Sorry for your loss of a friend
You implied that we do not have the right to be self-destructive if it costs society money. Do we get to apply this standard everywhere, or only where you see fit?
Sorry for your loss of a friend
You implied that we do not have the right to be self-destructive if it costs society money. Do we get to apply this standard everywhere, or only where you see fit?
Then we should perhaps just ban smoking ENTIRELY then? If its saving that much money we don't need the tax revenue it generates?
And, as OCGuy said, should we extend this to other destructive activities such as junk food? No Coca Cola for the troops? No KFC?
Originally posted by: OCguy
Sorry for your loss of a friend, but you didnt answer the question. This country's diet and lack of exercise is the most self-destructive thing we have going for us right now. Are you for outlawing food with over X amount of calories, or X amount of fat, and limiting how big your servings can be?
You implied that we do not have the right to be self-destructive if it costs society money. Do we get to apply this standard everywhere, or only where you see fit?
No, I didn't imply any such thing. Referring to my previous post, I'll try to simplify it for you.
1. I have mixed feelings about legalizing recreational drugs. I don't agree that all "recreational drugs" can be classified as being equal, either with respect to the harm they can cause or to their impact on others around the users. There's a reason why prescription meds require a prescription, which implies competent professional supervision. Pot is relatively harmless. Smack, coke and speed are not, and the best way to deal with the problems they cause is not the same.
I advocate seeking and implimenting intelligent, competent solutions for the various problems. That is not what is happening, now. Criminal prosecution of users is useless. The same is not true for major manufacturers and distributors of hard drugs.
Tobacco is as at least as addictive and destructive as smack, coke and speed, and it's far more harmful to others who share the same environment with smokers. I see tobacco companies as similar to who make and distribute those other drugs. I see tobacco addicts and others who are harmed by proximity to tobacco smoke as their victims.
2. Obesity and juvenile sexual activities are physical, emotional and social problems that can't be addressed by criminal legislation. That doesn't mean they aren't problems or that they should be ignored. It just means the solutions for the various problems they raise is different from effective ways to address these very diffefrent problems.
3. The military is unique in many ways. They are charged with our national defense, and those who serve do so under a very different standard of command and control than the civilian population.
No one, including those who did the study and wrote the report, advocated forcing everyone in the military to quit cold turkey. They advocate a five to ten year program to make the services tobacco free. All that would accomplish would be to save lives, save money and raise the standard of health and quality of life for the entire military and everyone around those who serve.
Those are the reasons they should do it. The reason they can do it more effectively than it can be done in the civilian population is because it is a command controlled. Where's the down side?
The wars are not illegal, please get some facts before posting. Thanks!
Well, I do think the chow halls over there are too nice on bases. You can drink as many sodas as you want, eat as much food, and eat as much dessert. Sure, it sucks being over there so its a consolation of sorts to be able to eat nice food, when on a base. Which we were hardly ever at. Its bad when a lot of people go over there, and get fat. Its mostly the poges, and mostly the Army from what Ive seen. No offense to any Army personnel. There actually was a KFC on an Army base we were at, that we werent supposed to be at.. but thats another story. Even a "mall". I was amazed.
A pic of one of my Marines before a 2 months field op. No resupplies, no PX, no nothing. He took such great care getting this ready. Used a whole pelican case for it.
http://i29.tinypic.com/2ykhs37.jpg
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
You know, Harvey, there are "tobacco companies" who are not Marlboro. They don't advertise like Marlboro, they don't "push" their product on people, they offer additive-free tobacco, etc.
And I mention this because policies that you support, like the recent FDA take-over, actually hurt those companies I mention, and thus, help companies like Marlboro. If for only one reason, it is because Marlboro can easily afford the FDA regulations, while the smaller companies simply cannot. They are lead down a path of going out of business, while the companies you and many others hate, gain even more market share and grow stronger. Companies like Marlboro get rewarded for irresponsible behavior, and those who played a fairer game lose.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Where's the down side?
The downside is there's no data on the outcome of such a policy. These guys aren't civilians, they are soldiers. You may think you are doing these guys a favor but you are also effectively taking away one of their few joys/stress relieving activity.
As another poster said,
It's obviously a good policy for us normal folks but it's really not so obvious for them.
Originally posted by: Dragula22
Originally posted by: Harvey
Where's the down side?
