posted
There was a blog entry out of Olympia, Wash., the other day to the effect that the conductor (with the help of the sheriff) threw three men off his Cascades train for insisting on smoking.
This interested me, because it's been about ten or so years since Amtrak began its No Smoking At All on the Train rule. I recall in the early '90s on the Zephyr, quite a few sleeper passengers lit up in their rooms (although there was a smoking coach behind the lounge car), and the crew had to waggle their fingers. But in the mid 2000s up to now, I don't think I've smelled a single contraband ciggie on an Amtrak train.
Has the experience of others been the same? Maybe the country is changing and smokers are taking the new rules seriously.
royaltrain Member # 622
posted
It has been several years since I last detected the dreaded tobacco smoke on Amtrak. Include Via Rail as well, although Via did allow smoking in the mural lounge of The Canadian during certain hours of the day up until maybe four years ago (can't be sure of the exact date), but since that time I guess smokers have just accepted the fact that they are in a minority and their filthy habits are no longer tolerated by the majority.
John Hull Member # 4465
posted
I think that the threat of being thrown off the train is enough to stop even the most desperate smoker from lighting up. When we were on the Zephyr in 2005 the conductor had smelt smoke and gave several warnings throughout the train that if the offender was found he/she would be put off the train at the next station stop. There was no more smell of smoke! John
train lady Member # 3920
posted
Well,Mr. Train I don't think smoking is any filthier than over drinking. How many times have you heard about smoking one too many and getting in a car and killing 4 people. I have not smoked for many years but let me tell you the withdrawl from not smoking can be torture. In fact addicts to other drugs such as coke have said it is easier to stop those drugs than it is nicotine. So don't look down on smokers feel some sympathy.
royaltrain Member # 622
posted
Train Lady, I can certainly be sympathetic toward those who have an addiction and fight valiantly against it, but no sympathy for those who wish to impose their carcinogenic fumes upon others who have no choice but to unwillingly breathe those same deadly toxins. Your analogy between drinking alcohol and then killing people while driving an automobile is illogical. It is not the liquor that kills an innocent person; it is the criminal behaviour of the person behind the wheel. A person who drinks moderately is not going to harm anyone, even a law abiding alcoholic will kill no one except perhaps himself. That certainly cannot be said about the person spewing cancerous smoke that others are forced to breathe. Solid scientific evidence proves the connection between passive smoke and disease (including death) in non-smokers.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
As a former heavy smoker myself, I understand TrainLady's plea for tolerance -- it is damnably difficult to quit. But I also agree with Royaltrain that a smoker has no right to inflict his secondhand smoke on the rest of society. Those who light up on trains should be thrown off -- even at 79 mph.
train lady Member # 3920
posted
Gentlemen I did not say people should smoke. What I am saying is please be tolerant of those who are trying to stop and further I do not consider it a "filthy" habit. It is an addiction that is in the same catagory as alcholism. I have gone into the lounge car in the early morning to be greeted by the horrid smell of beer and the sight of a person passed out on the table. I think it would help if there were one car either at the end of the train or beginning for smokers only that is totally setarate from all the rest of us.
palmland Member # 4344
posted
At one time I believe Amtrak intended to make the heritage sleepers used on eastern trains as a dorm-lounge with the lounge for use by smokers.
I may be mistaken but I think the crews objected to using the area that had contained bedrooms, on the 10 roomette-6 double bedroom cars, as space for passengers - plus the effects of smoke getting into their rooms. Consequently those cars had a large unproductive empty area that had contained the bedrooms. Only the space for the 10 roomettes used by the crews were in use.
The cars of course were withdrawn from service a couple years ago. I would think the smokers lounge could have been closed at night when the crews needed their rest. With good ventilation the second hand effects would have been minimal.
As Via has shown, it is possible to keep the 50's area Budd cars in service with a little maintenance. What a shame the original plans weren't completed. It would have resulted in more revenue for Amtrak (since Viewliners space would not have to be used by crews) and the smokers could do their thing without the frantic scramble at smoke stops.
