How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 The Alley
 “Pentagon Says No to Ban on War Zone Smo
 1 2 3 4 5 6
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

“Pentagon Says No to Ban on War Zone Smoking Despite Study

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334

0 posted 07-15-2009 09:25 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

. ssible-smoking-ban-troops/?test=latestnews

Or else what?
Send ‘em back home for a court martial?

“Light ‘em if you got ‘em”

Cigarette smoking is bad for your health
but we don’t give a  . . .
cause we’re gonna die anyway.”


Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

1 posted 07-16-2009 12:45 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The study recommends requiring new officers and enlisted personnel to be tobacco-free, eliminating tobacco use on military installations, ships and aircraft, expanding treatment programs and eliminating the sale of tobacco on military property.

Well, that would certainly complete Clinton's dream of dismantling the military.

This stuff has gotta be true. Nobody could make it up!
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020

2 posted 07-16-2009 06:04 AM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

I am a nonsmoker, and like clean air
(there is really no such thing as pure air anymore).
But with the right air purification technology (which is available)
there is no good reason to not have a smokers den on large ships, or designated areas on base for those who smoke, especially for smokers already in the services.
To encourage nonsmoking is positive.
But to enforce it on the battlefield?
That is absurd.
If it helps the soldier cope with trauma and stress? give it to them. Don't ask them to sacrifice EVERYTHING.
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines

3 posted 07-16-2009 07:35 AM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

At times our government is so ridiculous and wastes so much  time and money on unimportant discussions and bills.

Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes

4 posted 07-16-2009 08:20 AM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

You know what... go ahead and make combat command a non-smoking area. I don't see it stopping anyone, because the worst they can do is send them to Iraq or Afghanistan... oh, wait.... they are already there.

As a matter of fact, go right ahead and make the entire military a non-smoking area. Don't allow grown adults to indulge in a legal substance while they are on liberty away from the base. Court-martial them for partaking of the rights that they are supposedly defending, because they are not permitted those rights anyhow. It's not like they are the reason anyone else has those rights.

I am a non-smoker; however, if all you allow in the military is non-smokers, then let's see what could happen:
Approximately 30% of the military are smokers, according to the American Forces Information Service.
There are (round figures) 2.3 million people in the military at present. That comes out to right around 690,000 smokers in the United States Armed Services.
If there is a general order issued against smoking in the military (anywhere by anyone- home or work), then (my estimate) about half will leave the military for good.
Reduction in Forces: 345,000

The breakdown of the loss in military could be:
4 complete Naval fleets
9 Infantry Divisions
4 Air Wings

To put it in other terms here are (approx): 201,000 members of the United States Marine Corps.
323,000 members of the United States Air Force.
332,000 members of the United States Navy
224,000 members of the Officer Corps (all services)
200,000 females in the armed services (combined)
353,000 members of the National Guard
379,000 members of the Reserves (all branches except for Coast Guard combined)

Which are you willing to give up in order to disallow the members of our military from doing something that is legal within the society they are sworn to protect?

The number of military members is verifiable, the losses are my estimations only.

For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860

5 posted 07-16-2009 09:12 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

     Non-smoker, here.  Former three pack a day guy for 10 years, and decades smoking a pipe.  I loved every minute of it and only gave up the habit because I thought I had to, and I still do.  I worked for a long time on locked psyche units where an amazing amount of time and energy on everybody's part went into issues around coffee and cigarettes.  I'm aware of the Freudian interpretations around that stuff, about oral dependency, and I even have a fair amount of agreement with it.  But I also, like Freud himself, say so what!  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  Or a cigarette is just a cigarette, or a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee.  Reductionistic thinking only gets you so far.

     I hated getting between anybody and their smokes, even those whose smokes were graphically and obviously killing them in front of your eyes.  I drew the line at lighting smokes for folks who were on oxygen.  I thought that the explosion might take a bunch of others with the smoker, and I wasn't up for that.  Sometimes I couldn't bear to light smokes for people who were in the middle of dying from them, too.  Choice is choice for them; but I had to live with myself afterward.  

     The risk of fire was always high.  You can forget when you're out in the day to day world that when you say, "Are you crazy/i]?" that the question is rhetorical.

     So, one of the things that crossed my mind right off the bat, immediately after wincing at the administrative gall of depriving so many people of one more civil liberty — already in somewhat  restricted supply in the military — was the thought that the people who were thinking this restriction into effect must themselves be maniacs.  They want to take cigarettes from close to a hundred thousand [i]armed
people, put them into withdrawal all at once, and then expect what?  Happy play-groups to form?

     Goodness gracious!  Me, oh my!

     The trouble with Al Qaeda wouldn't even appear on the radar for months and months.  The military would be otherwise concerned.  And then they would have created a whole new criminal black market within the military itself.

     I'm happy to say that this is one idea that didn't get off the ground.

     If you actually want a non smoking army, offer a hundred dollar a month bonus for folks who offer a hair sample or a blood sample every so often.  If it's nicotine level is at the proper level, you get the bonus, if not, you don't.  Troops will spend lots of free time trying to figure ways around it, which is part of what troops are supposed to do, and part of what noncoms glory in mastering, but the number of smokers will go down if they do that and increase the amount of running required.

     Just a thought.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860

6 posted 07-16-2009 09:28 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Ringo,

     By the way, Ringo, I enjoyed and admired your reasoning, but I think you'll find that Huan Yi was talking about a ban on smoking in combat areas rather than overall, throughout the forces.  I think the ban is wrong. I agree with you on that.
I think done the way it was apparently proposed, it's an unwarranted intrusion on civil liberties.  The notion of persuading an army to quit without arm-twisting but with incentives seems to me to be different because it leaves the choice open.  There are ample reasons for an army to want an active corps of non smokers.  You can think of them as well as I can.

     There are also ample reasons for an army not to order its troops to quit smoking.  More than ample.

     Given that a non-smoking army is better for the army as a whole in terms of health, stamina, mobility and agility than the same army of smokers (perhaps you'd disagree; then we'd have to look at research) it seems to me that one of the better solutions is to create a situation where the troops would themselves wish to be nonsmokers and would be motivated to work in that direction.  A thought, at least.


Bob Kaven
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> “Pentagon Says No to Ban on War Zone Smo Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard


pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary

© Passions in Poetry and 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors