Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12843604?source=rss

Let's take away some more freedoms these people protect for the rest of us. Seriously who comes up with this crap and why do they feel the need to impose it on others. I'm not a smoker myself, but hell Soldiers already have to stay in pretty good shape to pass physical fitness tests so their diet is pretty strict compared to what alot of us cram down our throats. They get deployed for up to and over a year at a time. So no drinking for them during those times. Their not allowed to have porn (come on it's a freedom many of us enjoy, don't deny it) in the deployment areas (Full Disclosure: This is often overlooked by leadership or smuggled in). The list goes on...

I am so tired of people telling me how to live my life when I'm not harming anybody. If I want to eat a big ol' burger, suck down a milkshake, smoke a pack of cigarettes, drink half a bottle of rum, and watch porn until my eyes bleed then so be it. It harms nobody except my arteries, liver and self image lol. To further impose this vegan, yoga healthy mind healthy spirit crap on the military because you can just order them around without having to go through the process of making new laws is BS. They protect our freedoms, they should at least be able to enjoy that which they protect.

Gates grow a freakin spine and toss this proposal in the trash.

I remember talking to a guy that had just arrived from leave, after two solid tours I believe. He talked about how he wasn't allowed to smoke at night because of the tip on the cigarette. They would scout the desert, and apparently a cigarette is extremely easy to spot using only binoculars, and possibly even night vision.

He also had to stay in a shelter for the night because the military had taken some of his pay, I can't remember why, but I think they just cut the pay before he left his tour; I would have been outraged after being at war for nearly a year.

In fairly featureless desert on a flat elevation, about four miles. From an elevated position up to seven miles. But not smoking under what's call "noise and light discipline" is just good tactics, not a "I'm going to impose my views on your life" situation.

The military only takes pay when you've been punished under the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) or your wages are being garnished by court order for child support or the like. There are some special circumstances of course like not meeting the requirements stipulated in a reenlistment contract for the bonus payed up front or failing to successfully complete a school that's a requisit of a promotion you might have earned, but it's not very common for the military to cut one's pay.

I don't like the Government to regulate my life. Yes Laws are good when they protect people from those with ill intentions, but outside of that, it's just somebody with the opinion that they know what's best for you forcing their views on your way of life. It really burns me up when they take away freedoms from those who dedicate themselves to the protection of those rights for the rest of America. The military is an easy target for that because changes in regulation rarely have to be approved by Congress or any source outside of the DoD.

Dude, all I can say is I would want a smoke once in a while if I was in a war-zone. What will happen to all those stereotypical cigar munching generals? Will they have to chew carrots now?

Well, don't enlist anytime soon then. Before ya know it Gates is not only going to ban smoking but give up red meat and require every Soldier, Marine, Airman and Sailor to hug a kitten daily. Not to mention that at the rates of cuts to defense bugeting they'll all be wearing nothing but loin cloths before the next election. Protecting the boys from the kittens could be problematic in loin cloths.

Shitsux.

Old Rambo


New Recruits


Old rambo says to the new recruits with nothing but loincloths and wooden spears (they made themselves), "Who is wearing the pants now?"

Soldiers should be allowed to smoke if they want. It's not as dangerous a bloody binge-drinking while holding a weapon. it seems to be one of the few things they CAN do.

The military used to GIVE their soldiers lucky strikes in WW2, I am not sure if that is currently the case.

In general there is a lot of hoopla around smoking, and it seems to have filtered (heh, filtered) into our military somehow. Maybe instead of manly gun toting men, we could just have crews of guinea pigs with lasers strapped to their heads. They don't talk back, they don't smoke, and they always run into something when they are trying to run away. When they try to run they will inevitably be stupid, so you can round them up quite easily, with a net or something.



"Note"
K.I.A. guinea pig soldiers could also be used to feed the locals, so we don't have to.

Example A.)

Wrexasaur wrote:In general there is a lot of hoopla around smoking, and it seems to have filtered (heh, filtered) into our military somehow. Maybe instead of manly gun toting men, we could just have crews of guinea pigs with lasers strapped to their heads. They don't talk back, they don't smoke, and they always run into something when they are trying to run away. When they try to run they will inevitably be stupid, so you can round them up quite easily, with a net or something.

I'm pretty sure Disney's already used that idea for a movie.

There was a study performed that said soldiers would be healthier if they didn't smoke, and recommended soldiers shouldn't be allowed to smoke anymore. The military said 'we're not doing that'. Rightwing reactionary on the internet gets outraged anyway.

Tyras wrote:I don't like the Government to regulate my life.

Then don't join the military. You sign up, you agree to maintain fitness standards needed to do your job. From that point until the day you are discharged the government is regulating your life.

I'm not sure why you would need to ban smoking if the health/fitness standards are still being met, though.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm not sure why you would need to ban smoking if the health/fitness standards are still being met, though.

First up, I think its important to point out that's an entirely hypothetical question, considering that the US army has not banned smoking, despite Tyras' little tirade.

In general I'd probably agree with you, at the basic level I tend towards setting the standard and not caring how people get there. If a guy can meet the minimum fitness standards despite eating nothing but twinkies and smoking 147 packs a days, good luck to him. But not every person and not every organisation works that way. A lot of people see culture as a priority, so that if they stop you doing certain harmful things able people won't just be hitting the minimum, but more than exceeding it. I don't entirely agree but its hardly unprecedented.

Meanwhile, I think we should all take a second to consider the wisdom of joining the army then complaining about the government controlling your life. Its almost zen.

Jesse Ventura did a pretty good job of being in the army, being a politician, AND being a "big ole' whiner". I respect Jesse Ventura and what he set out to do, I just wish there were more people like him.

Good luck in enforcing that ban. I remember when they stopped selling pron in the PX except for Playboy because they thought that it was immoral (1998). Discharges because of pregancy and cheating/divorces went up like 60% just in our area in Korea. I can see banning smoking inside the barracks but no where else.

In bad moves was taking the black barrets from the rangers and giving them to everyone. Not only did most people look stupid in them it pissed off the rangers to non-other. I was mad that I had to give up my soft cap for a cheap, hot as hell and uncomfortable as hell barret. No other military gear did I every have to shave in order to it not to look like Pron Star that hadn't shaved in a couple of weeks.

And how about that Army of One commercial. I love the one with the soldier running in the field as everyone else was going the other way. He was too ate up like a soup sandwich to be a real soldier and not a douch bag cali actor. Dog tags out, long hair, no head gear, LBE all open with empty ammo pouches. As an US Army (Military Police) vet of 7 1/2 years it was a disgrace.

Back to them enforcing the ban. I just don't see it happening since it would force to many good soldiers out of the service. They really need to update the UCMJ to match up with today. It is illegal for a married couple to do anything with each other than one thing under the penilty of courtmarshal or the military member. Come on they have a code in the UCMJ called Abuse of a public animal (i.e. a soldier can not have s*x*#l relations with an animal). Come on, where did they feel the need to add that code in?

sebster wrote:There was a study performed that said soldiers would be healthier if they didn't smoke, and recommended soldiers shouldn't be allowed to smoke anymore. The military said 'we're not doing that'. Rightwing reactionary on the internet gets outraged anyway.

Tyras wrote:I don't like the Government to regulate my life.

Then don't join the military. You sign up, you agree to maintain fitness standards needed to do your job. From that point until the day you are discharged the government is regulating your life.

There are two ways that could be done:

1. No smoking.
2. Mandatory fitness standards which might or might not be possible to meet if you smoke.

Fact is, lots of young people smoke and it's something that gradually catches up on you. If you smoke and do a lot of exercise, like young soldiers tend to, your immediate health doesn't suffer much.

be a jarhead. I'm sure as we speak they are issuing orders to make smoking mandatory, as well as carrying a beer in one hand whilst dealing with the BG's with the other. After all, its only a fair fight if they are using one hand.

Thats proper rules of engagement there.

I've seen the future, you know what the future is...?

Its a 47 year old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas drinking a banana-broccoli shake singing "I'm an Oscar Mayer weiner!"

-words of wisdom from Dr. Denis Leary

sebster wrote:There was a study performed that said soldiers would be healthier if they didn't smoke, and recommended soldiers shouldn't be allowed to smoke anymore. The military said 'we're not doing that'. Rightwing reactionary on the internet gets outraged anyway.

Tyras wrote:I don't like the Government to regulate my life.

Then don't join the military. You sign up, you agree to maintain fitness standards needed to do your job. From that point until the day you are discharged the government is regulating your life.

Well, seeing that we're playing politics by casting the other side in broad stereotypes...

An article is written stating that while the government is not banning a right enjoyed by those they protect for now, their looking into it for the future. The left wing lacks the reading comprhension to see it though.

"Gates will look at the study to see what other things can be done to move toward a goal of a tobacco-free force."


I know what's signed away by joining the military. I'm fully aware that you have to stay fit in order to hanlde the more physically challenging aspects of the job. If a serviceperson can pass the physical fitness test then it should not matter if they smoke. I've seen smokers pass the run event that I, a non smoker, dreaded ahead of many others and then immediately lit up while other people were puking their guts out at the finish line. It's BS that the left wing health nuts want to take away rights like this. It's BS that right wing moral nuts want to take other rights away. Leave the troops alone before they forget exactly what they're supposed to be protecting and stop enlisitng/reenlisting.

sebster wrote:A lot of people see culture as a priority, so that if they stop you doing certain harmful things able people won't just be hitting the minimum, but more than exceeding it.

What's so wrong about the rights of the individual as long as those rights don't infringe on the rights of others? What's the point of a standard if it's never good enough? Meeting a standard is fine, exceeding it is extra credit. Who's to decide what's harmful? I mean there are obvious things, like "stop shooting yourself" but there are less obvious things that some would gladly take away from you for your own good, like red meat or alcohol... or smoking. While I have real issue with the rights of those who protect us being taken away and how easy it is because, like you said already being under government control, don't think it stops there. The military makes a good test bed for experimentation. In this case social experimentation. If the powers that be are happy with the results, or at least feel they can get away with applying those results to a wider population it'll come to your door in the form of a sin tax or an outright ban ala Newyork or California's ban on trans fats.

Edit: I bolded to help Sebster with his poor reading skills.

Tyras wrote:
"Gates will look at the study to see what other things can be done to move toward a goal of a tobacco-free force."

Which can also be read: Go away, I have more important things to worry about.

Nothing in that article should give you cause to worry. The military has far more pressing sociocultural issues, like the rate of sexual assault, to worry about.

Tyras wrote:
What's so wrong about the rights of the individual as long as those rights don't infringe on the rights of others? What's the point of a standard if it's never good enough?

Honestly, I find it deeply amusing that this has been a left-end talking point for decades.

We are talking about service members, not general population. The government can regulate away, after all, you did sign on the dotted line.

Now if we were talking about the general population...

Forgive my ignorance here but the headline in this article is:

Pentagon declines to ban smoking in war zones despite study urging smoke-free troops

So if it's not going to be banned why is the OP and every response to it acting under the assumption that it is going to be?

It's not going to be restricted folks, sensible decision was made, case closed, move on.

Lucius its a vast conspiracy involving the Pentagon, George Bush, Count Cheney, and an attempt to corner the American Cheese market...

dogma wrote:

Tyras wrote:
"Gates will look at the study to see what other things can be done to move toward a goal of a tobacco-free force."

Which can also be read: Go away, I have more important things to worry about.

Nothing in that article should give you cause to worry. The military has far more pressing sociocultural issues, like the rate of sexual assault, to worry about.

Gates is already working on his back peddling on the don't ask, don't tell policy which he was all for maintaining the status quo for that under Bush. Why would he use words like "goal" if he didn't have the inclination to press on with such policies?

dogma wrote:

Tyras wrote:
What's so wrong about the rights of the individual as long as those rights don't infringe on the rights of others? What's the point of a standard if it's never good enough?