The downside is there's no data on the outcome of such a policy. These guys aren't civilians, they are soldiers. You may think you are doing these guys a favor but you are also effectively taking away one of their few joys/stress relieving activity.
Sorry, but that's bull. We have decades of data on the outcome of continued tobacco use. Again, the recommendation is that the ban should be implemented over a five to ten year period. That pretty much covers the tour of duty of most of those in the military. New recruits will know what's required, and those who stay will have plenty of warning about what's coming and hopefully, they will have plenty of qualified help to kick their habit.
It's obviously a good policy for us normal folks but it's really not so obvious for them.[/quote]
It's quite the opposite. In civilian society, we can mandate no smoking in public areas, and we can assign liability to smokers for those they harm, other than themselves, but it would be far too intrusive and impractical, if not impossible, to mandate that civilian tobacco junkies must quit their addictions, no matter how self-destructive it is.
Here's the bottom line about people saying how much of a burden smokers are on the health care system.
Smokers have shorter life expectancy rates due to all the diseases that smoking causes. So if smoking were banned outright, the medical costs for these horrible diseases would drop in the short run.
However, no smoking means a much longer life expectancy, people would live longer, and everyone gets sick, so there would be longer total health care costs, as well as an increased burden on the pension systems in this country. So in the short run, banning smoking saves money on health care, but in the long run, it hurts because non smokers live longer and require care and money all of those years.
Add into that the fact that there is no longer 34 billion dollars from cigarette tax revenue (2007) numbers as well as major tobacco firms downsizing or going out of business.
People need to get their facts from something other than truth commercials.
Smokers have shorter life expectancy rates due to all the diseases that smoking causes. So if smoking were banned outright, the medical costs for these horrible diseases would drop in the short run.
However, no smoking means a much longer life expectancy, people would live longer, and everyone gets sick, so there would be longer total health care costs, as well as an increased burden on the pension systems in this country. So in the short run, banning smoking saves money on health care, but in the long run, it hurts because non smokers live longer and require care and money all of those years.
Add into that the fact that there is no longer 34 billion dollars from cigarette tax revenue (2007) numbers as well as major tobacco firms downsizing or going out of business.
People need to get their facts from something other than truth commercials.
This is about smokers in the military where the short term advantage is maximizing the number of healthy, able bodied troops available to do their jobs, which happens to include physically fighting to defend the nation in times of crisis when called, on demand.
I'd gladly pay any added long term medical costs for those who are heroic enough to server in our armed forces. They'll have earned it, and if they're needed to defeat an enemy, at least, we'll still have a nation. Without the short term advantage of a healthier military, there could well be no long term. :shocked:
I'll gladly give up that revenue if it buys us a tobacco free nation. That will take decades, but there's NO ethical justification in promoting behavior that causes death and disease because it's a source of income. :thumbsdown:
People need to get their priorities straight from sources other than those who pimp the bottom line above humanity. :|
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Nothing like legislating their morality. I thought harvey and others have been wailing and gnashing their teeth over such legislating the past decade... hmmm...
I deal with addicts all the time in the ER. You cannot reason with an addict, you cannot expect him to see the light. Tobacco is currently the most addictive substance with the greatest impact on health of any drug available. Sure there are many illegal drugs that can kill you outright but Tobacco abuse leads to the greatest overall degeneration over time. It is just as responsible for heart disease as diet is, all patients who smoke develope emphysema porportionate to the amount of use. Lung cancer due to tobacco is in the top 5 causes of death in the US anually.
If you don't want to make it illegal than controlling where one may smoke and limiting providers is the only sane choice. Currently the tax on tobacco does not even come close to paying for the cost in health care, and that money gets sent elsewhere once it gets in the hands of the politicians.
If you don't want to make it illegal than controlling where one may smoke and limiting providers is the only sane choice. Currently the tax on tobacco does not even come close to paying for the cost in health care, and that money gets sent elsewhere once it gets in the hands of the politicians.
This has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with promoting and preseving the HEALTH AND FITNESS of our troops to perform their primary mission. You may have heard of it. It's calle NATIONAL DEFENSE.
Should we take it that you don't care about that?
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,389
- 8,547
- 126
Originally posted by: Harvey
This has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with promoting and preseving the HEALTH AND FITNESS of our troops to perform their primary mission. You may have heard of it. It's calle NATIONAL DEFENSE.
