Yes, cigarettes are bad for you.
Yes, soldiers (everyone) should be strongly encouraged to quit smoking.
Yes, they can have a negative impact on individual soldier performance.
The point we are trying to make is that an outright smoking ban, while legal and completely justifiable, would harm morale, enlistment and retention to the point that its negative impact would outweigh any long term benefits. Especially while we are engaged in war on two seperate fronts.
Well it's good thing the proposal is to move towards a ban over the next 20 years and not just "no smoking starting monday guys! K,thx,bye!"
Thanks for the input. We were aware of this as has been stated previously. The discussion is still taking place apparently hypothetically. But you're super-smart to have read the OP! K THX BYE
The Specialist on
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
WOW. This will not go over well. There's nothing they can do to stop soldiers from smoking. Soldiers will do it anyway, and so you'll see UCMJ actions increase ten fold. I can't imagine them enforcing this in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's pretty cruel to ban smoking on the battlefield. Pretty sure smoking played a large role in keeping me sane in Iraq. The moment someone is hit the second thing they ask for is a cigarette (a medic being the first obviously).
This should be unconsitiutional in some way. I don't know this is just really, really bad.
WOW. This will not go over well. There's nothing they can do to stop soldiers from smoking. Soldiers will do it anyway, and so you'll see UCMJ actions increase ten fold. I can't imagine them enforcing this in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's pretty cruel to ban smoking on the battlefield. Pretty sure smoking played a large role in keeping me sane in Iraq. The moment someone is hit the second thing they ask for is a cigarette (a medic being the first obviously).
This should be unconsitiutional in some way. I don't know this is just really, really bad.
I bet Obama is behind this.
I bet brain damage is behind this post.
Since its already been stated its Veterans Affairs thats behind this idea to phase out smoking over 20 years.
WOW. This will not go over well. There's nothing they can do to stop soldiers from smoking. Soldiers will do it anyway, and so you'll see UCMJ actions increase ten fold. I can't imagine them enforcing this in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's pretty cruel to ban smoking on the battlefield. Pretty sure smoking played a large role in keeping me sane in Iraq. The moment someone is hit the second thing they ask for is a cigarette (a medic being the first obviously).
This should be unconsitiutional in some way. I don't know this is just really, really bad.
I bet Obama is behind this.
I bet brain damage is behind this post.
Since its already been stated its Veterans Affairs thats behind this idea to phase out smoking over 20 years.
Right and the VA plays a large part in determining policies for the DOD.
Taranis on
0
Options
The SpecialistHappy FaceHappy PlaceRegistered Userregular
WOW. This will not go over well. There's nothing they can do to stop soldiers from smoking. Soldiers will do it anyway, and so you'll see UCMJ actions increase ten fold. I can't imagine them enforcing this in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's pretty cruel to ban smoking on the battlefield. Pretty sure smoking played a large role in keeping me sane in Iraq. The moment someone is hit the second thing they ask for is a cigarette (a medic being the first obviously).
This should be unconsitiutional in some way. I don't know this is just really, really bad.
Man I share your incredulity...
I bet Obama is behind this.
Wait, what?
The Specialist on
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
I don't think an outright ban (even over 20 years) would be a feasible way of getting the armed forces to stop smoking. Doing things like the "20 more pushups for every smoke break" and monetary bonuses for passing a nicotine test, as well as raising prices of packs and reducing the availability at the PX would be more effective, especially in the long run.
My question is whether it's a significant enough impact to warrant a ban. Especially in comparison to a multitude of other things that impact unit readiness. And whether a road leading to an eventual ban is the proper way to address that impact.
So you have, essentially, no argument against a ban except that it's a restriction? That's an argument that applies to democracy, not the military. The sole question that should be asked is whether such a ban will hurt or help readiness in the long run.
There was a time in the armed services when failure to serve the daily ration of rum was grounds for a mutiny. Had you proposed to people then that we might one day make it a criminal offense to consume alcohol while on duty, they would have reacted... well, about how people are reacting right now.
