And you just kind of dodged his question. 'Smoking isn't everything' ? It is the topic at hand...
That was my point. I'm saying you can't dodge the question by saying "well if we banned smoking we'd have to ban EVERYTHING!"
*facepalm*
OK, let's try again then:
Since we're asking these people to go do things that are very likely to shorten their lifespan, why would we ban them from partaking in legal activities that while unhealthy do not negatively impact their performance (as they still have to do pt) or interfere with how they carry out their duties?
and greatly increases the costs involved in caring for individuals, it is both within the authority of the military to ban tobacco usage and as a long term policy clearly beneficial.
So you should be also advocating this stance for anyone on government health care. If one of the healthiest portions of our population shouldn't be allowed to smoke because of the possible government costs then neither should poor or old people who, statistically speaking, will be far less healthy.
To say nothing of the fact that you should also be advocating the military require all members cut out alcohol and junk food since, hey, those both increase the chances of long term sickness as well and serve no other purpose other than they like them.
And you just kind of dodged his question. 'Smoking isn't everything' ? It is the topic at hand...
That was my point. I'm saying you can't dodge the question by saying "well if we banned smoking we'd have to ban EVERYTHING!"
*facepalm*
OK, let's try again then:
Since we're asking these people to go do things that are very likely to shorten their lifespan, why would we ban them from partaking in legal activities that while unhealthy do not negatively impact their performance (as they still have to do pt) or interfere with how they carry out their duties?
That being said, I think Sec Gates, who is not an assclown, has stated he's not going to implement this any time soon and *especially* not during a war.
And anyways PantsB...should people on Medicare be forced not to imbibe any nicotine, alcohol, or unhealthy product, up to and including things like fast food?
No and they shouldn't be ordered to search down and find enemy sniper teams either.
So you acknowledge the inherent hypocrisy of your arguement, right?
I don't think you get it. Enlistment in the military inherently involves taking on additional restrictions on the conduct of one's life. You have to do what the people with more pieces of ribbon tell you to do. There are restrictions on where you live, what you wear, your participation in political affairs and yes in your health decisions. If those restrictions impinge on the inherent rights as a person one has, then we get into areas on controversy. As smoking does not regard an inherent right and detrimentally effects both the ability of an individual to meet the physical requirements of service...
There are plenty of soldiers who could run you into the ground while actively smoking a cigarette. Smoking doesn't keep anybody from meeting the physical requirements of service. Smoking and not doing enough PT does.
...and greatly increases the costs involved in caring for individuals, it is both within the authority of the military to ban tobacco usage and as a long term policy clearly beneficial.
Smoking greatly increases the costs of caring for individuals on Medicare, which a great portion of Americans will wind up on someday. It's both within the authority of Congress to ban tobacco usage and as a long-term policy is clearly beneficial.
This isn't about it being within the military's authority to ban tobacco. It's within the fedreal government's authority to do that for civvies too. It's about it being easier for the military to ban tobacco. So you're cool with it. Well, quite frankly, fuck that.
Really? Smoking doesn't make anyone fail the physical requirements? Because if you read the article is explicitly says those who smoke are more likely to drop out of basic, fail physical requirements and get sick (and therefore unable to perform their duty).
An argument on why the Congress should ban tobacco usage in general is also not an argument on why it should not ban it in the military. What is prudent or permissible to require from soldiers is clearly not the same as what is prudent or permissible to require of citizens or some other subset of citizens. It would be beneficial for recipients of Medicare to exercise daily or at least regularly, but just because we require it of soldiers does not mean we must or should require it of Medicare recipients.
Already done. Both on the motivational poster side, particularly, but we also had a platoon when I was at AT this year where you had to do X pushups for every smoke break you took.
Actually got a couple guys to cut back, too.
I'd be nice if people read the original article since this is the type of thing, along with banning it during basic training/service academies and increasing its cost/reducing its availability in military stores, that is being proposed.
Cigarettes? God damn, if the military bans this then what's next? Binge drinking and unprotected sex? You really gotta give some leway to the guys and gals whose job it is to get shot at, or give material support to the ones that get shot at.
