Smoking On Board

[guest]

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]

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[pennyk]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.)

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

 

[ParrotRob]

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.

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.)

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

"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]

1334542517[/url]' post='361205']

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.

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

 

[Guest]

1334542517[/url]' post='361205']

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.

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.

 

[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]

1334545514[/url]' post='361220']

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.

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]

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.

Exactly. Quit smoking already.

 

[me_little_me]

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".