Honestly, I find it deeply amusing that this has been a left-end talking point for decades.

I've always been for individual rights. I don't care if gays want to be married. It doesn't hurt me one bit. I do recognize the rights of the unborn, so there's a bit of conflict on the pro choice pro life debate there. I am against big government and I'm pro military, so I guess I'm a center leaning conservative.

whitedragon wrote:We are talking about service members, not general population. The government can regulate away, after all, you did sign on the dotted line.

Now if we were talking about the general population...

Wait, give it some time. That and if I were to sign the dotted line while they allowed smoking and then changed the rules would that mean I could tell them to themselves, that wasn't in the contract? Of course not, that's not how it works and that's part of the reason it's so jacked up.

Tyras wrote:
Gates is already working on his back peddling on the don't ask, don't tell policy which he was all for maintaining the status quo for that under Bush. Why would he use words like "goal" if he didn't have the inclination to press on with such policies?

Because being SecDef requires that you make nice with the politicians. Using the word goal simply acknowledges that there are certain bodies which see a given end as a goal.

sebster wrote:There was a study performed that said soldiers would be healthier if they didn't smoke, and recommended soldiers shouldn't be allowed to smoke anymore.

I believe all the studies say everyone would be healthier if everyone didn't smoke. If anyone should be allowed to have a smoke break it is the guys taking mortar rounds for their country. Studies also show it isn't very healthy to be shot at that much either but there they are.

We do lots of unhealthy things, should we legislate every one of them? It isn't as if we got everyone to not smoke that suddenly we would all live forever and nothing else is hazardous to us. I think it is a difficult situation as it is not good for you but who's business is it? I think it only becomes another persons business if they have a GDP mentality and see people as only figures on spreadsheets. When you can only see life in terms of lost money to the company or the GDP. Alcohol causes all sorts of problems in health but they aren't going to ban that from the military.

That being said it is a nasty habit and I wouldn't recommend it.

Tyras said

It's BS that the left wing health nuts want to take away rights like this. It's BS that right wing moral nuts want to take other rights away. Leave the troops alone before they forget exactly what they're supposed to be protecting and stop enlisitng/reenlisting.

Well said.

I think that troops should be able to smoke and drink while over seas.

But drinking should be restricted. Do not want some guy waking up with a Hangover/Drunk and then going on duty to get his squad blown to bits.

There are a lot of variables to drinking in a war.....

Tyras wrote:Well, seeing that we're playing politics by casting the other side in broad stereotypes...

No, not the 'other side'. Just the guy pretending that a rejected suggestion is, ummm, something...

An article is written stating that while the government is not banning a right enjoyed by those they protect for now, their looking into it for the future. The left wing lacks the reading comprhension to see it though.

"Gates will look at the study to see what other things can be done to move toward a goal of a tobacco-free force."

Considering you're a government employee, and you spend that much of your time here complaining about government I'd have thought you'd have some idea how government works. When an official says 'I will look at the study and see what else can be done to move toward that goal' there's a few key points to be understood;

a) Between keeping a military functioning while in two wars, I don't have time to read your study about smoking. Serisously, it is no even close the being an issue right now.
b) We aren't going to ban smoking.
c) It would be nice if soldiers didn't smoke, because then they'd be fitter. So we'll do some other stuff to discourage it, we'll like totally put up some posters up in the barracks saying 'don't smoke'.

I know what's signed away by joining the military. I'm fully aware that you have to stay fit in order to hanlde the more physically challenging aspects of the job. If a serviceperson can pass the physical fitness test then it should not matter if they smoke. I've seen smokers pass the run event that I, a non smoker, dreaded ahead of many others and then immediately lit up while other people were puking their guts out at the finish line. It's BS that the left wing health nuts want to take away rights like this.

So you don't even smoke. So you're actually complaining about losing a right that isn't being taken away that you don't exercise anyway. I think it may be impossible for this to get any more ridiculous.

It's BS that right wing moral nuts want to take other rights away. Leave the troops alone before they forget exactly what they're supposed to be protecting and stop enlisitng/reenlisting.