Anyway, there's a certain line the brass can't encroach upon. If a ban on cigarettes were to become regulation, who could enforce it? If the servicemembers just didn't bother quitting, then you can't put everyone on discipline. Who'd fight your wars?
The servicemen who don't want to be brought up on charges? The same argument could be made regarding integration (racial, gender or sexuality) or drugs (which were incredibly common and a huge problem in the 70s). And the same melodrama has been thrown around each time. "Who will enforce it? Well this is the last straw, I'll march through shit for days without sleep and live in Spartan and dangerous conditions for months at a time, and largely live my life in a manner determined by my service, but <quit smoking>? Now they've gone too far! Now, excuse me, I have to go to bed ten feet from another adult male so I can get up at the ass crack of dawn so I have time to make my bed and organize my scant personal belongings in a very regulated manner before I have to go and exercise under the close supervision of a guy in a ridiculous hat before performing the specific duties that I have no control over. This intrusion into my personal liberty has just gotten me so worked up that if refusing to do what my superior officers tell me to do or quitting my job didn't result in a nasty black mark on my record that could result in jail time or severe difficulties in employment I'd tell them off!"
Aren't there already regulations for punishing soldiers that are drunk on duty and such? Are there similar prohibitions against cigarette use? It seems unlikely, since smoking isn't nearly as hampering to your performance of duties as is intoxication.
If they can pass the physical requirements, more power to them. I don't see the need for this.
A better way of doing this would be to change the requirements test so that it required more running or stamina or whatever, or offering a small bonus to people who pass the drug test.
SageinaRage on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
I'd be nice if people read the original article since this is the type of thing, along with banning it during basic training/service academies and increasing its cost/reducing its availability in military stores, that is being proposed.
I don't know what sort of basic training they're doing right now, but to my knowledge smoking has been banned from BCT for, like, years
Like 20+ years
And they've raised the cost of cigarettes per pack at PXs
Aren't there already regulations for punishing soldiers that are drunk on duty and such? Are there similar prohibitions against cigarette use? It seems unlikely, since smoking isn't nearly as hampering to your performance of duties as is intoxication.
Yes to the former (you get in so much shit for Drunk On Duty)
No to the latter (currently)
Also, I don't think people realize how much stress a service member goes through in an average day, not to mention deployments, and how toxic it can be
And you just kind of dodged his question. 'Smoking isn't everything' ? It is the topic at hand...
That was my point. I'm saying you can't dodge the question by saying "well if we banned smoking we'd have to ban EVERYTHING!"
*facepalm*
OK, let's try again then:
Since we're asking these people to go do things that are very likely to shorten their lifespan, why would we ban them from partaking in legal activities that while unhealthy do not negatively impact their performance (as they still have to do pt) or interfere with how they carry out their duties?
So your claim is that most of them will be dead before they get lung cancer?
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I'd be nice if people read the original article since this is the type of thing, along with banning it during basic training/service academies and increasing its cost/reducing its availability in military stores, that is being proposed.
I don't know what sort of basic training they're doing right now, but to my knowledge smoking has been banned from BCT for, like, years
Like 20+ years
And they've raised the cost of cigarettes per pack at PXs
Also, I don't think people realize how much stress a service member goes through in an average day, not to mention deployments, and how toxic it can be
I'd be nice if people read the original article since this is the type of thing, along with banning it during basic training/service academies and increasing its cost/reducing its availability in military stores, that is being proposed.
I don't know what sort of basic training they're doing right now, but to my knowledge smoking has been banned from BCT for, like, years
Like 20+ years
And they've raised the cost of cigarettes per pack at PXs
A new study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs recommends a complete ban on tobacco, which would end tobacco sales on military bases and prohibit smoking by anyone in uniform, not even combat troops in the thick of battle.
If they really want to cut out smoking in the military this is a fucktarded way to go about it. It's basic psychology that when you just flatout try to ban something from anybody it isn't going to go over well - let alone when said activity is widespread and pleasurable to the people doing it, and when it's something that's always been done.
It would be much simpler to just discourage smoking through negative reinforcement over a long period of time, especially among new recruits who are already making radical adjustments to their lifestyle. I mean, Basic is what, about nine or ten weeks long? And most of the recruits are going to be teenagers or 20ish people who've only been smoking for a few years anyway? It's going to be a lot easier to get them to quit then, and after a couple of decades smoking would slowly die out. Yeah, it's a long-term solution but when you're talking about health care costs, it's a long-term problem.
