Pentagon considers smoking ban for troops

[Bob Hubbard]

Pentagon considers smoking ban for troops

There is mounting pressure to prohibit smoking in the military. A recent study recommends phasing out tobacco products over a five- to 10-year period. Another recommendation calls for an end to the sale of tobacco products on military bases. full story

Bombs? Check.
Bullets? Check.
Grenades? Check.
C4? Check.
Cigs? Hold it. Can't have those, they can kill ya ya know.


Somehow, there's a joke or 5 in here IMO.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/12/military.smoking.ban/index.html

 

[seasoned]

Whether your in the military, or a next door neighbor, smoking is bad for your health. I know that the government is very intrusive in our personal life's, but harmful habits that cost everyone in the long run, through taxes, and stresses our health care system, needs to be addressed. It is known that nicotine is addicting, and the earlier one starts smoking, the harder it is to quit. With such a well documented health hazard, it seems like a no brainier to start somewhere to rid us of such a harmful, disgusting habit. I smoked half of my life, so this is not coming from smoeone that has not been there.

 

[Joab]

I don't smoke, never have smoked, never will smoke, and I hate second hand smoke. But I think banning smoking by our military personnel is a bad idea. It adds stress when they are stressed out as it is going in harms way defending our freedom.

I don't have a problem with not selling tobaco products, but banning smoking is going too far. If they do this, I hope they enroll their people in smoking cessation programs for free and give them some time. My dad was an infantryman in the army in World War II, they were given cigarettes back than by the Red Cross and he sold them, hate to see such a fine revenue source go away. But seriously, give our guys a break, let them smoke if they need to, this proposed policy is going too far.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Whether your in the military, or a next door neighbor, smoking is bad for your health. I know that the government is very intrusive in our personal life's, but harmful habits that cost everyone in the long run, through taxes, and stresses our health care system, needs to be addressed. It is known that nicotine is addicting, and the earlier one starts smoking, the harder it is to quit. With such a well documented health hazard, it seems like a no brainier to start somewhere to rid us of such a harmful, disgusting habit. I smoked half of my life, so this is not coming from smoeone that has not been there.

I'm a former smoker too. In fact, I've got 'dark masses' on the 'hilar region of my lungs' that I need to have a CA Tomography scan to learn more about in the next couple weeks. Some worry there.

Nevertheless, I disagree with your comments on the need to address harmful habits by law.

I agree that smoking doesn't just hurt smokers. I agree that second-hand smoke is dangerous. I agree that the health effects of smoking cost society as a whole in terms of higher insurance premiums and increased taxes.

All true.

However, if you take the path of making something illegal on that basis, then there is no reason not to address the other leading causes of death, which cost us EVEN MORE in terms of insurance premiums and increased taxes.

DUI is a leading cause of death. We must outlaw alcohol. Obesity is a huge problem, it's pandemic. Pass laws requiring people to lose weight and get in shape - fat-asses who refuse to get in shape can be punished by penalties such as fees and taxes, or in extreme cases, incarcerated for their own good. And hey, don't forget about those extreme sports. I am referring to downhill skiing, water-skiing, scuba-diving, hang-gliding, sky-diving, high-school football, and so on.

Am I taking things to outrageous extremes? I don't think so. More and more, we are becoming a nanny-state.

The government does not have a mandate to look out for our health. The government does not have a mandate to reduce costs of health care.

Nobody wants to have higher insurance premiums or higher taxes, and that is indeed the consequence of voluntary behaviors that cause health problems. Is the fix for this problem a nanny state?

Ban smoking? What's next? And let us not pretend that there will be no 'next'.

 

[seasoned]

I'm a former smoker too. In fact, I've got 'dark masses' on the 'hilar region of my lungs' that I need to have a CA Tomography scan to learn more about in the next couple weeks. Some worry there.

Nevertheless, I disagree with your comments on the need to address harmful habits by law.

I agree that smoking doesn't just hurt smokers. I agree that second-hand smoke is dangerous. I agree that the health effects of smoking cost society as a whole in terms of higher insurance premiums and increased taxes.

All true.

However, if you take the path of making something illegal on that basis, then there is no reason not to address the other leading causes of death, which cost us EVEN MORE in terms of insurance premiums and increased taxes.

