Smokers-There is hope!

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
T

TexaBit

Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
2
Dear Fellow Amtrak Customers who smoke,

Howdy and nice to meet ya'll:)

I have been a frequent rider of the Texas Eagle from Austin to Maricopa for a few years now.

From Austin to San Antonio, there was smoking allowed, but from San Antonio to Maricopa, very few stops and no smoking car.

I have personally witnessed an elderly lady fake a heart attack to get a few puffs, another elderly lady stressing to the point I was becoming worried for her. And many folks smoking in the bathrooms on all cars.

What I see has happened is because of taking the smoking car off we now have all of the cars smelling like smoke.

There are many folks out there who smoke because it is a habit. A VERY hard habit to break.

And a very hard habit to control for the long trip on a train.

Now let's look at alcohol on the train.

I have had to sit next to some pretty foul smelling drinkers and feel that their odor and behavior is far worse than the smokers.

Now...I am sure you will argue that second hand smoke is harmful to your health , as opposed to effects on you from others drinking alcohol.....

I would have to disagree.

One trip a middle aged gentleman and his wife and child boarded the train and sat across the aisle from me.

His odor smelled like hungover vomit....my appetite wasn't so great from it.

In the middle of the night he was in the viewing car supplying under agers with drinks from his flask.

Another trip I had the pleasure of sitting near an older man who was wasted.

Across from him was a young gal, (I'm not sure of her age because she was mentally handicapped)

This man started hitting on the young gal, and because of her handicap, she partaked in conversation with him innocently.

She headed downstairs to use the restroom and he followed her. I immediately followed him to make sure this gal would be ok.

I found him standing outside the restroom she was using, waiting for her.

I notified an attendant of my concern for the young gal, and the attendant kept an eye on him, later threatening to toss him off the train in San Antonio if he didn't behave. (He had hit on older women prior to the young gal and had even patted one ladies butt).

What I'm trying to get at is, why is alcohol allowed (one of the sins to some) but smoking not?

I persued that question at the corporate office of Amtrak.

The person who dealt with me (Not mentioning names to protect her)...told me that the reason smoking was removed was because of the non-smokers complaining.

She proceeded to advise me to tell all smokers to write or email or call Amtrak Customer service and complain of there being no smoking facilities on the trains.

She feels that if enough smokers complain, something might change. And that smokers complaints have been outnumbered by non-smokers.

And for you non-smokers, I suggest you contact them and request an alternative to what they have now, unless you wish to smell the smoke on EVERY car.

My suggestion is that they have a smoking car on all trains and ask (at the time of reservations) if a person wants smoking or non smoking.

We are all paying customers and deserve to be treated equally in our accomodations whether we smoke, drink, snore, have smelly feet, fart , etc etc.

I hope this doesn't start a flame war.

My intention is to try and make everyone happy in thier rights and wishes.

Sincerely,

TexaBit
 
Its not a bad idea to have a reservation smoking car. The penalty box idea on the amcans was not bad. Maybe they should make a whole car with a box like that on each side of the car. ;)
 
As much as I dislike smoking, I do have to say I applaud your efforts. It has become a pretty big challenge trying to get smokers that puff or two they desire. My only concerns are these. Designating cars as smoking/non smoking. The fleet would have to be divided with smoking cars and non smoking cars. The yards will have to ensure they have enough cars of each type to put a train together, and make sure they get to the right spot (likely with smoking in the rear, non smoking up front so non smokers don't have to walk through smoking cars). It should be noted though that there likely will be no change in sleepers smoking policy, but rather save four seats or so to allow the smokers to have a cigarette should they desire one. It is also likely the OBS Union will protest as it would require their employees (some who may be non smokers) to tend to a smoking car. Could they bid a smoking coach attendant, and non smoking coach attendant, sure. But remember not all trains have two attendants for the entire trip, as is the case with Silver Service and Regional. Also, the UTU will likely be unhappy as some of their non-smoking Conductors will be forced to be in a smoking environment, to which some may be extremely unhappy. Sounds like you all have a great goal, but you have some major obstacles to overcome.
 
I believe that Amtrak does not allow consumption of private stocks of alcohol except inside a private sleeping accommodation. These people who are drinking their own supplies of alcohol in coaches or lounges are in fact breaking an Amtrak policy, just as those who are sneaking smokes inside bathrooms are.
 
Anthony said:
I believe that Amtrak does not allow consumption of private stocks of alcohol except inside a private sleeping accommodation. These people who are drinking their own supplies of alcohol in coaches or lounges are in fact breaking an Amtrak policy, just as those who are sneaking smokes inside bathrooms are.
Click to expand...
I believe that you are allowed to drink your own alcohol either in your sleeper or at your assigned seat. You are not however allowed to bring it into either the lounge car or the dining car.
 