As far as performance goes, pretty much every military ever since tobacco has been cultivated has smoked cigarettes, and somehow wars still get fought. I don't really see an issue there, either.
I'd be nice if people read the original article since this is the type of thing, along with banning it during basic training/service academies and increasing its cost/reducing its availability in military stores, that is being proposed.
I don't know what sort of basic training they're doing right now, but to my knowledge smoking has been banned from BCT for, like, years
Like 20+ years
And they've raised the cost of cigarettes per pack at PXs
Also, I don't think people realize how much stress a service member goes through in an average day, not to mention deployments, and how toxic it can be
Yeah, the stress relief you think you get from tobacco is actually the alleviation of nicotine withdrawal symptoms.
I think equating smoking to eating fast food is pretty fair. There's no REASON a person in the army needs to go eat fast food. They have cheaper healthier options available to them (if not 24/7 like in the old days.)
I actually think the fast-food places they have on post are a terrible idea, practically designed to encourage people to fail body fat standards. The number one chain on every Army base I've been on is Burger King, home of the 1800 Cal. lunch. I understand the need for fast food to be available, but there are less ridiculously unhealthy options they could have on post.
I'd be nice if people read the original article since this is the type of thing, along with banning it during basic training/service academies and increasing its cost/reducing its availability in military stores, that is being proposed.
I don't know what sort of basic training they're doing right now, but to my knowledge smoking has been banned from BCT for, like, years
Like 20+ years
And they've raised the cost of cigarettes per pack at PXs
A new study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs recommends a complete ban on tobacco, which would end tobacco sales on military bases and prohibit smoking by anyone in uniform, not even combat troops in the thick of battle.
Yeah, there may or may not be some miscommunication. Two things are being discussed:
A) making it marginally more difficult on smokers in the services banning smoking (even off duty) by anybody in the services
(A) is the only one that's likely to happen, especially at present, especially given the current recruiting and retention situation (wars and all).
Some here have been supporting (B), under the argument that "hey, they're soldiers, they sign up for restrictions so we can do shit to them that would be unacceptable for Medicare recipients, even in the same 'costs of health care to the government' context" (yes, that's a simplification of the argument, but pretty much what it boils down to).
Now, PantsB, if all you were supporting was (A), then more power to you.
If, as it seemed, you were supporting (B) then I still say fuck right off.
Now, it's pretty clear you supported (B)...
and doesn't touch upon the rights of the military service members. Indeed, smoking directly effects the often physical duties and the cardiovascular requirements of service. A gradual move towards a ban seems like a damn good idea.
...though obviously not right now. I still say that as long as anybody eligible for Medicare gets to smoke, then any argument regarding "costs of health care" is a load of shit. The whole "we can restrict the military, it's reasonable" argument doesn't change that...that might cut it on the "can't pass physical requirements" end, but has nothing to do with the fact that smoking by the average fat civvie fuck on the street costs us much more in health care than by soldiers.
And as for the physical requirements part, I still say that it should be on the soldier to balance their nicotine use and physical training. If they fail out, they fail out. Bye. Punishing the hundreds of thousands of smokers who do just fine on the physical end (plenty of smokers are much more physically fit than my non-smoking ass, that's for sure) because a few can't handle it is silly...kick them out, recruit somebody that can.
I actually think the fast-food places they have on post are a terrible idea, practically designed to encourage people to fail body fat standards. The number one chain on every Army base I've been on is Burger King, home of the 1800 Cal. lunch. I understand the need for fast food to be available, but there are less ridiculously unhealthy options they could have on post.
Given the amount of cordite that combat troops breathe anyway I find it difficult to believe that smoking is that significant a factor in "lung health."
I'd be nice if people read the original article since this is the type of thing, along with banning it during basic training/service academies and increasing its cost/reducing its availability in military stores, that is being proposed.
I don't know what sort of basic training they're doing right now, but to my knowledge smoking has been banned from BCT for, like, years
Like 20+ years
And they've raised the cost of cigarettes per pack at PXs
A new study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs recommends a complete ban on tobacco, which would end tobacco sales on military bases and prohibit smoking by anyone in uniform, not even combat troops in the thick of battle.
Now a proposal to make the forces smoke-free is drawing strong reactions from troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the Pentagon itself says any ban is a long way off.
The troops' fears — and, in some cases, hopes — were triggered by a study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department that recommends moving toward a tobacco-free military, perhaps in about 20 years.
You'd think you'd do some actual research if you're going to be this insistent. The report recommends gradually increasing anti-smoking measures - such as making it tougher to buy cigarettes and banning smoking at basic training and the service academies - so that in 20 years smoking will be a much smaller issue and a complete ban would be simple to implement.
So what this is telling me is that the terrorists, if they really wanted to destroy America, just need to destroy the tobbacco fields, thus causing mass suicide of the armed forces.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
So what this is telling me is that the terrorists, if they really wanted to destroy America, just need to destroy the tobbacco fields, thus causing mass suicide of the armed forces.
No its telling us that that while the military can and does require a particular style of folding socks for essentially no purpose can't ban activities that have extensive detrimental effects in terms of efficiency, health and cost because there are those who can meet the physical requirements while smoking. It tells us:
I don't even smoke, and this would honestly make me seriously consider getting out. There comes a point where they through enough "because we can" regulations at you and it just gets to be too much.
that while its fine to ban wide ranging categories of political activity of service members, that banning smoking reaches too far and shatters the fundamental rights of servicemen and -women.
It tells us that some people are fine with Discharging Homosexuals Less than Honorably, but if they take a step towards disciplining smokers in two decades then they've just crossed the line! That's the kind of injustice that is just intolerable.
Ban it and its going to go into the military blackmarket.
Not to mention many officers will probably turn a blind eye if they see their soldiers smoking while they are deployed in a combat situation (iraq/afghanistan)
No its telling us that that while the military can and does require a particular style of folding socks for essentially no purpose
This is done in basic to bang discipline into new recruits. The vast, vast majority of that bullshit is stopped after basic and no one cares so long as you show up to work every day looking decent.
can't ban activities that have extensive detrimental effects in terms of efficiency, health and cost because there are those who can meet the physical requirements while smoking.
Oh they can by the literal definition of the word. However, they shouldn't unless you can explain why every single vice that can possibly reduce military efficiency and fitness shouldn't be banned.
It tells us that some people are fine with Discharging Homosexuals Less than Honorably, but if they take a step towards disciplining smokers in two decades then they've just crossed the line! That's the kind of injustice that is just intolerable.
Really, which people are those? I don't see anyone saying they're happy with DADT and want it in effect.
Quid on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
PantsB is doing the tried-and-true "Military people are racist ignorant selfish fuckwits and I'm soooooooooooo much more enlightened because of <X>, therefore their positions are dumb and I'm right because I have no personal investment in this and can therefore make ridiculous demands of a group of people I don't know anything about" arguement
This inevitably happens in military threads like this. Mcdermott and I got infracted last time this came up, so I'm just gonna throw up the deuces and say "You're right, whatever, PantsB" before I get my ass in trouble again
Out of sheer curiosity, does the military still give Separation Pay for those serving overseas away from their families? Because I mean it seems a little odd that they'd be like "yeah here is some money for Filipino whores" but smoking is bad.
Salvation122 on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Out of sheer curiosity, does the military still give Separation Pay for those serving overseas away from their families? Because I mean it seems a little odd that they'd be like "yeah here is some money for Filipino whores" but smoking is bad.
Ban it and its going to go into the military blackmarket.
Not to mention many officers will probably turn a blind eye if they see their soldiers smoking while they are deployed in a combat situation (iraq/afghanistan)
*Shouted over a deafing firefight* Careful Private those things will kill yeah! *Yakety sax plays as the officer chases the smoking Private while ducking bullets*
So 20 years from now the military might see a ban on smokes... why is there so many hissy fights about this ban on smokes due to come into effect approx 20 years from now? I mean, 20 years from now, ya know when that smoking ban may or may not come into effect I could see people getting grumpy. But not now when we are still 20 years from an unpopular ban on the smoking of nicotine which is in every way a negative to the lives of those who use them, especially those with careers in the service.