Should we take it that you don't care about that?
and some of the troops are here telling you that national defense would suffer if they couldn't smoke, even the people who didn't smoke going into the .mil.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Harvey
This has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with promoting and preseving the HEALTH AND FITNESS of our troops to perform their primary mission. You may have heard of it. It's calle NATIONAL DEFENSE.
Should we take it that you don't care about that?
Ah right, when it's something that YOU think is bad, it's not "morality" it's "health"... Then I assume that you're fine with DADT? It could be argued that it's a "health" thing too - why do you hate the troops?
:roll:
F'n anti-smoking nazis. Nothing but trying to force their morality on others.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
OK, so if it really is THAT bad that we have to push the morality of not smoking onto people by limiting where they can partake in their habit because of "health" then why not ban it all together? Oh wait...it's really not about "health" now is it...
Yes it is that bad. You don't want to know the number of my patients that have died due to their addiction or the number of people I have diagnosed with lung cancer. It is not a morality issue, it is the single most dangerous product ever sold in america, legal or illegal.
We legislate morality all the time. You want to repeal laws on murder and theft?
The issue is the balance between legislating more universally agreed morality versus empowering a group with more narrowly accepted moral views to force them on others.
Here's an example: on one extreme, provide Jewish people no legal protection for their desire not to work the Sabbath; on another, imagine we have 80% Jewish people and they pass laws to force everyone to follow their religious policy about working on the Sabbath. Somewhere in the middle we reach a 'middle balance' where the law requires employers to make 'reasonable accommodation' for workers' religious views, and public laws are not passed either forcing those practices nor prohibiting them."
In yiour typical illogical arguing style, yo try to mix apples and oranges by lumping in smoking with all other 'moral issues' as if outlawing murder is the same thing as this issue.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Harvey
This has nothing to do with morality. It has to do with promoting and preseving the HEALTH AND FITNESS of our troops to perform their primary mission. You may have heard of it. It's calle NATIONAL DEFENSE.
Should we take it that you don't care about that?
Ah right, when it's something that YOU think is bad, it's not "morality" it's "health"...
Damn! Looks like you're still taking those slow pills. I already addressed your dumbass bullshit. In this case, health and fitness is a matter of national security. If you're really stupid enough believe having more troops less fit, ill or disabled due to smoking related causes, you don't have a clue what a military force is.
You can try to redefine the words any way you want, but it only makes it so in your fantasy world. :roll:
First, you assume a lot, almost all of which is wrong. Second, arguing that DADT is a "health" issue only continues to prove your ignorance, if not total stupidity.
F'n pro-smoking nazis. Nothing but trying to kill and cripple our armed forces personnel and force their addiction, pollution, illness and death on others. Why do you hate our troops? :Q
And how do you know that banning smoking from the armed forces would create a healthier fighting force. Sure physically soldiers could perform marginally better without tobacco, but not necessarily. All of my marine friends smoke, or dip and they are in infinitely better shape than I am, and I would love to see someone tell one of them that they are a less effective solider because they CHOOSE to smoke or dip. Also, taking away a stress coping mechanism from a solider is disastrous on their mental health, which in many cases is more important than physical fitness in a combat situation.
Who's promoting smoking? My point is that the economic justifications for the anti-tobacco movement are only true in the short run,
Smoker's are not victims, no one forces anyone to buy a pack of cigarettes. I'd rather live in a free state where I am free to poison myself than one where self righteous "humanitarians" tell me what I can and can't do to my own body. The only person I harm when I light a cigarette is myself, the economic complaints against smoking are bogus.
I'll be happy to tell them they are less effective human beings by squandering their time serving the military, and possibly making some other people *very* less effective.
And I have a great military stress reducing mechanism for them.
Get out of the military. I'd say don't join in the first place, but that only applies to the people who have yet to.
Sure, they are, to an extent. The fact of nicotine addictiveness in particular - but whatever else draws them to a harmful pasttime - betrays your claim.
I both have some sympathy for that position, and hold the views you disagree with as well. It's a balancing act between the two.
So, my preference would be to have people have the freedom to choose to smoke - and to find the solutions that help them make the right choice.
The science finally overcoming the special-interest opposition to it getting publicized back in the 60's, the warning labels on packages, helped, as shown in the far lower rates.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter