Obama, Pentagon Consider Banning Tobacco in US Military

[Hurlshort]

I can't believe you just compared drinking to smoking when talking about something that requires alertness.

 

Drunk driving is responsible for how many accidental driving deaths a year? (I have a coworker who lost two family members to a drunk driver)

 

Smoking has caused how many accidental driving deaths a year?

 

Gimme' a break.

 

That's funny because I once had a woman run into me while she was trying to light a cigarette. But I guess it isn't serious because I didn't die.

 

 

But that really isn't the point, if you have read my posts. The point is an officer in uniform is representing their country. Right now there is a culture of smoking within the military, and this is an attempt to change that culture.

[Morgoth]

Smoking shrinks your lungs, therefor decreases drastically the soldier's endurance during battles.

 

If they need a cheap stress-reliever, than they should take some porn with them and jerk off.

[GreasyDogMeat]

That's funny because I once had a woman run into me while she was trying to light a cigarette. But I guess it isn't serious because I didn't die.

 

 

But that really isn't the point, if you have read my posts. The point is an officer in uniform is representing their country. Right now there is a culture of smoking within the military, and this is an attempt to change that culture.

 

I'm glad it sounds like no one was seriously injured, but that could have been caused by any dozen other distractions (cell phone, kids acting up in the back seat etc.) and not the actual effect of the cigarette on the person's body.

 

As for 'culture change', what will be next? Like I pointed out earlier should they start banning cursing because it gives our soldiers a bad image? For that matter, is it really that soldier lighting up a cig in Iraq that gives a bad image? "I was really starting to like these Americans, but then I saw one SMOKING!"

Edited July 14, 2009 by GreasyDogMeat

[Meshugger]

Smoking shrinks your lungs, therefor decreases drastically the soldier's endurance during battles.

 

If they need a cheap stress-reliever, than they should take some porn with them and jerk off.

 

You haven't served in the military, have you?

[Morgoth]

Smoking shrinks your lungs, therefor decreases drastically the soldier's endurance during battles.

 

If they need a cheap stress-reliever, than they should take some porn with them and jerk off.

 

You haven't served in the military, have you?

Sure I did, but smoking was prohibited during duty.

 

What's your problem?

[213374U]

Smoking shrinks your lungs, therefor decreases drastically the soldier's endurance during battles.

HAHAHAHA

 

You must have been a great desk jockey.

[Walsingham]

I'd been meaning to comment on this, but had no time. In fact I actually meant to link to the article.

 

Short answer: it shouldn't be banned. ****ing get your heads out of your arses.

 

Long answer: There would be benefits to society and to the Army if it was banned. The soldiers would be fitter, and they wouldn't look like cancerific role models. However, and I really can't write this loudly enough: SOLDIERS ARE ALREADY DOING THEIR BIT FOR SOCIETY, SO SOCIETY SHOULD EASE THE **** OFF. You can encourage them not to smoke, just like you encourage them not to swear, have mental breakdowns, get drunk and start fights with students, but you absolutely cannot tell them to risk their lives and not give them the tiny self-determination of being allowed to smoke.

 

Seriously, anyone who think the armed forces have got nothing better to do than give up smoking should be immediately drafted into route patrols in Afghanistan.

[Morgoth]

Smoking shrinks your lungs, therefor decreases drastically the soldier's endurance during battles.

HAHAHAHA

 

You must have been a great desk jockey.

Actually, no. But care to explain why you find this fact so funny?

[Gorgon]

The army is all about rules and regulations so you could say it goes with the territory.

No. Discipline is about enforcing a code of conduct and ensuring the fighting ability of the force. If a rule cannot be reasonably ascribed to either it's arbitrary and, consequently, an abuse of power.

That's not the point, and I seriously doubt any army would conform to your high standards.

 

You need a bureaucracy to run any large government controlled operation, that means loads of rules that don't make a lot of apparent sense. This one does, it's intrusive, but it makes sense.

[Gorgon]

I don't understand the 'doing your bit for your country' thing at all, I never have. Unless your country happens to be doing the right thing at the particular moment, which is usually rare, but that's another discussion I suppose.

 

On balance banning soldiers from smoking is too meddlesome, but I don't feel strongly about it obviously.

[Meshugger]

Smoking shrinks your lungs, therefor decreases drastically the soldier's endurance during battles.

 

If they need a cheap stress-reliever, than they should take some porn with them and jerk off.

 

You haven't served in the military, have you?

Sure I did, but smoking was prohibited during duty.

 

What's your problem?

 

Something tells me that you aren't telling the whole story.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Meshugger

[213374U]

Actually, no. But care to explain why you find this fact so funny?

Because if you had actually been in anything remotely resembling a combat outfit, you'd know better than to go around pontificating with these "facts" of yours.