So, to sum up what I'm trying to say, is that 20 years from now, if the number of smokers in the service are reduced to a true minority then those few remaining smokers will be faced with a ban that they won't enjoy. That's rough.
Plus 20 years from now we'll have UAV's and Terminators fighting our wars for us, or against us, and everyone can smoke whatever they want.
Out of sheer curiosity, does the military still give Separation Pay for those serving overseas away from their families? Because I mean it seems a little odd that they'd be like "yeah here is some money for Filipino whores" but smoking is bad.
Yes, the armed services offer separation pay, and no, it's not to pay for whores.
The military kills the people they're ordered to kill by the civilian leadership you fuckwits voted into power. So enough with the "these people are racist murderers" bullshit.
The military kills the people they're ordered to kill by the civilian leadership you fuckwits voted into power. So enough with the "these people are racist murderers" bullshit.
The military kills the people they're ordered to kill by the civilian leadership you fuckwits voted into power. So enough with the "these people are racist murderers" bullshit.
Everything you listed is spill over from the civilian realm. Douchebag as a civilian -> douchebag as a servicemember. There isn't nothing inherently malicious about military culture.
Posts
*facepalm*
OK, let's try again then:
Since we're asking these people to go do things that are very likely to shorten their lifespan, why would we ban them from partaking in legal activities that while unhealthy do not negatively impact their performance (as they still have to do pt) or interfere with how they carry out their duties?
To say nothing of the fact that you should also be advocating the military require all members cut out alcohol and junk food since, hey, those both increase the chances of long term sickness as well and serve no other purpose other than they like them.
An argument on why the Congress should ban tobacco usage in general is also not an argument on why it should not ban it in the military. What is prudent or permissible to require from soldiers is clearly not the same as what is prudent or permissible to require of citizens or some other subset of citizens. It would be beneficial for recipients of Medicare to exercise daily or at least regularly, but just because we require it of soldiers does not mean we must or should require it of Medicare recipients. I'd be nice if people read the original article since this is the type of thing, along with banning it during basic training/service academies and increasing its cost/reducing its availability in military stores, that is being proposed.
The servicemen who don't want to be brought up on charges? The same argument could be made regarding integration (racial, gender or sexuality) or drugs (which were incredibly common and a huge problem in the 70s). And the same melodrama has been thrown around each time. "Who will enforce it? Well this is the last straw, I'll march through shit for days without sleep and live in Spartan and dangerous conditions for months at a time, and largely live my life in a manner determined by my service, but <quit smoking>? Now they've gone too far! Now, excuse me, I have to go to bed ten feet from another adult male so I can get up at the ass crack of dawn so I have time to make my bed and organize my scant personal belongings in a very regulated manner before I have to go and exercise under the close supervision of a guy in a ridiculous hat before performing the specific duties that I have no control over. This intrusion into my personal liberty has just gotten me so worked up that if refusing to do what my superior officers tell me to do or quitting my job didn't result in a nasty black mark on my record that could result in jail time or severe difficulties in employment I'd tell them off!"
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
A better way of doing this would be to change the requirements test so that it required more running or stamina or whatever, or offering a small bonus to people who pass the drug test.
I don't know what sort of basic training they're doing right now, but to my knowledge smoking has been banned from BCT for, like, years
Like 20+ years
And they've raised the cost of cigarettes per pack at PXs
Yes to the former (you get in so much shit for Drunk On Duty)
No to the latter (currently)
Also, I don't think people realize how much stress a service member goes through in an average day, not to mention deployments, and how toxic it can be
Honestly we need all the stress relief we can get
So your claim is that most of them will be dead before they get lung cancer?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It would be much simpler to just discourage smoking through negative reinforcement over a long period of time, especially among new recruits who are already making radical adjustments to their lifestyle. I mean, Basic is what, about nine or ten weeks long? And most of the recruits are going to be teenagers or 20ish people who've only been smoking for a few years anyway? It's going to be a lot easier to get them to quit then, and after a couple of decades smoking would slowly die out. Yeah, it's a long-term solution but when you're talking about health care costs, it's a long-term problem.
