Obama, Pentagon Consider Banning Tobacco in US Military

[213374U]

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

No, it's a counter-argument actually, to the point that soldiers shouldn't smoke because it will cause them to perform worse. Nobody is arguing that tobacco is great for your health. But it's not like chewing cyanide either, as some are trying to make.

 

 

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.

Harsh, huh? I think it's a bit harsh that I have to pay taxes so folks get crap like artificial insemination for free. I also think it's harsh that people with a healthy lifestyle such as myself (don't drink or smoke, workout 4-5/w) have to finance a social security system whose main drain is from cardiovascular disease in turn derived from bad eating habits and sedentary life. The bottom line is that any system that allows people to weasel their way out of taking responsibility for their choices is going to result in unfairness. Having the state (read: everyone else) shoulder the burden of tobacco-related illness is just another example.

 

 

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.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? What's the age of that lung you're thinking? What's the average age for lung cancer onset? And what's the average age of foot soldiers in light infantry units?

 

The thing is, the kind of heavy physical duty required in combat units will burn out your knees, hips, back and most likely your will LONG before you start having any tobacco-related illness. That is why the argument that "soldiers will perform better in a smoke-free environment" is complete balls.

 

 

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

I don't play Counter-Strike.

[Gorgon]

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.

You are the one insisting that military rules have to do with maintaining discipline and that anything above that, specifically the smoking ban, constitutes misuse of power. I think they call that 'stating opinion as fact'. I basically agree with your opinion, but for purposes of definition, the right to smoke on the job is not guaranteed anywhere in the constitution.

 

I'm curious, whats your stand on the Weyco smoking ban. They are the ones who offer health insurance to their employees, don't they have the right to make sure they can have the best bargaining position with their insurance carriers.

[213374U]

I basically agree with your opinion, but for purposes of definition, the right to smoke on the job is not guaranteed anywhere in the constitution.

Neither is the right to chew gum, and a ban on that wouldn't make any less sense.

 

You are trying to get me to defend the spirit of military discipline rules - I can't, it's not a written thing. But that doesn't validate your argument that since militaries have a gazillon other apparently random regulations, this wouldn't be any different. You don't give up your civil rights when you make the pledge.

 

 

I'm curious, whats your stand on the Weyco smoking ban. They are the ones who offer health insurance to their employees, don't they have the right to make sure they can have the best bargaining position with their insurance carriers.

The "right", as written in the law, or the moral right?

 

I see that as a dangerous precedent. They could go around banning their employees from any number of things that could potentially result in "increased costs", such as sports, driving, tanning, etc.

[Moose]

Not so sure about the logistics in withdrawing medical care to those that smoke, as they can always deny it.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Moose

[Walsingham]

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

 

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

 

So it would seem.

[taks]

as they can always deny it.

um, it is quite easy and inexpensive to test for. this is already done for life insurance.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

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.

 

I respect your observation about it being for another time. But I suggest that the reason why it is for another time is pertinent. It doesn't matter whether the country is having soldiers do pushups or digging ditches or stab people. The point is that they're doing what their country asks. And they're doing a ****load of it.

 

"Thanks a lot for having to live away from your friends and family for months at a time. Giving up your time, your sweat, and possibly a few limbs. Now let's see you give up smoking! DANCE! MONKEY! DANCE!"

 

I'd like to see politicians forced to give up a few of the things they demand we give up. In fact, sod it. I'd like to see them have to give up a few things we don't. Politicians should be forced to live in barracks, away from loved ones for months at a time. They should only be allowed one shoe at a time, and live on a diet of nothing but garden peas.

[Rosbjerg]

I'd like to see politicians forced to give up a few of the things they demand we give up. In fact, sod it. I'd like to see them have to give up a few things we don't. Politicians should be forced to live in barracks, away from loved ones for months at a time. They should only be allowed one shoe at a time, and live on a diet of nothing but garden peas.

 

I would very much like to see that as well.. It would undoubtly improve the laws they make!

[Walsingham]

It would make us all feel better.

