The Pentagon wants to take Cigarettes and Tobacco away from our troops.

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Robor
I don't smoke and I *HATE* smoking and I think this is a stupid idea.

A few grenades into your position because the enemy can smell your buddies cigarettes might change your thinking.

Not to mention that they really glow on thermals/nvgs...

The military is not like the rest of the country, they already have many more restrictions on their behavior.

And the work day is 24 hours, 365.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

This brings to mind two solders in a foxhole. War is raging around them. A soldier in a nearby foxhole pokes his head up and a bullet pierces his helmet. Then a mortar lands nearby. One soldier turns to the other and says:

Soldier 1: "You gotta stop smokin, those things 'll kill ya."

Soldier 2: "Yeah."

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Last time I was in the army was like 20+ years ago. Toward the end or shortly after I got out, you had to put in your enlistment contract that you did not smoke. i.e. no new smokers. So I would say that by now at least 3/4th of the personnel dont smoke unless they have been in the Army for say 20+ years. I cant remember exactly when they started doing that.

The obvious point is that soldiers are not given private quarters and they at least deserve a room not polluted with cigarrette smoke. At this point in time I think that only a complete idiot is smoking cigarrettes. I am sorry but if you smoke cigarettes you lack some intelligence at some level. Face it, You can't fix stupid. I have no pity on anyone that smokes cigarrettes. It is a nasty and disgusting habit that will turn your entire house into a giant dingy yucky yellow stain.

Yuck, Yuck, Yuck!

Yellow teeth, yellow walls, yellow drapes.

1. I'm Army.

2. I've smoked for 18 years.

3. I'm balls deep in the middle of a combat zone RIGHT NOW.

4. Soldiers are already not allowed to smoke in their rooms, or inside any building for that matter -- EVEN IN IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN.

5. I don't smoke in my own house at home -- I step outside, so my beautiful house is smoke-free.

6. The U.S. Army already bans unmarried sex and alcohol in the war zones. We're left with excercise, masturbation, and smoking/dipping to relieve stress.

7. In a war zone, the percentage of smokers and those who dip/chew rises dramatically. Hell, even most of the officers in Iraq/Afghanistan smoke or dip, but they won't do so at home.

8. My teeth are VERY white, I can still run 10 miles faster than most, with a full rucksack, and cigarettes have NEVER affected my ability to accomplish any mission. There are already missions -- at night, in particular -- when we can't smoke for hours or days at a time. We can already cope with that. However, that cigarette we get to smoke after we finally RTB is like a 5-minute orgasm.

9. If I couldn't have my cigarettes here, there would be hell to pay. I'd learn to cope with it in the interim -- as any decent soldier would -- but, it would definately lower my morale and willingness to re-enlist.

So... go ahead... come take my cigarettes from me you holier-than-thou prick.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Don't take them away, but fuck-damn, stop giving them out like candy. "Yeaaah, thanks soldiers, now have some cancer sticks on the house! GET HOOKED!"

Where are these free cigarettes -- "like candy" -- that you speak of? I'd like some...

Oh, perhaps you're speaking of the old C-rations that used to come with Lucky Strike cigarettes... circa 1969?!

We pay for our cigarettes. The only difference is that we pay the duty-free price -- being abroad, and all -- instead of the over-taxed bullshit price Obama now makes people pay in the States.

Are there any more of my personal choices that you feel like regulating? Let's hear 'em!

 

[HomerJS]

Troops should be allowed to keep their cigarettes and Playboy

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
Troops should be allowed to keep their cigarettes and Playboy

that would be favoritism to one vendor... they should get the gov't issued pictures of ms. obamas, bare, taught arms every month... that should suffice to quell their carnal urges...

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
We pay for our cigarettes. The only difference is that we pay the duty-free price -- being abroad, and all -- instead of the over-taxed bullshit price Obama now makes people pay in the States.

The executive doesn't control tax levels on cigarettes. The executive doesn't control how much states add of their own taxes to cigarette prices. Try directing your taxing anger and the real culprits.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
We pay for our cigarettes. The only difference is that we pay the duty-free price -- being abroad, and all -- instead of the over-taxed bullshit price Obama now makes people pay in the States.

