for one, am delighted with the news (although I'll believe it when I see it.) Not only will the air be much fresher on the train, but I look forward to that room in the smoking car being turned into a space that all can enjoy!

Will I quit? Probably. Is that a good thing? Absolutely. Will I care if you don't "hate" me anymore? No. Your attitude gives me little reason to.

I used to smoke and I well understand that one of the pitfalls of quitting (any so-called "vice") is the very strong probability of becoming a self-righteous ******* .

I don't care if you smoke. I just don't want to breath the crap.

By the way, I feel *exactly* the same way toward smokers as I do towards ladies and gentlemen who wear strong perfumes and colognes.

(Don't even get me started about cell phones.)

Smoking kills smokers before their time.
It is tragic to see a loved one battle the final stages of lung cancer. I have seen the sad results of smoking. I urge all smokers to quit.

Second hand smoke kills innocent non-smokers.
That is why so many non-smokers, including me, are so strong in their opinions against smokers.

I have worked the Starlight and the Zephyr, as well as the Capitol trains on the west coast. The Zephyr does have a somking area on the lower level of one of the coaches where they do have wall fans to draw the smoke out. It seems to work pretty well. I rarely get complaints from the passengers upstairs. I also never get any complaints from passengers about someone smoking in the restrooms. This is where the problem will arrise.

The Starlight is totally non-smoking but they do have smoke stops from time to time. The problem comes when we leave Redding and it is a two hour run through the mountains to the next stop of Dunsmuir. They get about 5 minutes stop there to smoke while we load and unload passengers. Then it's another 2 1/2 hour trip to Klamath Falls non-stop again.It's also about sunrise in the morning when everyone wakes up wanting that first cup of coffee and a smoke. That's when we always get complaints about someone smoking in the restrooms. Now I know what your thinking, the Conductor will throw them off the train. Yes we will if we catch them but remember there are only two of us to watch the whole train.

Yes it is a bad habit but I would rather give them the opportunity to smoke in a controlled area than waste my time trying to catch them when your safty is my top priority. If I bother myself with the little things like that then I might not be watching my train close enough and let something bad happen.

Now on the Capitol trains we stop for station stops about every 15 minutes and if they want to jump off for a couple of puffs that's OK with me. Just as long as they do not delay my train. When I call all aboard that's just what I mean. I have been known to leave a couple of hard headed smokers behind.
Even though the coaches are not air tight they are self contained and the air does recirculate so the further I can keep them away from smoking in the restrooms the better.

It is interesting how attitudes towards smoking have changed since Amtrak's early days. I remember when the lounge cars were constantly filled with smoke, especially at night. Only once was it bad enough to force me to leave. Now people go ballistic over a little smoke smell drifting up from a closed room. It seems we've gone from one extreme to the other. I don't smoke, and I don't care for smoke filled lounge cars, but I don't get hostile at the slightest smell of it, either. Whatever happened to the concept of a reasonable middle ground?

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy

I am an ex-smoker. I quit June 30, 1999.

Prior to that, I took several long distance Amtrak trips and even wrote a letter to Amtrak requesting that they vent the smoking area to the outside of the train. I based this on the fact that I used to open the window on the downstairs door of the sleepers and smoke right there. While the train is moving, all smoke is sucked outside. You could stand 3 feet away from me and not smell even a hint of smoke.

Sometime around 2001, Amtrak started venting the smoking area to the outside and that coach/smoking car quit smelling like stale cigarette smoke. Problem solved.

CK, second hand smoke does NOT kill. It's a media myth. The WHO released an extensive review of second hand smoke and found absolutely no evidence that it had any "killer" effect on anyone.

Yummykaz, I go to restaurants that have either a no smoking policy or a completely segregated area for smokers. With the proper barriers and ventilation systems, no smoke will enter the non smoking area. Babins, Taste of Texas, and Sweet Tomatoes (no smoking) are some of my favorite restaurants in Houston.

To everyone else, if Amtrak becomes non-smoking, you will have to wade through all the smokers at every stop. They will be standing at the door, cigarette in mouth, lighter in hand, waiting for the train to stop and the door to open.

Another point, most of the late night problems on the long distance trains has started in the smoking lounge. Maybe that's why Amtrak wants to eliminate smoking; because the smell problem has been solved with proper ventilation.

Trains are more suited for people who like more freedom and less rules. The most fun I've had on trains was in the smoking lounge even though I do not smoke. It was a more colorful crowd and it brought together all different types of people that were interesting to meet and very friendly. If, as Mike says, the real reason is that the smoking room is a source of problems, they could solve this and a lot of other customer service problems by MORE ONBOARD STAFF! Less than 1 attendant per car means more bad experiences and less repeat customers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikesmith:

CK, second hand smoke does NOT kill. It's a media myth. The WHO released an extensive review of second hand smoke and found absolutely no evidence that it had any "killer" effect on anyone.

---

I went on the WHO website and entered a search term of "secondhand smoke." All of the finds on their website asserted the unhealthful and deleterious effects of secondhand smoke, confirming findings by dozens of scientific organizations.

It DOES underscore the political nature of the issue, stating that this controversy disturbs the WHO greatly, lest its message be distorted for political gain. It does cite examples of media manipulation on both sides of the issue, but nowhere does it even hint, let alone state, that there is "absolutely no evidence" for the effects of SHS. All articles state the exact opposite

Would you please clarify?

I always say, give me a guy driving his car at me who smoke 20 cigarettes, than the guy who drank 20 beers.

Keep in mind that I stated SHS does not kill...

The report is buried, but I still have the analysis:

(begin quote)
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
(end quote)
Find "An abstract of the study is available here." on www.davehitt.com to go to the conclusion.

This means, as a health risk, short term exposure is not a health risk.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

Jona; yes Amtrak has told their employees of the smoking rules. We know them better than anybody. As a matter of fact we have to sneak around like a 12 year old child hiding from their mommy just to get a puff or two in because of the rules. How is this fair to the employees when the only time we get a chance to smoke is when the train is stopped at a station and everyone else is on the platform smoking and we have to stand there greeting passengers with a smile on our face. Please remember that smoking is still legal. There are some rules that I think everyone should conform to so as not to offend the non smokers. As long as that employee is away from you where you don't have to smell the smoke why should it matter to you anyway?? I'm sorry but I have a low tolerance for people who try to force everyone to be a vegetarian like they are.
It's funny how everyone likes to jump on the smokers but it's perfectly alright for someone to get drunk and fall in your lap while you are trying to get some sleep. Although I must agree that smoking is a very bad habit, it is still the choice of the individual.

As I said earlier if I don't give the smokers a break and a chance to smoke on the platform I get loaded down with complaints from the other passengers about people smoking in the restrooms. Now some of the Conductors will be very strict and not even let the people smoke on the platform and guess what they are the ones who have all the problems. Just like CoastStarlight99 said about going into the restroom and finding a butt in the toilet and the room smelling bad. Get ready, it's going to happen all the time.

Mike S: A long time ago I overheard a little boy on the train ask his dad "Is their an exercise room on this train?" and the dad acted like it was a silly question. But I thought -all this food and no physical activity on the train. That would be a great idea. Personally I would like a live cam on the front of the locomotive connected to a big screen in front of the exercise machines, paid for by tobacco company settlement dollars(lol). Of course I was kidding about the hot tub and mud wrestling.

The article then went on to say about how some trains in the NYC-FL route are late ( no mention as to how that compares with the airlines, or even any mention about how planes can be hours late as well. So much for "fair and balanced" reporting), and how the air conditioning can vary geatly from one car to the next.

See also: http://www.bcentral.com/articles/elliott/162.asp?cobrand=msn&LID=3800

Edited for mis-spelling. D*** crazy typing fingers!

[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 03-07-2004).]

For what it be worth, a similar topic thread over at railroad.net is now at 72 postings.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikesmith:
Chatter and CK;

Keep in mind that I stated SHS does not kill...

The report is buried, but I still have the analysis:

(begin quote)

---

You had stated that "The WHO released an extensive review of second hand smoke and found absolutely no evidence that it had any 'killer' effect on anyone."

After persusing the WHO website and seeing the opposite of what you claimed was their position, I (and another member) asked you to refer us to pertinent data on the WHO website, so as to clarify the stance you attributed to them. This you have not done; all we received was a link to someone else's website, with no link to the actual WHO website or any data contained therein.

As I stated, WHO has buried the info, due to political considerations (read: $-funding)

Especially read the news article about the WHO finding prior to WHO deep-sixing the report. http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm

This is from the WHO press release: http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html
The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant. Although, the study points towards a decreasing risk after cessation of exposure.

Notice the qualifier "neither increased risk was statistically significant"

Believe it... or don't.....

One does not use a secondary (or lesser) source, when the primary source is available to confirm the position. And when the primary source itself repeatedly says the opposite of what you claim, the burden of proof is on you.

To learn about Ben Franklin, must must read what he himself actually wrote. While one may also read what others said about him, one cannot speak authoritatively about Franklin without having read his works firsthand.