 

Dammit, let's take things further. If bankers are the high priests of capitalism, let's make them be a bit more priestly. No wives, no ...um... no hot showers, no clothes but sack-cloth.

 

wait, that would never work, because to implement it we'd need soldiers, and all our soldiers will tell us to get stuffed for being such out of touch wankers.

[taks]

If bankers are the high priests of capitalism

they'd like you to think they are, but they aren't. they are the high priestesses of government subsidy, blowing their way to regulations that make them (and the government) richer and the rest of us poorer.

 

btw, you wouldn't have to take away a soldier's benefits to make him quit smoking. simply pay them a stipend and let them get their own insurance (which would eliminate much of the military "medical care" expense, too). next, let insurance companies compete, and the result is that those who partake in risky behavior, the military included, will pay a higher price.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

I took some trouble to hunt up illustrative quotes last night before bed. Both come from John Ellis' indispensable book The Sharp End of War. It's been recently re-released and I urge you all to read it.

 

No rewards of peace could have induced men to this patience, to this readiness for incessant effort, to labour until they dropped, to live in mud, and often to sleep in it, to feed upon biscuit and bully beef and mugs of 'char'... Above all to die, to crawl over wire and mines to drag back some person previously unknown, or to share a last cigarette.

(R.W. Thompson, p346)

 

At Battalion H.Q. they heard that a platoon was out of cigarettes. All there gave something to a pool and two men set off to take the cigarettes back to the platoon - and in broad daylight along a route that was dangerous... these two men had no thought of their own skins - they were just impelleed by the spirit that pervaded the whole battalion.

(Unknown officer, 1st Royal Scots, p348)

 

I should like to contrast the spirit of these remarks unfavourably with the remarks with the attitudes so far displayed in this debate. The latter in particular shows an entirely contrary spirit. The officers of the battalion did not risk their lives to send forward an instructive pamphlet on the dangers of smoking. They accepted there was a need and provided for it without censorship.

[Humodour]

I took some trouble to hunt up illustrative quotes last night before bed. Both come from John Ellis' indispensable book The Sharp End of War. It's been recently re-released and I urge you all to read it.

 

No rewards of peace could have induced men to this patience, to this readiness for incessant effort, to labour until they dropped, to live in mud, and often to sleep in it, to feed upon biscuit and bully beef and mugs of 'char'... Above all to die, to crawl over wire and mines to drag back some person previously unknown, or to share a last cigarette.

(R.W. Thompson, p346)

 

At Battalion H.Q. they heard that a platoon was out of cigarettes. All there gave something to a pool and two men set off to take the cigarettes back to the platoon - and in broad daylight along a route that was dangerous... these two men had no thought of their own skins - they were just impelleed by the spirit that pervaded the whole battalion.

(Unknown officer, 1st Royal Scots, p348)

 

I should like to contrast the spirit of these remarks unfavourably with the remarks with the attitudes so far displayed in this debate. The latter in particular shows an entirely contrary spirit. The officers of the battalion did not risk their lives to send forward an instructive pamphlet on the dangers of smoking. They accepted there was a need and provided for it without censorship.

 

Those remarks have nothing to do with any special property of value of cigarettes and everything to do with mateship in battle, Wals.

[Walsingham]

That's not unfair as a comeback Krez. I agree it's about a healthy dose of comradeship. However, whatever form it takes, cigarettes are what the poor sods want. If they wanted kangaroo porn I'd be up for shipping some out there. My point is quite simply that while we expect serving soldiers to give up almost everything that might be regarded as normal in life do we really HAVE to ****ing lay extra sacrifices on them? It's not an essential sacrifice.

 

As an aside, winning hearts and minds, our lads are going to be a bit c***ed if they try to make friends with arab/Afghan males without cigarettes.

[alanschu]

I see that as a dangerous precedent. They could go around banning their employees from any number of things that could potentially result in "increased costs", such as sports, driving, tanning, etc.

 

 

If they feel that that is a concern to them, why shouldn't they?

 

I find it odd that you want people to have their freedoms, yet don't seem to echo that sentiment when it comes to people having the freedom to run their businesses the way that they want to.

