Military to ban tobacco

[PiratePast40]

http://weaselzippers.us/181312-hagel-suggests-he-favors-tobacco-sales-ban-at-military-installations/
This is just one of the articles around the web.

Can't believe there is so much time and effort dedicated to making the military a "safe place". What the he!! is wrong with these people? Has Bloomberg taken over as Secretary of Defense? If they want to make the military a safer place how about not sending troops places where people shoot at them? How about not having people load bombs on airplanes? How about not sending people deep under the ocean in a steel tube with a nuclear reactor? How about not sending people up in the air in aluminum tubes that travel 500 mph?

Seriously, don't these people have anything important to do? In case anybody wasn't paying attention, the military is a dangerous and violent occupation. Choosing to smoke or not to smoke is a personal decision. Leave the troops alone and let them do their jobs. We don't need any more of this nanny state foolishness.

Read More

 

[duginsky]

I'd rather not pay taxes that cover VA treatment of COPD, lung cancer, mouth cancer, etc. Chances of developing those and the associated long-term care are far greater than being killed or injured in any of the scenarios you refer to. Although tobacco use remains a personal choice, it's one that I don't want to clean up after.

 

[oknow]

I'd rather not pay taxes that cover VA treatment of COPD, lung cancer, mouth cancer, etc. Chances of developing those and the associated long-term care are far greater than being killed or injured in any of the scenarios you refer to. Although tobacco use remains a personal choice, it's one that I don't want to clean up after.

do you have a problem with paying for bullet holes or arms and legs blown off too?

 

[gaijinsamurai]

Mixed feelings. I believe in personal freedom, and if a soldier/Marine/sailor/airman wants to smoke or chew, they should have the right.

However, when I was in, few things pissed me off more than as a non-smoker, having to pick up cigarette butts and putting up with second-hand smoke from those with more rank.

People will say "make rules for disposal if cigarette butts and second-hand smoke", but in reality, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Redcap]

I don't see this working even a little.

 

[Riot]

I'd rather not pay taxes that cover VA treatment of COPD, lung cancer, mouth cancer, etc. Chances of developing those and the associated long-term care are far greater than being killed or injured in any of the scenarios you refer to. Although tobacco use remains a personal choice, it's one that I don't want to clean up after.

Me neither...but I'd rather not pay for higher insurance premiums because tards don't know how to drive either- yet I do. This is the problem with Socialism...now that you have to pay for higher premiums because the guy down the street got cancer, so you're all for all these "health requirements".

Tobacco bans sound fine and dandy until they say your car emitts too much emissions so you have to buy a state approved car and have it inspected every year...or you can no longer have a wood burning stove/fireplace.
Nothing to see here, move along...

P.S. Am I the only one that reads the above and only sees "baaaah! baaah!"?

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I'd rather not pay taxes that cover VA treatment of COPD, lung cancer, mouth cancer, etc. ......

Then the only right way to correctly this is to fix the system so that each person it responsible for their own actions rather than making it a "Social" responsibility.

 

[CJ1089]

Got 2 boys in the service now. Both joined out of high school and were dyed in the wool anti-tobacco at enlistment. Anti-coffee also.
4-6 years later both smoke/chew. When I asked why; 18-20 hour days back to back for weeks due to operational tempo.
The armed services run on nicotine and caffeine and stress. They did when I was in and it ain't changed according to my sources.
So talk that indicates that they have all these optional life choices strikes me as terminally misinformed. When they get to quit whenever they feel like it, live where they like and how they like, then maybe we can talk about not footing this bill.

My $0.02.

 

[Jim Colvill]

I was in when cigarettes were included in the C rations and took up smoking in BT because it was the only way to get a break: "Ten minutes. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. If you don't smoke, police the area"

 

[duginsky]

do you have a problem with paying for bullet holes or arms and legs blown off too?

Yes I do. Shouldn't we all?

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

I was in when cigarettes were included in the C rations and took up smoking in BT because it was the only way to get a break: "Ten minutes. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. If you don't smoke, police the area"

Now I resemble that comment. I recall in basic that they would have smoke breaks where smokers were allowed to break formation to go stand the line and grab a smoke. The rest had to stand in formation at ease. Smokers were required to field dress their butts though. I still do so today and it's what? 30 years later?

 

[Artilleryman]

this is crap. There are very few comforts available in military life...just makes it that much worse when some liberal ya-hoo "knows what's best for you" and enacts legislation, etc....

 

[GunRightsCoalition]

FWIW, when my Son was in the sandbox he said they were pulling 12 plus hours every day (came back about a year ago) and would go for 30 days straight without getting a day to relax.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

Let our boy's smoke em if they got them ! They chose to protect OUR GREAT LAND if they wish to smoke so be it ! They handle machine guns and get shot at and smoking is unsafe get over it !