Though yeah, I'm seriously questioning the validity of a lot of those bullet points. Example: the "ZOMG young enlisted guys spend so much money on smokes they get into financial trouble" argument. At least in my experience, the junior enlisted (E1-E4) guys that got themselves into financial trouble almost always wound up doing so buy buying other stupid shit they couldn't afford...like the guy who bought a brand new Mustang (if you're driving a nicer car than the First Sergeant as a Private, that's a bad sign) and shoehorned a big-screen TV into his room. Gee, I'm sure it was the cigarettes (he was a smoker) that were to blame when the car got repo'd and he started bouncing checks around town.
Except that, according to this study, I'm sure it supposedly was.
I'm sure you're not actually statistically illiterate, so why are you acting as though you were?
The sole question that should be asked is whether such a ban will hurt or help readiness in the long run.
Uh, fuck you? The military is made of people, not robots. So unless you're going to declare that anyone who joins cut all ties with family, only live in government barracks, and only eat government mandated meals while in the service because by God the sole question that we should be concerning ourselves with is the military, that is most definitely not the only one that should be considered.
There was a time in the armed services when failure to serve the daily ration of rum was grounds for a mutiny. Had you proposed to people then that we might one day make it a criminal offense to consume alcohol while on duty, they would have reacted... well, about how people are reacting right now.
Alcohol impairs one's senses and judgment. More so, it's still permitted to be used when not on duty.
What is being talked about is a ban at all times.
Though since you're all for the military shutting up and following orders, why don't you explain why they shouldn't also be forced to give up alcohol and fast food for the sake of readiness? And no, they don't need fast food for the high caloric content.
I don't think an outright ban (even over 20 years) would be a feasible way of getting the armed forces to stop smoking. Doing things like the "20 more pushups for every smoke break" and monetary bonuses for passing a nicotine test, as well as raising prices of packs and reducing the availability at the PX would be more effective, especially in the long run.
Really?
Still doesn't mean he's not all about pressuring others to give up their vices (or in this case forcing them).
I really don't like the claim that the VA is behind this. They already don't give disability for hearing loss, which is ridiculous. Their major concern here (like with hearing loss) is obviously the cost of supporting veterans with medical conditions caused by chronic tobacco use. The argument that tobacco use has a significant negative impact on mission readiness is a joke.
I don't think an outright ban (even over 20 years) would be a feasible way of getting the armed forces to stop smoking. Doing things like the "20 more pushups for every smoke break" and monetary bonuses for passing a nicotine test, as well as raising prices of packs and reducing the availability at the PX would be more effective, especially in the long run.
Really?
Still doesn't mean he's not all about pressuring others to give up their vices (or in this case forcing them).
Do you have any even minuscule shred of evidence that Obama is "behind it all"?
I don't think an outright ban (even over 20 years) would be a feasible way of getting the armed forces to stop smoking. Doing things like the "20 more pushups for every smoke break" and monetary bonuses for passing a nicotine test, as well as raising prices of packs and reducing the availability at the PX would be more effective, especially in the long run.
Really?
Still doesn't mean he's not all about pressuring others to give up their vices (or in this case forcing them).
Do you have any even minuscule shred of evidence that Obama is "behind it all"?
Hmmm.
Taranis on
0
Options
The SpecialistHappy FaceHappy PlaceRegistered Userregular
I don't think an outright ban (even over 20 years) would be a feasible way of getting the armed forces to stop smoking. Doing things like the "20 more pushups for every smoke break" and monetary bonuses for passing a nicotine test, as well as raising prices of packs and reducing the availability at the PX would be more effective, especially in the long run.
Really?
Still doesn't mean he's not all about pressuring others to give up their vices (or in this case forcing them).
You know sometimes I find it extremely difficult to be pro-military and a liberal at the same time.
The Specialist on
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
I don't think an outright ban (even over 20 years) would be a feasible way of getting the armed forces to stop smoking. Doing things like the "20 more pushups for every smoke break" and monetary bonuses for passing a nicotine test, as well as raising prices of packs and reducing the availability at the PX would be more effective, especially in the long run.
Really?
Still doesn't mean he's not all about pressuring others to give up their vices (or in this case forcing them).
Do you have any even minuscule shred of evidence that Obama is "behind it all"?
Hmmm.
Okay, so you admit you're talking out of your ass.
So It Goes on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited August 2009
As much as I hate smoking.
