Quantcast

Should Amtrak allow smoking again?

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

SarahZ

Conductor
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
8,148
Location
KAL
In all fairness, it is possible for someone to get sick from the smell of someone eating Snickers® since they contain peanuts
And if I were alerted that someone near me were allergic to peanuts, I would not eat a Snickers near them.
 

Qapla

Conductor
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
1,704
Location
Gator Country Florida
It does not take an "allergy" for tobacco smoke to adversely affect others like it does with peanuts ... But, setting this aside, since the thread is didn't mention candy bars ...

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

SarahZ

Conductor
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
8,148
Location
KAL
It does not take an "allergy" for tobacco smoke to adversely affect others like it does with peanuts ... But, setting this aside, since the thread is didn't mention candy bars ...

I still hold that smoking should not be allowed on the train. in the station, on the platform (fresh air stops) or anywhere else that would impact the non-smokers.
Are you even reading anything I write? I AGREE that smoking should not be allowed on trains, and not just because of allergies. What I'm saying is that smoking itself (in your private home/car) should not be illegal.

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

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

AmtrakBlue

Conductor
Gathering Team Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
12,032
Location
Delaware
Not really, they took lead out of bullets because it rubbed off on the hands of hunters while loading their guns. This is a private thing and does not impact others - but was still done.
Hmm, might it have also been because the lead could get into the ground? Or maybe because the hunter went home and his baby licked his fingers before he washed them...
 

SarahZ

Conductor
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
8,148
Location
KAL
Not really, they took lead out of bullets because it rubbed off on the hands of hunters while loading their guns. This is a private thing and does not impact others - but was still done.
This is STILL not the same thing.

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

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

boxcar479

Train Attendant
AU Supporter
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
30
Location
S.W. AR.
As I read through the post I notice noone complained about the smokers who light up as soon as they have two feet on the ground literally 2' from the door, then take move a little further but not far enough. It really stinks when you try to get off the train for a fresh air break and your hit with the smell of tobacco smoke. Please move away from the train before you light up, be mindful of the wind direction and don't infringe my right not to smoke.! And No, smoking on the train is the most terrible idea.
 

flitcraft

OBS Chief
Joined
Jan 10, 2018
Messages
749
I'm bemused about this thread. Clearly in today's world, allowing smoking anywhere on an Amtrak train is a non-starter--ridership would plummet. So no one in their right mind would even consider such a policy. Unless, of course, you were desperate to find a way to finally kill off the LD trains. Then allowing smoking would finish the job that the three day a week schedule and flex meals have started.

Have we discovered Richard Anderson's burner account?
 

Cal

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
377
Location
Greater Los Angeles Area
I say yes but only in sleepers and a coach lounge.
Definitely not. That will ruin many other passengers (including mine) trips. I cannot stand the smell of smoke. It's also a clear hazard and promoting a terribly bad habit.

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

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

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

PVD

Conductor
AU Supporter
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
5,213
Location
NYC/Queens
Interestingly, there are a few places where the trains stop where the platforms fall under local laws that prohibit smoking
 

zephyr17

Conductor
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,077
Location
Washington State
I'm a non smoker myself. Smoke has never bothered me, but can see how it would to people. It just seems like since its a legal product there should be concession, with respect to nonsmokers rights to breath smoke free air howevet.
Smoke moves and and smoking sections do not restrict the impact to those outside the section. Plus it is remarkably persistent and penetrative of upholstery.

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

zephyr17

Conductor
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,077
Location
Washington State
If the concern is that "smokers' stops" unnecessarily lengthen schedules and delay trains, shouldn't the answer be to remove/shorten those stops (at least those that exist to accommodate smokers and not for some other operating reason)?
It doesn't. The length of those stops is dictated by operations. If it is shortened because the train is running late, it is just too bad for the smokers.
 

Qapla

Conductor
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
1,704
Location
Gator Country Florida
And Amtrak shouldn't, and wouldn't stop smoke breaks.

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

B: Some passengers really need the ability to step off every few hours and get a fresh breath of air. I wouldn't want to spend 60 hours on the Texas Eagle without being able to step off.
Fresh air is not smoking ... yes, keep the crew stops and, if "fresh air" is what someone wants - a group of people smoking will not provide that - a strict "no smoking" policy would.
 

Cal

Lead Service Attendant
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
377
Location
Greater Los Angeles Area
Fresh air is not smoking ... yes, keep the crew stops and, if "fresh air" is what someone wants - a group of people smoking will not provide that - a strict "no smoking" policy would.
In my experience, not too many people smoke on the platforms. And if/when they do, it's pretty far away and doesn't bother me. As opposed to smoking inside a pretty small train, with it having no where to go.
 

zephyr17

Conductor
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
4,077
Location
Washington State
Fresh air is not smoking ... yes, keep the crew stops and, if "fresh air" is what someone wants - a group of people smoking will not provide that - a strict "no smoking" policy would.
"Fresh air" stop has long been the euphemism that Amtrak uses for smoking stops. It is easy enough to get away from smokers on the platform, so as far as I am concerned, it isn't a big deal that the nicotine addicts have to fix there. Besides, the platforms often are not under Amtrak control, and some do not allow smoking. An example of which is San Jose, no smoking is allowed anywhere on the station grounds and the "fresh air" stop there is clearly announced as not allowing smoking. Once you step off the train, Amtrak's authority often is at an end.
 

Palmland

OBS Chief
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
931
Location
Carolinas
While I certainly agree an enclosed space or anywhere near crowds is not the place for smoking regardless of when or where it is, I have hard time saying no smoking anytime, anywhere.

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

MARC Rider

Conductor
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
2,598
Location
Baltimore. MD
Prohibition does not work. This has been proven time and time again.

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

Tobacco is a choice (just like sugary and fatty foods), so this is not the same as taking a particular medication off the shelf because it is found to cause death. The warnings are printed right on the package. People who smoke (and eat Snickers) know exactly what they're getting into.
The difference between smoking tobacco and eating sugary and fatty foods is that someone can sit and eat a Snickers bar or a bag of Doritos across the table from me and the sugar and fat from the Snickers or Doritos doesn't enter my body and compromise my health, unlike the dose of second-hand smoke I'd get if someone sitting near me was puffing away.

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

MARC Rider

Conductor
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
2,598
Location
Baltimore. MD
In all fairness, it is possible for someone to get sick from the smell of someone eating Snickers® since they contain peanuts



Not really, they took lead out of bullets because it rubbed off on the hands of hunters while loading their guns. This is a private thing and does not impact others - but was still done.
I thought they took the lead out of bullets (and shotgun shot) because the lead sitting around in the dirt or bottom of the pond leaches out into the environment and messes up the wildlife. So even if the hunter misses the target, the bullets can still kill.
 
Top