That is incorrect Alan, private Alcohol can only be consumed in private sleeping accomodations. It is private food that can be consumed at your seat or in sleeping accomodation.
 
One of the reasons Amtrak got rid of smoking was the cost of maintaining that equipment. Smoking cars needed to be cleaned more often, and that usually still wasn't enough to get rid of the smoke.

On Superliner trains, the smoking coach contains 62 revenue seats. On a train with three or four coaches, are 1/4 to 1/3 of the coach passengers going to be smokers? If not, then Amtrak is either going to have to 1) put non-smokers in those cars, or 2) lose revenue by limiting access to those cars to smokers only. Would you be willing to pay a (for example) $200 surcharge just to smoke?

Bottom line is, if it's going to cost Amtrak more to furnish smoking cars than they'd get in extra revenue from smokers, it ain't gonna happen. PERIOD.
 
Drinking is a huge problem. I've never taken Amtrak, but on an NJ Transit train, there was a passenger who CLEARLY was holding a Budweiser can, there is a rule against that. Another 1 was pissing me off.

I believe drunks MUST be kept off all trains, it's for the safety of others. If that means someone has to stay in new york overnight over HIS decision that's fine.

The Rule on NJ Transit Trains

And I believe Amtrak has a rule about that to.

Right here
 
I'm going to have to weigh in on the side of a non-smoking train. This issue is a LOT bigger and a LOT more important than just smoking on a train. The number of people smoking is dropping (thankfully). More and more areas are being made non-smoking by law. And as a result, overall illness and death from smoke-related disease is also being reduced, and the cost to society as a whole of treating those smoking-related illnesses (and deaths) is going to continue to drop.

And there IS a genuine issue of increased maintenance and repair (not just cleaning) for equipment in a smoky environment. I used to repair ham radio equipment. The equipment from smokers failed ealier and more frequently, and the performance of it was even impaired from the film of brown goo that just being in the smoker's environment put into it. Just sitting in front of a smoker for hundreds of hours would change white equipment cases to dirty, sticky yellow-brown, and cleaning it required multiple spraybaths of solvent, and each time you would get yucky yellow-brown puddles of goo from it. If that's what the equipment got from what the smoker EXHALED, what on earth must be the condition of the smoker's lungs? This is a LOT bigger than just an issue of smokers who want to continue to smoke (or whose addiction has so far been stronger than their attempts to wean from it). Smoking kills. And secondhand smoke kills. And secondhand smoke inflicts illnesses on those who breath it. And it increases maintenance and repair costs to equipment (and goodness knows Amtrak doesn't need ANYTHING extra to pay for). I can't really drink, because it usually gives me a migraine. (So does secondhand smoke, one more reason I'm personally so strongly against smoking.) But somebody else drinking a beer or a glass of wine or whatever is not going to give me a migraine, and it is exceedingly unlikely to cause an asthmatic to have an attack like secondhand smoke will. I fully agree with the ever increasing sentiment that smoking, if it must be done at all, should only be indulged within the confines of an area where NOBODY else will be subjected to the secondhand smoke. And if you as a smoker have children in the house, SHAME ON YOU for smoking, because the secondhand smoke is going to visit injury and developmental delay upon your children and will make them more likely to smoke. And just the odor of it will permeate everything you own.

Society doesn't need to find better ways to accomodate smokers. It needs to find better ways to stop smoking. Yes, this is hard on smokers. Yes, it will be hard on the tobacco growers. It will also save a lot of lives AND a lot of money spent on medical care for the victims of smoke, both first and second-hand smoke, that all of us otherwise end up helping to pay for. SOMEBODY has to pay for the medical care that those sick smokers, or for the children with respiratory disorders caused by secondhand smoke, and if they don't have enough insurance, it is the rest of us that end up paying for it. From the smokers' viewpoint, I know this attitude sucks. But from a societal viewpoint, it's the only way to go and ultimately it will have to be. If there is any objective "benefit" from smoking, (unless you're a tobacco farmer) I haven't ever seen or heard it. I'm sorry for the inconvenience to smokers, but the overall cost is just too high, and that is precisely why the available venues for smokers continue to shrink. As a society, we don't need to look for ways to reverse that trend.
 
I agree completely with the above poster. I have no sympathy for smokers' complaints. Thankfully, within a few years, every state will follow California's lead. Even here in the Middle East, unbelievably, there are movements to ban smoking in public places. Costs are cut for ALL of us.

I agree with the original poster in that illegal consumption of booze ought to be better policed. Two wrongs dont make a right.

I know it's the habit is hard to kick, but my father did after 35 years of smoking.

I'm encouraging Amtrak--and anyone else who will listen--to totally ban smoking!
 