Of course there are some of us who thought that space would have been a great lounge area for sleeping car passengers - and the smokers could continue to feed their habits out in the cold (or heat) at smoke stops.
David Member # 3
posted
Whilst I certainly have sympathy for anyone suffering any type of addiction, the issue is simply that the right not to smoke must take precedence over someone's right to smoke. Some Canadian trains (more so CNR than CPR) were often badly polluted with the smoke of other passengers right up to and including the early days of VIA Rail operation in the late 1970s. It was not unusual to be seated at a dining car table with a centrepiece of an ashtray piled high with cigarette ends. We would always insist this be removed. Some CNR dining car stewards looked at us as if we were strange to not want to eat a meal with this stench.
I must wonder how much concern smokers had in those days for the adverse health effects they were imposing on innocent people. I used to say that if I forced a chocolate éclair down someone's throat that would be seen as a criminal offence, but it was considered acceptable for someone to inject my lungs with carcinogens.
Good luck to anyone fighting an addiction (yes, even to chocolate éclairs) but to affect other people is indeed disgusting.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
Several of you have bought into the second hand smoke myth.
There is no scientific proof that second hand smoke is a health hazard, even to people that live with heavy smokers. The WHO investigation from the 1990's showed no additional health risk to non-smokers from the smoke from smokers. They targeted people that lived with smokers, in their quest to link some sort of medical problem with smoke. No link was found.
That said, I hate, did I say HATE! the smell of smoke when I'm eating. And I am SO glad I quit in 1999!
smitty195 Member # 5102
posted
When I first started riding Amtrak in about 1980 or so and the Superliners were brand new, I remember each car was divided in half----smoking and non-smoking. Of course, with the air being circulated throughout the entire car it really didn't matter. Same in the Sightseer Lounge Car---half and half. Eventually, Amtrak made the train entirely non-smoking except for the lower level of the lounge car. Once they made that non-smoking as well, they came up with a "Coach Smoking" car, where you could puff away in a room on the lower level of a coach. Same problem---the smell filtered upstairs through the HVAC system. And today, it's a "fresh air stop" (smoke stops). I am soooooo thankful that I never took up smoking. I see people getting anxious and nervous and just can't wait for that smoke stop so that they can hop off and light up a cancer stick.
For the most part, I rarely smell smoke on an Amtrak train....but it does happen every now and then. In the sleeping car when you smell smoke, within a minute or two someone pushes the call button to report it. It's just not tolerated any more, and the Conductor WILL kick that person off the train.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.
Second hand smoking dangers are a myth, very similar to freon's relationship to the alleged ozone "hole" at the South Pole.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
Mr. Smith, perhaps you are not aware that this "study" -- the only one of its kind in a sea of research that contradicts it -- was funded by tobacco companies?
mr williams Member # 1928
posted
In the UK smoking was banned in ALL enclosed public places last year. Shops, cafes, restaurants, bars, offices, public and government buildings, sports stadiums and of course, all buses and trains (although most train companies had gone non-smoking already.
It is even illegal to smoke on the platform at many stations!
All tobacco advertising has been banned and just today a proposal has been put forward which would ban cigarette vending machines.
Even as a non-smoker I could have some sympathy with smokers rights groups who say "what is unreasonable about having one carriage on a train for smokers?" apart from the memory of those selfish people who would wilfully light-up in clearly marked non-smoking areas, doing immeasurable damage to their cause for which they are now reaping the consequences.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: Mr. Smith, perhaps you are not aware that this "study" -- the only one of its kind in a sea of research that contradicts it -- was funded by tobacco companies?
The government anti-tobacco organizations that funded the study for 35 years decided to ditch the entire project when they got a glimpse of the results. The tobacco companies continued the funding for the next 2 years.
Were you being intentionally deceptive Mr Kisor, or did you simply not know the details of the funding?