DUI is a leading cause of death. We must outlaw alcohol. Obesity is a huge problem, it's pandemic. Pass laws requiring people to lose weight and get in shape - fat-asses who refuse to get in shape can be punished by penalties such as fees and taxes, or in extreme cases, incarcerated for their own good. And hey, don't forget about those extreme sports. I am referring to downhill skiing, water-skiing, scuba-diving, hang-gliding, sky-diving, high-school football, and so on.

Am I taking things to outrageous extremes? I don't think so. More and more, we are becoming a nanny-state.

The government does not have a mandate to look out for our health. The government does not have a mandate to reduce costs of health care.

Nobody wants to have higher insurance premiums or higher taxes, and that is indeed the consequence of voluntary behaviors that cause health problems. Is the fix for this problem a nanny state?

Ban smoking? What's next? And let us not pretend that there will be no 'next'.

Good points, Bill, as always. I just thought because of the addicting nature of tobacco, and the fact I was once there, it would be a battle worth commenting on. I guess I could reevaluate my previous comment, but I still won't be going back on the weed any too soon.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Good points, Bill, as always. I just thought because of the addicting nature of tobacco, and the fact I was once there, it would be a battle worth commenting on. I guess I could reevaluate my previous comment, but I still won't be going back on the weed any too soon.

I'm hip, and for what it's worth, I have ameliorated many of my views as I've gotten older. Where once I was for 'pure freedom' in a more libertarian point of view, I have begun to gain some understanding of the needs of society and what we benefit by being members of that society. Seat belts, helmet laws, and the like are all examples of legal restrictions on behavior that serve no purpose other than to a) protect the individual involved (even if they don't particularly want to be protected) and b) reduce the costs to society caused by people who do not use seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

But even though I have softened, I still believe it is a dangerous slippery slope. It is very easy to fall into the point of view that wants to protect people from themselves for their own good, and to use the price society pays for their irresponsible behavior as the reason for it. Once you start - where do you stop?

It's like many things - no easy answers. Either way, there are costs.

 

[MBuzzy]

We are talking about "for the military," right?

I'm in the military, a former smoker and I'm all for it - in theory at least. Getting everyone to quit would be great, but the impact to morale would be very detrimental and that is too big of a tradeoff.

Smoking used to be allowed in your building, at your desk, anywhere. Then it got moved to outside. Now you can't smoke within 50 feet of a building. So yes, it has progressed and this is the logical "next."

I see a few reasons to try to get rid of smoking in the military. First off, we depend on physical fitness. In a combat or injury situation, it is imperative that you can function at your peak - that can't happen with black lungs. Second, we ARE basically on Socialized health care. No on in the military pays for health care, the taxpayers do. Putting an end to smoking decreases health care costs. So anyone that is upset about taxes and the whole health care issue, well, banning military smoking saves you money.

How about all of the retirees and DoD civilians who are non military that come on base to buy cigarettes at discounted prices, since the taxes and prices are lower when you buy cigarettes on base? I used to ALWAYS buy mine on base because you save so much money.

I dunno, I guess my opinion is pretty baseless. But I'd rather see my troops all stop smoking. My job is to keep them healthy, keep them ready to deploy, and keep them safe. Plus, I lose about 10 mins of work every 2 hours or so out of everyone that smokes....which I don't mind, breaks are fine, but what about all those other guys who don't take smoke breaks?

The military already spends a lot of money on Tobacco cessation classes and try to talk everyone out of it and that really isn't working too well.

The bottom line is this, being in the military, you have a different set of rights. We fall under a different set of laws (UCMJ), we can't do the same things that civilians can. So in the end, whatever they decide is how it will be.

But, they will NEVER ban smoking in the military. It just won't happen. The decision makers know what a MASSIVE impact it would have on troop morale - morale is low enough as it is. We can't afford something like this.

 

[MBuzzy]

And again, while I agree with the theory, I also have to agree with Bill, the way that we regulate things is a slippery slope and I could see Alcohol being the next thing to go in the military....It is already banned at ALL deployed locations, as is everything else that's fun.

 

[Tez3]

And again, while I agree with the theory, I also have to agree with Bill, the way that we regulate things is a slippery slope and I could see Alcohol being the next thing to go in the military....It is already banned at ALL deployed locations, as is everything else that's fun.