 

 

If an employer doesn't want their employees to smoke, what's the issue?

[Gfted1]

If an employer doesn't want their employees to smoke, what's the issue?

 

 

Because the "employer" is also the "government".

[Hurlshort]

If an employer doesn't want their employees to smoke, what's the issue?

 

 

Because the "employer" is also the "government".

 

They were actually talking about a company that enacted a non-smoking policy, I believe. But I fail to see what your point is with that. The "government" is still an employer.

[alanschu]

If an employer doesn't want their employees to smoke, what's the issue?

 

 

Because the "employer" is also the "government".

 

 

No, the company is Weyco.

[taks]

i've interviewed with companies that did not allow smoking for benefit reasons, i.e., they did not want to pay higher premiums for smokers (if you can guarantee that all your employees are smoke free, i guess there is some discount). i don't have a problem with that... the affairs of private companies are none of my business. the affairs of the US government agencies, however, are my business (as they are for any other US citizen).

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

Yes, and the American taxpayers are the ones paying for the health care, so if something can be done to cut down on those costs, I'm supportive of it.

[Humodour]

If an employer doesn't want their employees to smoke, what's the issue?

 

 

Because the "employer" is also the "government".

 

And?

[alanschu]

i've interviewed with companies that did not allow smoking for benefit reasons, i.e., they did not want to pay higher premiums for smokers (if you can guarantee that all your employees are smoke free, i guess there is some discount). i don't have a problem with that... the affairs of private companies are none of my business. the affairs of the US government agencies, however, are my business (as they are for any other US citizen).

 

taks

 

 

I'm not sure how the government is different than another employer in this sense though. I imagine the goal of this would be to save on your tax paying money.

[taks]

I'm not sure how the government is different than another employer in this sense though.

because the people own the government, or rather, the government works for the people, not the other way around.

 

taks

[taks]

I imagine the goal of this would be to save on your tax paying money.

i already offered a very simple solution to this, btw.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

Yes, and the American taxpayers are the ones paying for the health care, so if something can be done to cut down on those costs, I'm supportive of it.

 

You know i don't disrespect you, but this statement is wrong in every way. Worse, it is an example of the thinking which wrecks so many government activities. The purpose of government activity is to be effective and efficient. Not simply cheap. But as Enoch will probably affirm, cuts and restrictions are always employed in such ways as to make the activity ineffective. If the system ceases to do its job then a single penny is a waste of money. This is never more apparent than in the Armed Forces.

 

What we are talking about here is a move to cut a few million off the whole budget, but which will stress the men and women doing a job which is already incredibly stressful and depressing and disturbing. You are impairing effectiveness when that effectiveness is unbelievably complex and delicate. And it's not just about causing the stresss, it's about sending the message that you are willing to cause the stress.

[213374U]

I see that as a dangerous precedent. They could go around banning their employees from any number of things that could potentially result in "increased costs", such as sports, driving, tanning, etc.

 

 

If they feel that that is a concern to them, why shouldn't they?

 

I find it odd that you want people to have their freedoms, yet don't seem to echo that sentiment when it comes to people having the freedom to run their businesses the way that they want to.

It's just that individual civil rights are assumed to be above business freedoms. That's why we have stuff like minimum wages, for instance.

 

The problem is that you have businesses arbitrarily dictating what their employess can and cannot do outside the job. You have, in effect, the business sector enforcing policy rules on the people, that extend past business practices into the private scope. Even elected officials would already have a hard time justifying measures to control what people do with their private lives so long as it's not a crime. The heads of private enterprises are not elected officials. Parallel legislation is bad, m'kay.

 

 

If an employer doesn't want their employees to smoke, what's the issue?

The issue is not smoking specifically, but activity "X". Let's say, gaming. Or writing on message boards. Or full contact sports. Or any number of activities that may indirectly result in lost revenues due to decreased productivity, increased health costs, or whatever. Ownership of human beings is no longer to be practiced openly. Edited July 17, 2009 by 213374U