I'm not sure I can stand on a high horse looking over someone who puts themselves in the line of fire for me.
Let alone tell them "man, you shouldn't smoke while protecting my ass you wont do as good a job".
And then claim "well I'm paying you so suck it up".
No, I don't think I can do that. Sure it'd be healthy if they did. But this is not a normal job. Unless you are in the military, I don't think you should tell people how to deal with their high stress, high risk job that ultimately protects you.
This isn't logic talking, this is just how I feel about it.
Logically, I agree with feral. I just don't like it.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I don't think an outright ban (even over 20 years) would be a feasible way of getting the armed forces to stop smoking. Doing things like the "20 more pushups for every smoke break" and monetary bonuses for passing a nicotine test, as well as raising prices of packs and reducing the availability at the PX would be more effective, especially in the long run.
Really?
Still doesn't mean he's not all about pressuring others to give up their vices (or in this case forcing them).
Do you have any even minuscule shred of evidence that Obama is "behind it all"?
Hmmm.
Okay, so you admit you're talking out of your ass.
Fuck it.
You're fucking stupid if you don't realize that when someone says "I bet [blank]", they're saying "I have a strong feeling that [blank]".
Yes, but you have absolutely zero reason to believe that.
Edit: Nor do you have any reason to believe what's been actually reported to be true.
The possibility of soda taxes. Major increases in Tobacco taxes nationwide. Obama is all about making America healthy again. The VA has been pushing this for 20 years and after 3 presidents and countless chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff it's only being seriously considered now.
I never said you were racist. You can replace it with any other group if you want. Racism has nothing to do with it and no one is calling you racist, so stop freaking out.
I'm saying your reasoning is exactly the same as what I just used. If it's not, please show how it's different.
Just to chip in, but isn't fast food a complete misnomer as a comparison to smoking? I mean the chief problem with fast food is that it's calorific and most people don't need those calories. But the military is a high calory occupation. You can eat pretty much whatever you want and it'll be fine.
Just to chip in, but isn't fast food a complete misnomer as a comparison to smoking? I mean the chief problem with fast food is that it's calorific and most people don't need those calories. But the military is a high calory occupation. You can eat pretty much whatever you want and it'll be fine.
Small portions of the military are high calorie users. And regardless, it's still high in salt and sugar when there are healthier options.
Just to chip in, but isn't fast food a complete misnomer as a comparison to smoking? I mean the chief problem with fast food is that it's calorific and most people don't need those calories. But the military is a high calory occupation. You can eat pretty much whatever you want and it'll be fine.
The combat arms are a small part of the military, and the other physically intensive jobs are a relatively small part as well. Desk jockeys don't burn major calories.
Phil G. on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited August 2009
you cant eat whatever you want if you do high exercise: to do that high exercise you need the right fuel. You'll hurt yourself if you are really pushing yourself and don't eat the right food.
there isn't really a lifestyle where maccas every day is okay. Once or twice a week isn't going to hurt anyone. Just treat it like a glorified dessert.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I never said you were racist. You can replace it with any other group if you want. Racism has nothing to do with it and no one is calling you racist, so stop freaking out.
I'm saying your reasoning is exactly the same as what I just used. If it's not, please show how it's different.
I guess I can see that. I think your example might be a little extreme though.
Just to chip in, but isn't fast food a complete misnomer as a comparison to smoking? I mean the chief problem with fast food is that it's calorific and most people don't need those calories. But the military is a high calory occupation. You can eat pretty much whatever you want and it'll be fine.
Not really. Weight is a pretty big issue in today's military. Overweight soldiers are pretty common, due in part to fast food and the short order line at the DFAC.
It's only in the field and in combat are you burning enough calories to eat whatever you want.
More soldiers have issues with performance due to a poor diet rather than smoking. Most of the fastest runners that I knew in the Army all smoked. Smoking never affected my cardio, and I smoked before, during (if possible) and after each PT session.