 

[gtivan]

Several studies have come out to say it is cheaper in the long run for smokers. 1 study below. They die a decade sooner and cost less. I don't beliebe this study even takes into account 10 years less of Social Security.
So if you want lower health care and retirement costs, you should actually encourage people to smoke.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0

 

[gtivan]

Even better, An explanation on why the US govt doesn't want to prove the real cost of smoking. They actually male a profit on smokers.

"Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-costs_N.htm

 

[teflon6string]

Tough call - allow vs. ban. I'm glad it's not my choice to make for other people.

Just some thoughts from a Vet. I retired 17 years ago yesterday.

I was addicted to smoking for 20 years, 13 of those years in service. I can also say it was a choice (for me) because quitting a 20-40 cigarette per day habit was a simple decision once I'd had enough. I'd been at it since I was a kid and decided to try life without Camels for just as long - and then start again if I really wanted one. It's been 2o years+ now and I still don't.

Found myself with a beer in one hand and a pool cue in the other a couple months ago, and felt several sudden strong urges to reach for my left sock where I once kept my smokes (before 1991). Purely reaction. No desire at all. Just testimony to the amazing power of ingrained habits.

But forcing someone who's not at that point in their own personal journey to stop? Hmm... It's not simple, even for those who've wanted to quit for years/decades. Eric Clapton once reported that he'd broken his addiction to every drug ever invented, but he still couldn't shake the fags.

As a middle-manager, I had to think about smokers at work when I could afford to let them go outside for 10-15 minutes several times a day. And my non-smokers started saying, "Hey Tom, I'm taking a fresh air break. Be back in awhile."

 

[asiparks]

Me neither...but I'd rather not pay for higher insurance premiums because tards don't know how to drive either- yet I do. This is the problem with Socialism...now that you have to pay for higher premiums because the guy down the street got cancer, so you're all for all these "health requirements".

Tobacco bans sound fine and dandy until they say your car emitts too much emissions so you have to buy a state approved car and have it inspected every year...or you can no longer have a wood burning stove/fireplace.
Nothing to see here, move along...

P.S. Am I the only one that reads the above and only sees "baaaah! baaah!"?

On the bright side, if you're the one to get cancer, we'll all be helping support you.
And if you pass out at the wheel of your car and plough through the side of someones house, you won't be paying out all that cash yourself, we'll be the ones underwriting you
Of course, you might say that there's no chance any of this will happen to you, which is what everyone thinks.
The alternative is that if you smoke and you get cancer, or you crash your car you pay for everything yourself, out of pocket. That's personal responsibility and everyone seemingly loves the idea until it personally costs them.

As far as banning smoking in the army, getting shot at or having bits blown off is not usually made as a personal choice, it's an informed risk you accept in exchange for your paycheck. Smoking is, so any damage from that is self inflicted. Assuming the effectiveness of your army depends on men being at peak physical fitness, the cost to the military from smoking is probably greater than that averaged across a broader section of the public.
If it were my army, I'd ban it.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Seriously, this is just proof the legislature spends way too much time getting more laws/bans in place to pad their resumes. We have so many laws on the books you are likely committing at least 1 felony or more (ie. lose your firearms "right" for life) every day.
I think for every federal law passed 2 should be repealed (and no, you can't insert the repealed law into the new one) to trim this bloated fed government.
And my grandpa on my mom's side was a full bird colonel in the USAF and died of lung cancer. He flew a C-130 through several wars. Not sure if it was the agent orange he had to drop in Vietnam, or smoking by others in the cockpit that caused it.

 

[Riot]

On the bright side, if you're the one to get cancer, we'll all be helping support you.

If I get cancer, that's my freekin problem, not your's. When I lost my job the same day I closed on my house, I didn't go begging for help from the government. If my house burned down tonight, I wouldn't expect you to pay for it with your insurance unless you were the one that burned it down...you know what that's called? LIFE.

Of course, you might say that there's no chance any of this will happen to you, which is what everyone thinks.

It's a fool's errand to think that I might not get cancer or befall bad luck...I have insurance. Heck when I got a job that was one of the main things I looked for- benefits for my family and I.

The alternative is that if you smoke and you get cancer, or you crash your car you pay for everything yourself, out of pocket. That's personal responsibility and everyone seemingly loves the idea until it personally costs them.

Because nobody has any personal responsibility....everyone wants someone else to pay for their issues...everyone else wants a free ticket- to slip at work, to get hit by a commercial truck or sue a big corporation. But that is what is wrong with our country...everyone wants a free lunch!

As far as banning smoking in the army, getting shot at or having bits blown off is not usually made as a personal choice, it's an informed risk you accept in exchange for your paycheck.

You deciding not to wear armor and smoking are decisive risks that I shouldn't have to pay for.

You want to know what kills more soldiers in the military than probably anything? Alcohol. Alcohol poisoning, drunk driving, you name it- it's killer number one. So why not ban alcohol? After all, it's already a law not to drink and drive or drink while underage...