In my opinion, making a law against smoking would be unconstitutional, it would also be a devastating impact on our economy, our number one export right now is tobaco. But I do agree that it needs to stop on all passenger trains.

Plus our economy is at a big low right now, the economy dropped after Bush became president. Also smoking is big in Europe, and we should not let laws there stop us from exporting tobaco.

And the money that we get from exports of tobbaco and sales taxes from tobacco go back to us.
 
I see it this way plain and simple!

To the smoker(s), You lived just fine before you started smoking in the first place! So you can damn sure live for a few days while you take your train trip without a darned ciggie! If it will be too much of an issue, then find another form of transportation, ie "you own vehicle!"

And BTW.... I was a smoker at one time!
 
I don't see how banning smoking on Amtrak (or in other public places in the US) would affect tobacco exports. Now, banning smoking in public in Paris (for example), that would affect tobacco exports, and there's really nothing we could do about it.
 
I have sat back for a few responses to see what the general public here thinks.

I started smoking when I was 11...I know....eek!

People would tell me not to smoke and when I asked why the reply was always, "because it doesn't look nice for young ladies to smoke."

I was never told..."Because it is bad for your health...or...You will die younger...etc etc".

Back then our communities advertised to the younger crowds to encourage more young smokers.

Who allowed that to happen back then?

Our government.

Who is mandating laws now to enforce we can't smoke in certain places?

Our government.

Taxes from cigarettes are doing a lot of funding for many projects and maybe even perhaps AmTrak's government financial help...who knows...

I'm still a smoker...

I sleep between long smoking stops on AmTrak, as opposed to sneaking a puff in the bathrooms out of my respect for non-smokers.

My respect for thier rights.

I would hope that non-smokers would pay me the same respect, in some way:)

I would love to see cigarettes banned from the USA. If I had to buy them on street corners at 10.00 each I most certainly would have to quit.

But my goodness! That would devistate this country I think?

Anyways....just looking for a happy medium for all.

Happy Holidays to All!

Beverly
 
I believe that taxes from tobacco products are at least partially funding the huge awards given to victims and their families who die from smoking-related causes.
 
Making a law against smoking would NOT be unconstitutional. Nicotine is an incredibly addictive drug, and if the political backbone existed within the administration for the FDA to designate nicotine as a controlled substance, it could certainly make smoking, and any other personal consumption of tobacco (or any other substance containing nicotine where nicotine entered the body), illegal, or only available by prescription. Perhaps the tobacco industry could make cigarettes, etc., without nicotine (like decaf coffee is without caffeine) but if they did, people wouldn't get hooked on it because the physical dependence (i.e., "addiction") wouldn't happen without the nicotine. The tobacco lobby has so far managed to avoid that scenario, but it would not shock me to see it happen, and quite frankly I hope it does. As for tobacco exports, I see no reason to be proud of our country exporting prospective death and misery by way of tobacco products any more than, say, the government of Afghanistan is proud of the export of the products of some of their farms, the opium from opium poppies, just because it helps the foreign exchange budget.

Now, as for the "huge awards" to families of dead smokers, just ask any one of them whether they would rather have had their dead smoker still alive, healthy, and with them than the "huge award". The award doesn't go very far or help very much when you've watched your spouse, parent, good friend or child die an agonizing death by inches, from lung (or other) cancer because of smoking. The best man at my wedding, a long-time friend and a genuinely good man, died that way about 8 years ago, and no damage award could EVER possibly be big enough to make up for a death like that caused by the use of tobacco. His widow is a good friend of Wendy's and mine, and I will never forget Dale's death or the months of pure unadulterated hell he and his wife went through fighting that cancer. And his cancer was from secondhand smoke. He himself didn't even smoke But others in his work office did.

Every single person who smokes should have to sit and watch somebody like that die. Once you have, nobody can ever successfully argue to you that smoking is ok or acceptable.
 
Wow......... all this in an "Amtrak" discussion forum! Makes for good reading, though!

As for smoking on the train, I don't forsee designated smoking areas to ever return to the trains any time soon. However, as far as I am concerned I agree with the guest poster who mentions smokers were able to live in the days before they started smoking, then they can now for a few days! They may not like the effect of the drug nicotine has on them and the cravings which result, but none the less, they won't DIE because they can't have a smoke!

Personally, I saw no problems with the designated areas such as the "penalty boxes" on the single level equipment other than the majority of the smokers were a bit messy. But mainly because they brought their food, beverages, and alcohol which they purchased in the lounge car to the smoking room. Other than that, I see no real good reason to restict them from smoking in a designated area if it is available. This way all are (or should be) happy whether nonsmoker or smoker. Having the designated area did in my opinion keep those who wanted to step off the train at each stop way down to a minimum! OBS....
 