Taranis on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited August 2009
exercising regularly is going to produce a body that laughs at smoking, but that doesn't mean it's fully healthy or that you are running at your peak. not meant to be an argument, im just pointing that out.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
The SpecialistHappy FaceHappy PlaceRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
Oh believe me, people still find a way to be fat. You can eat pretty much whatever you want, provided you are active enough to keep your weight down. There are times when it is easy to gain weight. I did a year in Afghanistan without doing any PT at all. The official line from the CO was that we were to do PT on our own time, but we were working 12-16 hour days, 6 days a week and that day off wasn't guaranteed. I don't think they could have enforced a PT standard even if they wanted to.
But that was just my line of work (helicopter maintenance). I'm pretty sure the infantry guys burned a LOT more calories than we did.
But all of that is still beside the point. It's a soldiers individual responsibility to keep himself up to standards. If he eats too much and gets fat and fails the run, then he doesn't get promoted (actually he is barred from any favorable actions, including awards and school on the army's dime). If he smokes too much and passes out during the run, well he still failed the run.
The Specialist on
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
you cant eat whatever you want if you do high exercise: to do that high exercise you need the right fuel. You'll hurt yourself if you are really pushing yourself and don't eat the right food.
there isn't really a lifestyle where maccas every day is okay. Once or twice a week isn't going to hurt anyone. Just treat it like a glorified dessert.
Well yes. I guess my point was largely "the damage McDonalds can do to you is entirely different to the type of damage smoking does".
And there is also the point that nicotine has a fairly direct chemical addiction mechanism, meaning the number of people smoking "occasionally" is pretty low.
Oh believe me, people still find a way to be fat. You can eat pretty much whatever you want, provided you are active enough to keep your weight down. There are times when it is easy to gain weight. I did a year in Afghanistan without doing any PT at all. The official line from the CO was that we were to do PT on our own time, but we were working 12-16 hour days, 6 days a week and that day off wasn't guaranteed. I don't think they could have enforced a PT standard even if they wanted to.
But that was just my line of work (helicopter maintenance). I'm pretty sure the infantry guys burned a LOT more calories than we did.
But all of that is still beside the point. It's a soldiers individual responsibility to keep himself up to standards. If he eats too much and gets fat and fails the run, then he doesn't get promoted (actually he is barred from any favorable actions, including awards and school on the army's dime). If he smokes too much and passes out during the run, well he still failed the run.
Isn't smoking damage more of a problem for retention, as it would be harder for a soldier to get back to a proper point of fitness, which is a problem considering the expense of training?
Isn't smoking damage more of a problem for retention, as it would be harder for a soldier to get back to a proper point of fitness, which is a problem considering the expense of training?
What do you mean get back to proper point of fitness? You have to maintain a constant level of fitness. It's not like you get out of basic and then don't get checked for another four years.
Which, in addition to smoking is hindered by alcohol and fast food, which you've completely failed to explain why the military shouldn't ban. It's far, far easier for someone to develop an obesity problem over a few months between fitness tests than lung damage.
you cant eat whatever you want if you do high exercise: to do that high exercise you need the right fuel. You'll hurt yourself if you are really pushing yourself and don't eat the right food.
there isn't really a lifestyle where maccas every day is okay. Once or twice a week isn't going to hurt anyone. Just treat it like a glorified dessert.
Well yes. I guess my point was largely "the damage McDonalds can do to you is entirely different to the type of damage smoking does".
And there is also the point that nicotine has a fairly direct chemical addiction mechanism, meaning the number of people smoking "occasionally" is pretty low.
The real concern here is mission readiness, which is affected more by a fatty diet than by smoking.
An soldier who smokes, can in most cases out perform a soldier who is out of shape.
Isn't smoking damage more of a problem for retention, as it would be harder for a soldier to get back to a proper point of fitness, which is a problem considering the expense of training?
What do you mean get back to proper point of fitness? You have to maintain a constant level of fitness. It's not like you get out of basic and then don't get checked for another four years.
Which, in addition to smoking is hindered by alcohol and fast food, which you've completely failed to explain why the military shouldn't ban. It's far, far easier for someone to develop an obesity problem over a few months between fitness tests than lung damage.
Quid one of your main premises in this thread seems to be a sort of slippery slope argument where we can't start banning unhealthy things cause then we'd have to ban all the unhealthy things (or at least, would be able to ban all the unhealthy things if we wanted.)