The executive doesn't control tax levels on cigarettes. The executive doesn't control how much states add of their own taxes to cigarette prices. Try directing your taxing anger and the real culprits.

he could influence/veto...

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You're government property, they can do as they wish. You can be be charged either under Art 92 (disobeying a lawful order or regulation) or 115 (malingering) for getting a sunburn bad enough to prohibit you from doing your job.
Fuck it, you signed up, signed over your future to the govt as a piece of their property for a period of time. They own you.

 

[Dari]

Does it really matter? When you're in the military, you're owned. Do as you're told.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Note to young people who don't want to get drafted - take up smoking!

But seriously, this will have only one effect, lower morale. Not a good idea, nothing good can come from it.

Plenty of good will come of it.

1. Soldiers won't be hooked on cigarettes, meaning they will be healthier in the long run.

2. Soldiers will have healthier lungs in the field meaning they can run further and faster, carry more, and be more effective overall - meaning fewer casualties.

3. Soldiers won't be wasting their paychecks on ciggies.

 

[skyking]

Bad implementation of a good intention.
I think the military should strive to make it easier to quit, provide the materials needed etc.
Strive to change the culture a little at a time. It won't be easy but most worthwhile things are not easy.

 

[Cogman]

If the employer says no smoking on the job, then no smoking on the job. I think the government has the right to demand healthy life-styles and standards from their troops. If you don't like that, then don't sign you life away in a working contract.

I do NOT believe the government has the right to demand that everyone quits smoking, in fact, past government employees, I don't think they have the right to demand any sort of living standard from any US citizen. But I do believe that employment agencies have a right to demand that their employees live by certain standards when on the clock (and even to some effect off the clock)

 

[cwjerome]

I lean personal freedom in most issues and I would like to have more information that shows tobacco use has a more than negligible effect on the Army mission. I do believe a ban would have plenty of side effects that could possibly cause more problems than it fixes.

One thing that bothers me in this thread is the attitude that a person in the armed services is a piece of owned property who should simply do what they're told. What the hell kind of attitude is that? Just because a person joins the military they should stop being human and become robotic drones to be used and controlled in however manner desired? Not only is it wrong, but it's stupid and dangerous.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: spidey07
Note to young people who don't want to get drafted - take up smoking!

But seriously, this will have only one effect, lower morale. Not a good idea, nothing good can come from it.

Plenty of good will come of it.

1. Soldiers won't be hooked on cigarettes, meaning they will be healthier in the long run.

2. Soldiers will have healthier lungs in the field meaning they can run further and faster, carry more, and be more effective overall - meaning fewer casualties.

3. Soldiers won't be wasting their paychecks on ciggies.

Bolded has no basis in fact, you can't extrapolate that. One could easily argue that without the stress relief factor of cigs for dealing with combat stress, you could end up with a less effective force due to more PTSD, psychological issues thus lowering overall readiness.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is a simple binary choice.

Is the government to be run efficiently against the people, or is the government to be run inefficiently for the people? Freedom is inefficient.

 

[Liet]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: piasabird
Last time I was in the army was like 20+ years ago. Toward the end or shortly after I got out, you had to put in your enlistment contract that you did not smoke. i.e. no new smokers. So I would say that by now at least 3/4th of the personnel dont smoke unless they have been in the Army for say 20+ years. I cant remember exactly when they started doing that.

The obvious point is that soldiers are not given private quarters and they at least deserve a room not polluted with cigarrette smoke. At this point in time I think that only a complete idiot is smoking cigarrettes. I am sorry but if you smoke cigarettes you lack some intelligence at some level. Face it, You can't fix stupid. I have no pity on anyone that smokes cigarrettes. It is a nasty and disgusting habit that will turn your entire house into a giant dingy yucky yellow stain.

Yuck, Yuck, Yuck!

Yellow teeth, yellow walls, yellow drapes.

1. I'm Army.

2. I've smoked for 18 years.

3. I'm balls deep in the middle of a combat zone RIGHT NOW.

4. Soldiers are already not allowed to smoke in their rooms, or inside any building for that matter -- EVEN IN IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN.

