»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
“Pentagon Says No to Ban on War Zone Smoking Despite Study
| The Alley |
|
“Pentagon Says No to Ban on War Zone Smoking Despite Study |
|
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan 
|
. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/15/military-group-fumes-po ssible-smoking-ban-troops/?test=latestnews Or else what? Send ‘em back home for a court martial? “Light ‘em if you got ‘em” “Sir! Cigarette smoking is bad for your health but we don’t give a . . . cause we’re gonna die anyway.” . |
||
| © Copyright 2009 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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!  |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
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. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
At times our government is so ridiculous and wastes so much time and money on unimportant discussions and bills. |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
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 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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. Comments? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
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. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