The following was in the article I posted:
Funding: The American Cancer Society initiated CPS I in 1959, conducted follow up until 1972, and has maintained the original database. Extended follow up until 1997 was conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles with initial support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, a University of California research organisation funded by the Proposition 99 cigarette surtax (www.ucop.edu/srphome/trdrp). After continuing support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program was denied, follow up through 1999 and data analysis were conducted at University of California at Los Angeles with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988-99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies.24
Competing interests: In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research because it has been impossible for him to obtain equivalent funds from other sources. GCK never received funds originating from the tobacco industry until last year, when he conducted an epidemiological review for a law firm which has several tobacco companies as clients. He has served as a consultant to the University of California at Los Angeles for this paper. JEE and GCK have no other competing interests. They are both lifelong non-smokers whose primary interest is an accurate determination of the health effects of tobacco.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
I withdraw. It is pointless to debate Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, evolution deniers and secondhand smoke deniers.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: I withdraw. It is pointless to debate Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, evolution deniers and secondhand smoke deniers.
Research, smesearch. Mark Twain once noted that there were three types of liars - Liars, Damned Liars, and Statisticians. The numbers can be toyed with to support anything a researcher can be influenced to support. The issue here is whether a non-smoker is nauseated by being in a closed space where people are smoking or not.
My wife and I each grew up in homes where both parents smoked. Memories of what should have been pleasant car trips are discolored by the memories of cracking windows hoping for a quick whiff of fresh air even on the coldest days. I remember being a hermit in my own bedroom.....one of the few spots in our house that didn't always reak.
I don't begrudge anyone their right to smoke. I just don't want to share the space in which they do so......after 18 years in such a household I've done my time. I recognize the addictive nature of smoking and would not oppose trains having a 'smoking car' on the end...so long as I didn't have to enter it or pass through it.
(Of course I'd rather see every long-distance train have dedicaed, non-smoking lounge space for first class passengers first and since Amtrak doesn't have even the resources to do that, we'll soldier on with our smoke stops....we wouldn't be on the train in the first place if we were in a hurry...)
Now having watched both my father and father-in-law die of various cancers, I worry that I will also ultimately succumb to a cancer brought about by the years I breathed second-hand smoke.
This is a concern I had before I was conscious of any study suppoting or contradicting the second-hand smoke issue and it's a concern I will continue to have regardless of any future study on the matter I might see.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: I withdraw. It is pointless to debate Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, evolution deniers and secondhand smoke deniers.
OK. I understand. You need to feed your fantasies...
My point of view, regarding your fantasies: The Holocaust happened and it was devastating to the Jewish people. The Nazi socialists got better than they deserved.
Climate change is happening, but it is not human caused. The Sun is causing it...
Evolution is totally compatible with the biblical version of creation.
Second-hand smoke sucks big-time, but it is not the "Big Bad Evil" the anti-smoking fanatics make it out to be.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
quote:Originally posted by notelvis:
Now having watched both my father and father-in-law die of various cancers, I worry that I will also ultimately succumb to a cancer brought about by the years I breathed second-hand smoke.
I wouldn't worry about it... The silica dust that permeates our air will probably do you in before your previous exposure to second-hand smoke.
Or the pollen or the mold spores... or pick your favorite phobia!
Doc Brown Member # 4724
posted
As much fun as some of this rhetoric is, I'll get back to the OP for a moment...
A while back we rode the Empire Builder from Milwaukee to Wisconsin Dells. Just before we arrived at the Dells, the conductor got on the PA and chewed out a smoker. She said something to the effect of "To the smoker in car xxx, we know who you are and if you want to make it to Minneapolis, do not try to smoke on the train again."
My conclusion was "don't piss off the conductor"!
Ham Radio Member # 6587
posted
The regular "smoking stops" on Amtrak long distance trains seem to work very well, I haven't noticed any tobacco fumes enroute.