5. I don't smoke in my own house at home -- I step outside, so my beautiful house is smoke-free.

6. The U.S. Army already bans unmarried sex and alcohol in the war zones. We're left with excercise, masturbation, and smoking/dipping to relieve stress.

7. In a war zone, the percentage of smokers and those who dip/chew rises dramatically. Hell, even most of the officers in Iraq/Afghanistan smoke or dip, but they won't do so at home.

8. My teeth are VERY white, I can still run 10 miles faster than most, with a full rucksack, and cigarettes have NEVER affected my ability to accomplish any mission. There are already missions -- at night, in particular -- when we can't smoke for hours or days at a time. We can already cope with that. However, that cigarette we get to smoke after we finally RTB is like a 5-minute organsm.

9. If I couldn't have my cigarettes here, there would be hell to pay. I'd learn to cope with it in the interim -- as any decent soldier would -- but, it would definately lower my morale and willingness to re-enlist.

So... go ahead... come take my cigarettes from me you holier-than-thou prick.

PREACH IT BROTHA! There's nothing worse than people who want to pretend that your business is actually their own.

This Army smoking ban concept would be laughable if it weren't downright sad and insulting. The one good thing to come out of this thread is that I can add some names to my "People Who Should Not Be Entrusted With Responsibility Because They Are Incompetent And Have No Grasp Of Basic Ethics" list.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Isn't the whole point of this discussion to decide IF it should be implemented? Clearly its not OK for the military to say that all troops should be forced to take steroids.. so there ARE lines.. We are discussing if this is a good idea or not.. it has nothing to do with if the military has the RIGHT to do it..

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Liet

This Army smoking ban concept would be laughable if it weren't downright sad and insulting. The one good thing to come out of this thread is that I can add some names to my "People Who Should Not Be Entrusted With Responsibility Because They Are Incompetent And Have No Grasp Of Basic Ethics" list.

Your post would be laughable if it weren't downright lame and pathetic. Or didn't you bother to read the article stating that the report recommended that the ban should be implimented over a five to ten year period? :Q

No one is talking about an immediate, complete ban. Over time, a competent program to reduce the number of tobacco addicts in the military would save lives and money. But maybe that doesn't fit your philosophy that you have a "right" to be destructive to yourself and everyone else around you, regardless of the cost in lives and money. :roll:

The one good thing to come out of this thread is that I can add your name to my "People Who Should Not Be Entrusted With Responsibility Because They Are Incompetent And Have No Grasp Of Basic Reality" list. :thumbsdown:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
This is a simple binary choice.

Is the government to be run efficiently against the people, or is the government to be run inefficiently for the people? Freedom is inefficient.

scary but true.



NO they should not be taken from them

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Harvey


No one is talking about an immediate, complete ban. Over time, a competent program to reduce the number of tobacco addicts in the military would save lives and money. But maybe that doesn't fit your philosophy that you have a "right" to be destructive to yourself and everyone else around you, regardless of the cost in lives and money. :roll:

I take it you are not for the legalization of other recreational drugs, since we dont have a "right" to be self-destructive?


I take it you speak out against obese people eating at restaurants because they don't have the "right" to be self-destructive?


I take it you campaign against the young from having intercourse, because a baby or STD can be one of the most destructive things in your life?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
We pay for our cigarettes. The only difference is that we pay the duty-free price -- being abroad, and all -- instead of the over-taxed bullshit price Obama now makes people pay in the States.

The executive doesn't control tax levels on cigarettes. The executive doesn't control how much states add of their own taxes to cigarette prices. Try directing your taxing anger and the real culprits.

Epic Fail.

Smokers feeling abused as federal tax hike hits
1 April 2009

The cigarette excise tax that tobacco companies must pay the federal government rose Wednesday by 61.6 cents per pack, or $6.16 per carton. The [Federal] tax now comes to about $10.10 per carton, or $1.01 per pack.

Federal taxes also are going up Wednesday on other tobacco products, including cigars. Federal per-cigar taxes, which vary based on weight and price, used to be capped at 4.9 cents but now are capped at 40.26 cents.

The tobacco tax hikes, which President Obama signed into law in February, will be used to finance an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP

Try to keep up. "Real culprits" indeed...