 

And considering that there are cases of world-class athletes who smoke, I have a hard time imagining you have a clue at all.

 

 

That's not the point, and I seriously doubt any army would conform to your high standards.

 

You need a bureaucracy to run any large government controlled operation, that means loads of rules that don't make a lot of apparent sense. This one does, it's intrusive, but it makes sense.

You are mixing things up, for a rather comical effect. Administrative regulations, of which militaries have a lot, have very little to do with restricting the personal freedoms of soldiers. And your average grunt doesn't bother with those if he can help it. Other than how and when to salute, what's the insignia for a Sgt. and, depending on their assignment, ROE and prisoner treatment stuff (there's always at least an NCO to remind them, anyway) "regulations" in the sense you are speaking are of very little concern to soldiers outside offices. They are not civil servants, trust me on that.

 

But yeah, I guess it makes sense. If you ignore all evidence to the contrary, that is.

Edited July 14, 2009 by 213374U

[Hurlshort]

As for 'culture change', what will be next? Like I pointed out earlier should they start banning cursing because it gives our soldiers a bad image? For that matter, is it really that soldier lighting up a cig in Iraq that gives a bad image? "I was really starting to like these Americans, but then I saw one SMOKING!"

 

Actually I just read that cursing is good for you and relieves pain.

 

There is no legitimate excuse for banning cursing, as it doesn't affect anyone's health. But if a couple GI's walk by a group of school children cussing and swearing, you can bet they will get their ass chewed out by superior officers. Image is a big part of the military.

[Pidesco]

Actually, no. But care to explain why you find this fact so funny?

Because if you had actually been in anything remotely resembling a combat outfit, you'd know better than to go around pontificating with these "facts" of yours.

 

And considering that there are cases of world-class athletes who smoke, I have a hard time imagining you have a clue at all.

 

 

What, dart throwers?

[213374U]

Actually, no. But care to explain why you find this fact so funny?

Because if you had actually been in anything remotely resembling a combat outfit, you'd know better than to go around pontificating with these "facts" of yours.

 

And considering that there are cases of world-class athletes who smoke, I have a hard time imagining you have a clue at all.

 

 

What, dart throwers?

Almost!

[Hurlshort]

Are we really trying to make the argument that smoking isn't bad for your health in numerous ways?

 

I know that almost everything is bad for you in some way, but lets not kid ourselves, cigarettes are the unhealthiest legal thing out there. You don't even have to be the one smoking for it to damage your body! Until cheeseburgers start causing artery blockages among spectators, I'd stop trying to justify the health merits of smoking.

[Humodour]

Are we really trying to make the argument that smoking isn't bad for your health in numerous ways?

 

I know that almost everything is bad for you in some way, but lets not kid ourselves, cigarettes are the unhealthiest legal thing out there. You don't even have to be the one smoking for it to damage your body! Until cheeseburgers start causing artery blockages among spectators, I'd stop trying to justify the health merits of smoking.

 

Yep. And as far as I'm aware the only major health detriment of cheese burgers is the potential for heart disease if you eat too many (i.e. get fat). But that's pretty trivial if you eat a balanced diet and keep an active lifestyle like, say, somebody in the military. Unfortunately, a balanced diet and an active lifestyle doesn't prevent cigarettes from doing their damage.

 

The "lots of things are dangerous so smoking should be allowed" argument is ridiculous and deceptive because it presumes all things are equally dangerous. No, some are just slightly risky (fast food), some are mildly dangerous in specific ways, and some are extremely dangerous in a host of ways (e.g. cigarettes).

 

Guard Dog also mentioned video games and swearing as things as bad as cigarettes (and hence some sort of reason cigarettes shouldn't be banned). I have absolutely no idea why. I've read countless studies showing computer games and swearing either improve cognitive functioning or improve mental health (heck, video games are USED to train soldiers) and they certainly aren't lethal to you as cigarettes are.

[~Di]

Are we really trying to make the argument that smoking isn't bad for your health in numerous ways?

 

Lots of things are bad for your health in numerous ways. Contact sports is the leading cause of permanent damage/injury to young people. Should we ban contact sports? Of course not. Lots of sports and career choices are bad for your health. One of the most unhealthy career choices possible is being a soldier in a war zone. These guys come back literally in pieces, mentally traumatized and physically destroyed. And the biggest thing the military has to concern itself with is the potential cost of smoking some 30 years down the line?

 

Again, nanny state, government interference in personal choices among its adult citizens. When the government uses its power to force its will on people by prohibiting what they can and cannot do with their own bodies, then we're going down a road that will inevitably lead to individuals having no choices at all, no choices of what they eat, what they drink, when they are allowed to treat a headache or a skin scrape, what sports activities can be indulged in legally (none that might cause injury that will cost the government money down the line, don'tcha know)... soon to be followed by where to live, where to work, how to worship... and the list goes on. Just because the government is currently banning something that you personally don't like and won't personally affect you doesn't mean that you should turn a blind eye to the obvious implications of that act. Soon enough it will ban something you do like, that does affect you. And don't even think about whining when that happens, because you didn't bother to stand up for others until they finally got to you.