And I guess my question is, if they think a thing is having a specific detrimental effect on readiness, shouldn't they be able to ban it, or start moving that direction at least? Especially with something like smoking, where the effects are relatively easy to isolate and account for (as opposed to fast food or other substances that contribute to obesity.)
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And I guess my question is, if they think a thing is having a specific detrimental effect on readiness, shouldn't they be able to ban it, or start moving that direction at least? Especially with something like smoking, where the effects are relatively easy to isolate and account for (as opposed to fast food or other substances that contribute to obesity.)
Both alcohol and fast food have this effect. You know what else has this effect? Living off base, having a family, etc. There are a lot of things that are detrimental to the combat readiness of military personnel, yet I'm not seeing anyone suggest those things be taken away from military personnel.
After all, the military could if they wanted. It's well within their rights.
So explain why, when all those other things that are legal to civilians, should individual military personnel not be allowed to if they're meeting physical requirements and performing their duties?
Because every single one of you have completely avoided of answering why they shouldn't when it does hurt military readiness.
Isn't smoking damage more of a problem for retention, as it would be harder for a soldier to get back to a proper point of fitness, which is a problem considering the expense of training?
What do you mean get back to proper point of fitness? You have to maintain a constant level of fitness. It's not like you get out of basic and then don't get checked for another four years.
Which, in addition to smoking is hindered by alcohol and fast food, which you've completely failed to explain why the military shouldn't ban. It's far, far easier for someone to develop an obesity problem over a few months between fitness tests than lung damage.
My point is that fat disappears faster than lung damage, so smoking presents a much greater risk on causing successive failures, even if the failing soldier quits after the first failure.
There's also the fact that the problems associated with fast food and alcohol are those of excess. Our bodies need all that fat and sodium, just not typically as much as eating fast food regularly provides. Excess body fat is actually the storage of those extra calories for later use.
Alcohol can't be banned because it is very useful as long as it's below a certain level of consumption. Putting a bit of vodka into water gathers much less attention than making a fire to boil it, which is why watered down alcohol is considered a very basic logistic necessity.
Smoking, on the other hand, is quite simply ingesting highly addictive toxins. I can't think of any benefits derived from tobacco but all the costs are larger or not present in your two vices of choice.
Oh believe me, people still find a way to be fat. You can eat pretty much whatever you want, provided you are active enough to keep your weight down. There are times when it is easy to gain weight. I did a year in Afghanistan without doing any PT at all. The official line from the CO was that we were to do PT on our own time, but we were working 12-16 hour days, 6 days a week and that day off wasn't guaranteed. I don't think they could have enforced a PT standard even if they wanted to.
But that was just my line of work (helicopter maintenance). I'm pretty sure the infantry guys burned a LOT more calories than we did.
But all of that is still beside the point. It's a soldiers individual responsibility to keep himself up to standards. If he eats too much and gets fat and fails the run, then he doesn't get promoted (actually he is barred from any favorable actions, including awards and school on the army's dime). If he smokes too much and passes out during the run, well he still failed the run.
Isn't smoking damage more of a problem for retention, as it would be harder for a soldier to get back to a proper point of fitness, which is a problem considering the expense of training?
No. I think you are over-estimating how severe smoking damage is in the short-term. Yes, I know smoking kills. But it takes a while. If you want soldiers to quit smoking and keep retention up, you're going to have to take a more gradual approach.
Most soldiers these days are on the fence about re-enlistment right up until their window opens anyway because there's a LOT to dislike about the military service. And the negatives tend to outweigh the positives. Free healthcare is awesome, but a 4am health and welfare inspection tends to make you forget how awesome it is. Then you have the constant deployment rotation. A year in garrison, a year deployed, over and over and over again. You throw in an outright ban on all tobacco use, effective immediately, and watch those retention numbers plummet.
Edit: Again, I'm not arguing the merits of a smoke-free military. All I'm saying is an immediate ban would be a retarded thing to do, especially right now. Also, yes servicemembers have to do as they are told and I'm not saying there will be mutiny or anything close to it, but would you rather have an Army of soldiers that move out smartly when told to, or an Army of soldiers that drag their feet and mutter under their breath about how much bullshit this is? Low morale will affect a unit long before it gets bad enough to expect a mutiny.