Well, not everything lol!
Here the military are encouraged to give up smoking by the medics with poster campaigns, free nicotine patches, gum etc and support but it's not a big thing and I doubt they will make it a law. Thee's a ban on smoking in buildings in the UK which actually is a relief to most of us, even the smokers appreciate a smoke free restaurant/cafe and workplaces.

Incidentally are the nicotine patches in the States expensive or not? Ours seem to be very dear. Average pack of seven, a weeks supply, is about £12-15 (think the $ is about 2 to a £ish)

 

[kaizasosei]

I think banning is too extreme and taking away one of the few pleasures left in a place like the army. On the other hand, people used to smoke in movie theaters and now it's normal that it's prohibited.

Probably it should be controlled a bit. I know of the time when i was at army service, one tends to go haywire with the smokes, it's like everytime someone lights one up, you feel like lighting one up and before you know it, breaks become nothing more than smoking time. Especially when everyone smokes.

I don't think it would be possible to entirely bann smoking cigs in heaty times, because of the smoking culture, the availability and nature of combat. I guess it is different from place to place but i think smoking would be quite a habit to tackle in environments like the army.




j

 

[MBuzzy]

Well, not everything lol!
Here the military are encouraged to give up smoking by the medics with poster campaigns, free nicotine patches, gum etc and support but it's not a big thing and I doubt they will make it a law. Thee's a ban on smoking in buildings in the UK which actually is a relief to most of us, even the smokers appreciate a smoke free restaurant/cafe and workplaces.

Incidentally are the nicotine patches in the States expensive or not? Ours seem to be very dear. Average pack of seven, a weeks supply, is about £12-15 (think the $ is about 2 to a £ish)

Well, ALMOST everything....http://www.tac.usace.army.mil/deploymentcenter/tac_docs/GO-1B Policy.pdf

They are pretty expensive here too, but you can get them for free from the military.

 

[jarrod]

i don't think it's a terribly big deal so long as it's done in phases. it would be unfair to try & force those already in to quit, but if they want to make it a stipulation for enlistment i don't see a problem. then it's not a law, just an updated contract. if you'd rather smoke than join the military, don't enlist.

remember that uncle sam pays life long health bills not only for retirees, but for many medically discharged personnel. it makes sense to do what they can to make sure they're not paying for a bunch of tobacco related health problems.

jf

 

[Bob Hubbard]

As a hard-line anti-smoker, I'm all for it.

As a Libertarian, I'm against it.

Then again, it's the military, and what the military does with it's property is it's business, y'know?

 

[Big Don]

How many states would we smokers bankrupt if we managed to quit all at once?
A whole lot of people die in car accidents, BAN AUTOMOBILES!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

How many states would we smokers bankrupt if we managed to quit all at once?
A whole lot of people die in car accidents, BAN AUTOMOBILES!

Opec and the oil cartels are working on that Don.

 

[MBuzzy]

How many states would we smokers bankrupt if we managed to quit all at once?
A whole lot of people die in car accidents, BAN AUTOMOBILES!

That has nothing to do with the military. Civilians can keep smoking all they want. If the entire military quit, it would have a minor impact, but not that much. The percentage of military smokers is dropping all the time. They track it pretty closely. In fact, it is annotated in your medical record and deployment documents if you smoke.

 

[jks9199]

I think that a phased approach would be best. One of my conditions of employment is not to use any tobacco products, on or off the clock, and this is a pretty common requirement in my area. While I don't know too many cases where they track someone down and discipline them for not honoring that contract -- it's possible. Officers hired before the requirement was in place are grandfathered.

 

[jarrod]

As a hard-line anti-smoker, I'm all for it.

As a Libertarian, I'm against it.

Then again, it's the military, and what the military does with it's property is it's business, y'know?

it falls outside of any libertarian concerns of mine because military service isn't compulsory. if we had a draft going it would be different. but if there is a draft, what are they going to do if they catch you? send you to war?

jf

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Too true.
"You, smoker, we're kicking you out of the military."

Wait a minute.....slang term for a cigarette is a "fag"........you don't think?....nah.

 

[arnisador]

It's clear to me that non-smoking soldiers are better soldiers than smoking soldiers. They will on average be healthier (live longer, miss fewer days for out sick, lower military health care costs), run farther, not have an addiction that could disrupt their concentration if in certain circumstances they could not smoke, etc. That having been said...an immediate ban could have negative effects on recruiting and retention, and that has to be taken into account.