 

Adults in a free society must have freedom of choice over their own lives and their own bodies. When that free choice ceases to exist, so does the free society.

 

I know that almost everything is bad for you in some way, but lets not kid ourselves, cigarettes are the unhealthiest legal thing out there...

 

Not true. Liquor is.

[Hurlshort]

Are we really trying to make the argument that smoking isn't bad for your health in numerous ways?

 

 

 

I know that almost everything is bad for you in some way, but lets not kid ourselves, cigarettes are the unhealthiest legal thing out there...

 

Not true. Liquor is.

 

That's arguable. There are many health benefits to having a glass of wine or a beer a few nights a week. One cigarette a night probably is going to be more positive than negative, but how many smokers limit themselves to one? It's a highly addictive substance, much more than alcohol.

 

But hey, I already went into the fact that, yes, everything can be unhealthy. You chose to cut that out when you replied for some odd reason.

 

Why are you so keen on justifying smoking here? It's a very unhealthy habit, that is not an opinion. Sure, argue that it is a personal freedom, I can understand that, but this health stuff just seems like living in denial.

 

My sister was a smoker for a couple years. She was trying to kick crystal meth, and she found that cigarettes were addictive enough to help her get over the drugs. So there is a positive use of cigarettes for you.

[Morgoth]

Actually, no. But care to explain why you find this fact so funny?

Because if you had actually been in anything remotely resembling a combat outfit, you'd know better than to go around pontificating with these "facts" of yours.

 

And considering that there are cases of world-class athletes who smoke, I have a hard time imagining you have a clue at all.

You never saw a smoker lung, huh? Small, black, snail-formed gooish something. Don't tell me smoking doesn't affect a soldiers's endurance, because it does. Of course, it always depends how much you smoke, but say you get 12 cigarettes a day, after 10-15 years, you're going to have a desk job, or as Pidesco said, you're going to throw darts.

 

See you on the battlefield running out of air, you heavy smokers!

[Humodour]

Are we really trying to make the argument that smoking isn't bad for your health in numerous ways?

 

Lots of things are bad for your health in numerous ways. Contact sports is the leading cause of permanent damage/injury to young people. Should we ban contact sports?

 

This isn't about banning smoking for everyone. It's about barring it in the military. It's not "nanny state intervention" because it directly costs the US government - the employer - billions of dollars each year, and those are billions of dollars which come from the tax dollars of US citizens. Frankly I guess I'd be OK with random n00b's idea of instead not giving government-funded health insurance to those who smoke but I think that's a bit harsh.

 

You're really trying to argue for something else (namely banning smoking for everyone) with almost that entire post, Di. Why do that?

 

And it's hilarious (because it's so ridiculous) that you think alcohol is more damaging to your body than smoking. I'm not really sure where to start on that one eh. Personal grudge or sincere belief?

 

One cigarette a night probably is going to be more positive than negative, but how many smokers limit themselves to one?

 

I don't think that is true. Every single exposure to smoke (whether from cigarettes or marijuana or what) impairs lung capacity a little bit more, and it's permanent and irreversible. It's called emphysema (a type of lung disease). I'm not sure about the extent and reversibility of the other health impacts of smoking (gum disease, cancer risk, cardiovascular disease, bone weakening, etc), but emphysema is a big enough one by itself that you really want to avoid it.

 

Can't say I stick to my own advice though since I smoke when I'm drunk.

[Oner]

You never saw a smoker lung, huh? Small, black, snail-formed gooish something.

Heh, a certain scene from Clerks comes to mind.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Oner

[Walsingham]

Not a single response to my enraged counterpoint? *sulks*

[Meshugger]

Not a single response to my enraged counterpoint? *sulks*

 

Because it makes sense and therefore, there is no counterargument.

[Meshugger]

Actually, no. But care to explain why you find this fact so funny?

Because if you had actually been in anything remotely resembling a combat outfit, you'd know better than to go around pontificating with these "facts" of yours.

 

And considering that there are cases of world-class athletes who smoke, I have a hard time imagining you have a clue at all.

You never saw a smoker lung, huh? Small, black, snail-formed gooish something. Don't tell me smoking doesn't affect a soldiers's endurance, because it does. Of course, it always depends how much you smoke, but say you get 12 cigarettes a day, after 10-15 years, you're going to have a desk job, or as Pidesco said, you're going to throw darts.

 

See you on the battlefield running out of air, you heavy smokers!

 

Are suggesting that non-smoking is a strategic advantage?