The Specialist on
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
Posts
Thanks for the input. We were aware of this as has been stated previously. The discussion is still taking place apparently hypothetically. But you're super-smart to have read the OP! K THX BYE
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
This should be unconsitiutional in some way. I don't know this is just really, really bad.
I bet Obama is behind this.
I bet brain damage is behind this post.
Since its already been stated its Veterans Affairs thats behind this idea to phase out smoking over 20 years.
MWO: Adamski
Right and the VA plays a large part in determining policies for the DOD.
Man I share your incredulity...
Wait, what?
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
...
You do realize that he's a smoker, right?
I don't think an outright ban (even over 20 years) would be a feasible way of getting the armed forces to stop smoking. Doing things like the "20 more pushups for every smoke break" and monetary bonuses for passing a nicotine test, as well as raising prices of packs and reducing the availability at the PX would be more effective, especially in the long run.
Yes, but realizing that would require that one shift ones blame elsewhere. And then where are we?
There was a time in the armed services when failure to serve the daily ration of rum was grounds for a mutiny. Had you proposed to people then that we might one day make it a criminal offense to consume alcohol while on duty, they would have reacted... well, about how people are reacting right now.
I'm sure you're not actually statistically illiterate, so why are you acting as though you were?
Alcohol impairs one's senses and judgment. More so, it's still permitted to be used when not on duty.
What is being talked about is a ban at all times.
Though since you're all for the military shutting up and following orders, why don't you explain why they shouldn't also be forced to give up alcohol and fast food for the sake of readiness? And no, they don't need fast food for the high caloric content.
Really?
Still doesn't mean he's not all about pressuring others to give up their vices (or in this case forcing them).
I really don't like the claim that the VA is behind this. They already don't give disability for hearing loss, which is ridiculous. Their major concern here (like with hearing loss) is obviously the cost of supporting veterans with medical conditions caused by chronic tobacco use. The argument that tobacco use has a significant negative impact on mission readiness is a joke.
Do you have any even minuscule shred of evidence that Obama is "behind it all"?
Hmmm.
You know sometimes I find it extremely difficult to be pro-military and a liberal at the same time.
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
Okay, so you admit you're talking out of your ass.
I'm not sure I can stand on a high horse looking over someone who puts themselves in the line of fire for me.
Let alone tell them "man, you shouldn't smoke while protecting my ass you wont do as good a job".
And then claim "well I'm paying you so suck it up".
No, I don't think I can do that. Sure it'd be healthy if they did. But this is not a normal job. Unless you are in the military, I don't think you should tell people how to deal with their high stress, high risk job that ultimately protects you.
This isn't logic talking, this is just how I feel about it.
Logically, I agree with feral. I just don't like it.
Fuck it.
You're fucking stupid if you don't realize that when someone says "I bet [blank]", they're saying "I have a strong feeling that [blank]".
Edit: Nor do you have any reason to believe what's been actually reported to be true.
The possibility of soda taxes. Major increases in Tobacco taxes nationwide. Obama is all about making America healthy again. The VA has been pushing this for 20 years and after 3 presidents and countless chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff it's only being seriously considered now.
What the fuck is your edit even implying?
I hope this wasn't directed at me.
They want to make Obama look bad in the eyes of those that highly value personal freedoms.
So they get the VA to push this forward.
Open. And. Shut.
Is this a joke?
Is there any real evidence of this?
Also, it really pisses me off that any time someone opposes Obama in the slightest, they are immediately labeled a racist.
Are you saying that I'm a racist because I think Obama might be behind this?
No he's pointing out how absurd your assertion (or strong feeling or whatever you want to call it) is because you have no basis for it.
I'm saying your reasoning is exactly the same as what I just used. If it's not, please show how it's different.
Which has been stated.
Why do people keep asking?
The combat arms are a small part of the military, and the other physically intensive jobs are a relatively small part as well. Desk jockeys don't burn major calories.
there isn't really a lifestyle where maccas every day is okay. Once or twice a week isn't going to hurt anyone. Just treat it like a glorified dessert.
I guess I can see that. I think your example might be a little extreme though.