 

[Fear No Evil]

I'm glad at least we have the economy, social security, healthcare, the illegal wars, Gitmo, terrorism, our crumbling infrastructure, high energy costs, etc.. taken care of and we can start dedicating our legislative resources on this important issue.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Harvey


No one is talking about an immediate, complete ban. Over time, a competent program to reduce the number of tobacco addicts in the military would save lives and money. But maybe that doesn't fit your philosophy that you have a "right" to be destructive to yourself and everyone else around you, regardless of the cost in lives and money. :roll:

I take it you are not for the legalization of other recreational drugs, since we dont have a "right" to be self-destructive?


I take it you speak out against obese people eating at restaurants because they don't have the "right" to be self-destructive?


I take it you campaign against the young from having intercourse, because a baby or STD can be one of the most destructive things in your life?

I take it you don't know jack, especially about the differences between tobacco use and any of the other situations you noted and my opinions about them, but if it really makes a difference to you...

1. I have mixed feelings about legalizing recreational drugs. I think pot is relatively harmless, but, like alcohol, it can be abused to the point of being a destructive crutch for some people. OTOH, having been a professional musician, I've known hard core crack, smack and speed and junkies, including friends who have died from using them. Those drugs are highly addictive and deadly, and I favor programs to help those addicted to them and other addictive substances to regain control of their own lives.

Tobacco is as addictive as crack and smack. The difference is, unfortunately, it's legal. Even worse, the pimps who sell their shit market it to kids. I'm old enough that, when I was a kid, there were no warning labels on the packs.

I'm also old enough to remember seeing the tobacco execs raise their hands and swear to Congress that they did not believe tobacco was addictive or carcinogenic and to know THEY knew it was since at least the 1950's. I believe every tobacco exec since then should be tried and convicted for murder and crimes against humanity, but that's NOT the subject of this discussion.

The other aspect of tobacco use is that second hand smoke harms and kills those around smokers. A well designed program to remove smoking from the military would reduce the costs of illness, pain and suffering among non-smoking troops and their families as well as smokers which would costs and improve the efficiency of our military organizations.

Don't like it? Tough shit! It's the military, not civilian life. They have a mission critical to, and paid for, by our society. If those in charge of running that show believe it is best to remove tobacco from our military organizations, I'm not going to complain.

2. My late business partner, mentor and co-inventor weighed in at over 300 lbs. He was a bright, multi-talented physicist, electronic designer, bass player and all around sweetheart of a guy. He died of a kind of heart infection that only affects those with compromised cardio-vascular systems. His was brought on by the combination of weigh related diabetes and heart problems.

Nothing any of his friends said to him was enough to get him to be serious about losing the weight, but nothing he did or failed to do caused others around him to become overweight or to suffer any afflictions caused by proximity to his own self-destructive behavior.

And he isn't the only one I know who has suffered from being overweight, but it is an individual's problem to deal with it. That doesn't stop me, and his wife and the rest of his friends from missing him still to this day.

3. What do you mean by "the young?" If you mean sexual activity between pre-teens and early teens, I believe there should be legal restrictions on sexual activity, just as there are regarding other activities, among very young, pre to barely pubescent children who are not mature enough to make such decisions regarding their own safety.

Biology and puberty being what they are, there's no way to outlaw human sexual activity. I believe maturing teens need to be informed and taught about sex as early as practical. I believe the first responsiblity for doing so should be with parents. Since far too many adults are too hung up and/or stupid about it to take that responsiblity seriously, it should be taught in our schools.

< sarcasm >

Maybe we should just outlaw sexual activity among teens whose moms can see Russia from their doorstep... and their idiot parents. :laugh:

< /sarcasm >

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Isn't the whole point of this discussion to decide IF it should be implemented? Clearly its not OK for the military to say that all troops should be forced to take steroids.. so there ARE lines.. We are discussing if this is a good idea or not.. it has nothing to do with if the military has the RIGHT to do it..

actually, i think anyone in public service, and anyone using public money for their healthcare, should not smoke as a condition of employment and/or handout... since the reason for this whole issue is $$$ based, no one on the public teet ought to smoke... would save us billions in taxes... bo and the dems ought to bring this up as a way to help fund uhc...