They are leaving the troops alone. No-one is stopping anyone smoking. Stop pretending otherwise, because reality is important.

What's so wrong about the rights of the individual as long as those rights don't infringe on the rights of others?

It's horribly simplistic, especially when talking about a large, complex organisation like an army.

What's the point of a standard if it's never good enough? Meeting a standard is fine, exceeding it is extra credit.

Yes, and if you have an army full of people at the minimum standard, it won't operate as well as an army where a large number of troops are significantly above the standard.

Who's to decide what's harmful?

The army?

Edit: I bolded to help Sebster with his poor reading skills.

Cheers. Now maybe if you read the bolded comment yourself, we'd be getting somewhere. Or you could keep complaining about how bad it would be to institute a policy that wasn't actually instituted, that wouldn't effect you anyway.

I mean, I've thought about ways to make fun of your position but you've started with something so ridiculous its actually parody proof.
BREAKING NEWS - US army rejects suggestion to ban smoking.
Tyras - OMG the army is taking away soldier's freedoms!
Sebster - No, they're not. They rejected the suggestion.
Tyras - We serve! We deserve our freedoms!
Sebster - You've still got them. No-one's taken anything away from you. When it was suggested, the answer was a polite 'no'.
Tyras - But they're our freedoms and we serve!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:I believe all the studies say everyone would be healthier if everyone didn't smoke.

Yeah, which is why the study considering the health of soldiers came out and said 'soldiers shouldn't smoke'. A perfectly sensible thing for someone from that POV to do.

If anyone should be allowed to have a smoke break it is the guys taking mortar rounds for their country. Studies also show it isn't very healthy to be shot at that much either but there they are.

Yeah, which is why Gates took one look at the conclusion and said 'no, we're going to let troops continue smoking. Health is important and all but so is morale and prioritising'. A perfectly sensible thing for someone from that POV to do.

Which seems fine. Health study give conclusion, army factors in other considerations and rejects health study's recommendation. All told, a boring day at the office. Until Tyras gets a hold of this thing. He is outraged that a study made a recommendation. He is so outraged that he doesn't even care that the study was rejected. This is not such a reasonable thing, from any POV.

We do lots of unhealthy things, should we legislate every one of them?

No, some should be and some shouldn't. When you sign up for the army you can expect there to be more restrictions, because people are counting on you with their lives. But this one isn't even being legislated, so I don't even know why we're having this conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Tyras said

It's BS that the left wing health nuts want to take away rights like this. It's BS that right wing moral nuts want to take other rights away. Leave the troops alone before they forget exactly what they're supposed to be protecting and stop enlisitng/reenlisting.

Well said.

They are leaving troops alone.

sebster wrote:

We do lots of unhealthy things, should we legislate every one of them?

No, some should be and some shouldn't. When you sign up for the army you can expect there to be more restrictions, because people are counting on you with their lives. But this one isn't even being legislated, so I don't even know why we're having this conversation.

It's all part of a broader movement to sweep away peoples ability to choose, not just in the military. It would only start in the military and than spread out from there. The problem is inherent in your statement above. Some yes, some no, but where and who gets to decide? Why should the government be telling anyone, as a general rule, what they can't do with their free time and money? Prolongation of their life is the individuals choice. We don't exist for the betterment of the state and are contractually obliged to put so much time in to further the profit margins of a company and pay taxes.

If person like country fried steak, which is not healthy in any way, so what? Heart disease is just as big a problem as lung disease, so shouldn't we be determining whether people should be allowed to enjoy it? Why does one specific minority get the brunt of the attack? It is politically easy, of course, to do so. They won't go after cigars, it is viewed as an elites pleasure and not pedestrian like cigarettes. If the answer is to ban something because it is not healthiest thing we can possibly do, then where do we stop? It won't go anywhere in the military because they have genuine conflicts to deal with and these control agendas are somewhere far down the list of things they need to be concerned with. I don't think it is a good idea to smoke, but people need to be able to choose for themselves, as is true with almost anything.