Not really. Weight is a pretty big issue in today's military. Overweight soldiers are pretty common, due in part to fast food and the short order line at the DFAC.
It's only in the field and in combat are you burning enough calories to eat whatever you want.
More soldiers have issues with performance due to a poor diet rather than smoking. Most of the fastest runners that I knew in the Army all smoked. Smoking never affected my cardio, and I smoked before, during (if possible) and after each PT session.
But that was just my line of work (helicopter maintenance). I'm pretty sure the infantry guys burned a LOT more calories than we did.
But all of that is still beside the point. It's a soldiers individual responsibility to keep himself up to standards. If he eats too much and gets fat and fails the run, then he doesn't get promoted (actually he is barred from any favorable actions, including awards and school on the army's dime). If he smokes too much and passes out during the run, well he still failed the run.
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WoAM-KOObY&feature=PlayList&p=B4E37ADF233A0A14&index=1
:P
And there is also the point that nicotine has a fairly direct chemical addiction mechanism, meaning the number of people smoking "occasionally" is pretty low.
Isn't smoking damage more of a problem for retention, as it would be harder for a soldier to get back to a proper point of fitness, which is a problem considering the expense of training?
Which, in addition to smoking is hindered by alcohol and fast food, which you've completely failed to explain why the military shouldn't ban. It's far, far easier for someone to develop an obesity problem over a few months between fitness tests than lung damage.
The real concern here is mission readiness, which is affected more by a fatty diet than by smoking.
An soldier who smokes, can in most cases out perform a soldier who is out of shape.
Quid one of your main premises in this thread seems to be a sort of slippery slope argument where we can't start banning unhealthy things cause then we'd have to ban all the unhealthy things (or at least, would be able to ban all the unhealthy things if we wanted.)
And I guess my question is, if they think a thing is having a specific detrimental effect on readiness, shouldn't they be able to ban it, or start moving that direction at least? Especially with something like smoking, where the effects are relatively easy to isolate and account for (as opposed to fast food or other substances that contribute to obesity.)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
After all, the military could if they wanted. It's well within their rights.
So explain why, when all those other things that are legal to civilians, should individual military personnel not be allowed to if they're meeting physical requirements and performing their duties?
Because every single one of you have completely avoided of answering why they shouldn't when it does hurt military readiness.
My point is that fat disappears faster than lung damage, so smoking presents a much greater risk on causing successive failures, even if the failing soldier quits after the first failure.
There's also the fact that the problems associated with fast food and alcohol are those of excess. Our bodies need all that fat and sodium, just not typically as much as eating fast food regularly provides. Excess body fat is actually the storage of those extra calories for later use.
Alcohol can't be banned because it is very useful as long as it's below a certain level of consumption. Putting a bit of vodka into water gathers much less attention than making a fire to boil it, which is why watered down alcohol is considered a very basic logistic necessity.
Smoking, on the other hand, is quite simply ingesting highly addictive toxins. I can't think of any benefits derived from tobacco but all the costs are larger or not present in your two vices of choice.
No. I think you are over-estimating how severe smoking damage is in the short-term. Yes, I know smoking kills. But it takes a while. If you want soldiers to quit smoking and keep retention up, you're going to have to take a more gradual approach.
Most soldiers these days are on the fence about re-enlistment right up until their window opens anyway because there's a LOT to dislike about the military service. And the negatives tend to outweigh the positives. Free healthcare is awesome, but a 4am health and welfare inspection tends to make you forget how awesome it is. Then you have the constant deployment rotation. A year in garrison, a year deployed, over and over and over again. You throw in an outright ban on all tobacco use, effective immediately, and watch those retention numbers plummet.
Edit: Again, I'm not arguing the merits of a smoke-free military. All I'm saying is an immediate ban would be a retarded thing to do, especially right now. Also, yes servicemembers have to do as they are told and I'm not saying there will be mutiny or anything close to it, but would you rather have an Army of soldiers that move out smartly when told to, or an Army of soldiers that drag their feet and mutter under their breath about how much bullshit this is? Low morale will affect a unit long before it gets bad enough to expect a mutiny.
Origin Handle - OminousBulge
XBox Live GT - TheOminousBulge