More non-smoking trains

Here's what I think this is really about: a backdoor attempt to justify Amtrak bashing. We read this kind of thing all the time: I call it "I-despise-Amtrak-because" syndrome. This being America, where it's important to have a reason for everything, there's always a "because."

And this post relates to smoking how??????????????

mattfels wrote:Here's what I think this is really about: a backdoor attempt to justify Amtrak bashing. We read this kind of thing all the time: I call it "I-despise-Amtrak-because" syndrome. This being America, where it's important to have a reason for everything, there's always a "because."

Exactly my point. I don't see this overblown rhetoric about the "right" to smoke as anything more than smokescreen.

Gotta say, though, I found ingenious the attempt to link air rage to the smoking ban.

On the previous page, Mr. Clubcar respectfully asked:

'Could we also include in your position Mr. Norman, the consumers of alcolholic beverages, something which I as an individual find equally offensive?"

To which I note, hopefully with respect, "Yes indeed".

Any tavern operator or other server is compelled to 'cut off' anyone who has 'had too much". "Dram-Shop' liability insurance coverage is expensive enough as is. This means that alcoholic consumption becomes a privilege and not a right outside of one's domicile.

The same applies to a package liquor retailer, if there is cause to believe a customer has had "too much' or will comit an unlawful act, i.e. transfer to a minor, with the product.

Once again, I see no rights outside the home with alcohol; only privileges.

GBN