Like I said in my trip report, when the conductor allowed a stop in Pecos Tx JUST for smokers(no non-smokers allowed to get off the train) at least 75% of the passengers got out and smoked. I was truly amazed.

If all smokers found another means of transportation, there would be a financial impact on Amtrak stronger than cleaning one smoking car.
 
First off, the Sunset does not stop in Pecos!

You will never see smoking on board Amtrak trains that have restricted the practice restored. Non-smoking crew members will see to that.

The best policy that Amtrak could adopt would be smoke stops every two hours, maximum. OTP would not be that negatively impaired, and it would beneficially accommodate a substantial number of passengers. The interior walls of the cars would be cleaner, the train crews would have fewer confrontations with passengers sneaking smokes in the restrooms, and, in general, everyone would be much happier.

Now, this is the way to go!
 
There's a real downside for having smoke stops on long distance trains. One is timekeeping...it's not efficient for a conductor to partially empty and then reboard a train every two hours or so. Amtrak has a difficult time already keeping things on schedule. Secondly, I don't enjoy walking onto a platform and seeing hundreds of cigarette filters all over the ground where trains make their regular smoke stops. Third, I don't enjoy sitting in a seat next to a smoker having serious withdrawal. (I remember one in particular on the Coast Starlight that I thought I would have to physically restrain from opening the emergency window!) Fourth, I really don't like walking into a lavatory filled with smoke from someone who could not hold off until the next smoke stop.

Amtrak had the right idea when they equipped select Superliner coaches and select Amfleet lounges with a smokers' compartment. Unfortunately, the ventilation systems were not able to keep the smoke out of non-smoking areas, hence the complaints that Amtrak kept getting from non-smokers. Perhaps, just perhaps, it would be worthwhile to reintroduce the compartments, albeit with minor modifications. It's worth the extra money if it makes both sides happy, and if it means one less problem keeping trains on schedule.
 
As someone who just "discovered" Amtrak within the past few years I have to throw in my two cents worth. Besides a few New York to Washington trips many years ago for buisness I never thought of Amtrak as a viable transportation option. Nevertheless, I decided to give a New York to Chicago trip a try a few years ago. I had a sleeper and my first long distance trip was a huge success.

Why was it a success? Well it was comfortable. One of the main reasons it was comfortable was because I could smoke in the smoking area of the lounge car. Also, I found the smoking area to be one of the livliest areas of the train. The people were funny and really made the trip a fun experience.

After this experience Amtrak became a travel option. In the past few years I have done NY-Chi again, did NY-Seattle, NY-San Francisco, NY-Orlando (twice), Lorton to Sanford (Auto Train) and a NY-DC trip on the Acela. Amtrak had found a new enthusiastic customer.

Now this smoking ban. No more fun nights in the smoking area, watching people freak out because they cannot have a smoke (actually saw this once on a trip without a smoking car) and the fact that airline travel is not only faster but cheaper has caused Amtrak to lose a customer. Granted the lose of one casual rider may mean nothing in the big picture, but I actually feel sad about the whole thing. But Amtrak has lost someone who encouraged others to use Amtrak up until the ban.

The fondness I had for Amtrak was inspired in great measure by what I have watched all of you write about here. But some of the best memories I have were generated by what was clearly the rowdiest and most fun group on the train, those in the penalty box.

Unfortunately it is my turn to put Amtrak into the penalty box and head back to the unfriendly skies (for smokers of course) since Amtrak has chosen to treat me just like the airlines have because I am a smoker. :angry: But the trip is cheaper and quicker and now offer the same in terms of service for a smoker since smoking stops are usually four to five hours apart on Amtrak.

I paid big bucks on Amtrak--always in a sleeper- so if they are happy not taking my money and providing me with the excellent service they did in the past, then I must say Adios.
 
You are right. It was Del Rio not Pecos (see trip report Sunset Limited from Louisiana to California).

One stop every two hours would be generous. On our trip back from California we went 6-8 hours (or longer)without a smoke break. The conductor did not like smokers very much. In Los Angeles he announced " Our first smoke break will be Tucson Az so all of you smokers can just go to sleep." If I could have smoked a cigarette every 4-6 hours I would have been content.
 
Well-this pretty much answers my questions. I located this site in order to begin planning a Winter vacation to the Southwest from the Northwest. Apparently the only feasable routing would be a totally non-smoking train and it looks as if absolutely no accomadations are made for we who are still a large segment of the fare paying public, in spite of campaigns designed to curtail yet another free choice, there are a lot of us around.So---in short, I will not be vacationing with Amtrak and Amtrak has lost an estimated $1000.00
 

Latest posts

Back
Top