Besides, stepping off the train to chat with the smokers is a nice way to get to know passengers and crew personnel.
amtraxmaniac Member # 2251
posted
I thought it humorous on an occasion in 2005 on the CZ when a Coach Attendant threatened the entire patronage with 'taking away ALL the smoke stops' if a certain elusive smoker didn't turn himself or herself in. I guess this attendant had HAD IT! We had to hear the rantings of this attendant from somewhere inUT all the way to Glenwood Springs! I think the Bounty on this guys head finally drove him out of hiding and he was discovered and put off in Glennwood Springs. By that point everyone wanted BOTH the smoker and the attendant put off the train.
amtraxmaniac Member # 2251
posted
Those 'Smoking Lounges' were a joke. As someone who is personaly nauseated by the 'fumes', you CANNOT convince me that this lounge isolated the smoke to the lounge area. If you were seated upstairs from the lounge (especially near the stairwell, you would get a good WHIFF anytime the door was openned. The concept was BS to say the least. Back in 2001, when the SWC still ran a Smoking Lounge, a women DEMANDED the crew switch her seat to a different car all together since it was just above the smoking lounge. The Car Attendants worked together to accomodate and then the conductor came through for ticketing and tried moving the lady back, basically telling the lady 'too damn bad, you have t be in your assigned car'. WWIII ensued between the passenger, car attendant, and conductor between LA and Fullerton. Eventually a compromise was reached, but you get the point...smoke was NOT and never COULD BE isolated to that little box they called a 'lounge'.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
Yea, those lounges were a joke. Back when I smoked, I would open the downstairs door window in the sleeper about an inch or two and the smoke would fly out of the window. People standing within 3 feet of me could not smell any smoke. Of course, I always checked where our car attendant was {on break, in the diner, entertaining the people in the lounge car, etc} before I engaged in my smoke break.
amtraxmaniac Member # 2251
posted
So it was YOU on the CZ that day Mike!?!? Enjoy your stay in Glennwood Springs? LOL
RR4me Member # 6052
posted
Goodness gracious, Mr. Kisor, I think you started a more spirited discussion than even the "sleepers vs. coach" post! Just had to weigh in with a comment that I love the fact that the trains are smoke free, that I've not noticed illicit smokers, and that if a heavy smoker thinks no one can smell the stuff three feet away after they open a window, their olfactory organ isn't working.
box283 Member # 5546
posted
i recall smelling smoke of the 'herbal' variety one evening wafting through the vents of the sleeper on the CZ in may of 2006...there were no complaints or angry announcements...perhaps most of the passengers in the car, who were older, didn't know what it was...it didn't bother me as i would rather have someone indulge in the herbal pursuits and be relaxed than be drunk and disorderly. also, i don't find the smell of cannabis even remotely as offensive as tobacco smoke, which makes me want to wretch.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
quote:Originally posted by RR4me: Goodness gracious, Mr. Kisor, I think you started a more spirited discussion than even the "sleepers vs. coach" post! Just had to weigh in with a comment that I love the fact that the trains are smoke free, that I've not noticed illicit smokers, and that if a heavy smoker thinks no one can smell the stuff three feet away after they open a window, their olfactory organ isn't working.
Next time you're Amtraking try this experiment.
Open the downstairs window about 1 inch, while the train is rolling. Have your wife stand within 1 foot of you. Strike a kitchen match near the window. Ask her if she smelt anything. You might be amazed...
Or not.
Mike Smith Member # 447
posted
quote:Originally posted by amtraxmaniac: So it was YOU on the CZ that day Mike!?!? Enjoy your stay in Glennwood Springs? LOL
Nope, never caught, and that was back in the 1996-1999 era {Too lazy to walk to the smoker's car from our sleeper}. After 34 years of smoking a pack and a quarter a day, I quit on June 30, 1999.
Also, my wife was smoking those small stinky cigars with the wooden tips and never had any complaints because the open window creates a venturi effect and dragged all smoke outside the train, as long as the train was moving at more than 10 mph.
RR4me Member # 6052
posted
Mike, I think I'll just leave this alone, with the comment that I'm glad you quit.
posted ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)