As far as performance goes, pretty much every military ever since tobacco has been cultivated has smoked cigarettes, and somehow wars still get fought. I don't really see an issue there, either.
I actually think the fast-food places they have on post are a terrible idea, practically designed to encourage people to fail body fat standards. The number one chain on every Army base I've been on is Burger King, home of the 1800 Cal. lunch. I understand the need for fast food to be available, but there are less ridiculously unhealthy options they could have on post.
And don't get me started on DFAC menus.
Yeah, there may or may not be some miscommunication. Two things are being discussed:
A) making it marginally more difficult on smokers in the services
(A) is the only one that's likely to happen, especially at present, especially given the current recruiting and retention situation (wars and all).
Some here have been supporting (B), under the argument that "hey, they're soldiers, they sign up for restrictions so we can do shit to them that would be unacceptable for Medicare recipients, even in the same 'costs of health care to the government' context" (yes, that's a simplification of the argument, but pretty much what it boils down to).
Now, PantsB, if all you were supporting was (A), then more power to you.
If, as it seemed, you were supporting (B) then I still say fuck right off.
Now, it's pretty clear you supported (B)...
...though obviously not right now. I still say that as long as anybody eligible for Medicare gets to smoke, then any argument regarding "costs of health care" is a load of shit. The whole "we can restrict the military, it's reasonable" argument doesn't change that...that might cut it on the "can't pass physical requirements" end, but has nothing to do with the fact that smoking by the average fat civvie fuck on the street costs us much more in health care than by soldiers.
And as for the physical requirements part, I still say that it should be on the soldier to balance their nicotine use and physical training. If they fail out, they fail out. Bye. Punishing the hundreds of thousands of smokers who do just fine on the physical end (plenty of smokers are much more physically fit than my non-smoking ass, that's for sure) because a few can't handle it is silly...kick them out, recruit somebody that can.
Hey, on the Navy side you get McDonald's instead.
You'd think you'd do some actual research if you're going to be this insistent. The report recommends gradually increasing anti-smoking measures - such as making it tougher to buy cigarettes and banning smoking at basic training and the service academies - so that in 20 years smoking will be a much smaller issue and a complete ban would be simple to implement.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No its telling us that that while the military can and does require a particular style of folding socks for essentially no purpose can't ban activities that have extensive detrimental effects in terms of efficiency, health and cost because there are those who can meet the physical requirements while smoking. It tells us:
that while its fine to ban wide ranging categories of political activity of service members, that banning smoking reaches too far and shatters the fundamental rights of servicemen and -women.
It tells us that some people are fine with Discharging Homosexuals Less than Honorably, but if they take a step towards disciplining smokers in two decades then they've just crossed the line! That's the kind of injustice that is just intolerable.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Not to mention many officers will probably turn a blind eye if they see their soldiers smoking while they are deployed in a combat situation (iraq/afghanistan)
Oh they can by the literal definition of the word. However, they shouldn't unless you can explain why every single vice that can possibly reduce military efficiency and fitness shouldn't be banned.
Really, which people are those? I don't see anyone saying they're happy with DADT and want it in effect.
This inevitably happens in military threads like this. Mcdermott and I got infracted last time this came up, so I'm just gonna throw up the deuces and say "You're right, whatever, PantsB" before I get my ass in trouble again
Yeah they do
*Shouted over a deafing firefight* Careful Private those things will kill yeah! *Yakety sax plays as the officer chases the smoking Private while ducking bullets*
So 20 years from now the military might see a ban on smokes... why is there so many hissy fights about this ban on smokes due to come into effect approx 20 years from now? I mean, 20 years from now, ya know when that smoking ban may or may not come into effect I could see people getting grumpy. But not now when we are still 20 years from an unpopular ban on the smoking of nicotine which is in every way a negative to the lives of those who use them, especially those with careers in the service.
So, to sum up what I'm trying to say, is that 20 years from now, if the number of smokers in the service are reduced to a true minority then those few remaining smokers will be faced with a ban that they won't enjoy. That's rough.
Plus 20 years from now we'll have UAV's and Terminators fighting our wars for us, or against us, and everyone can smoke whatever they want.
Best. Army. Ever.
Except poles.
If you can do it while flying your UAV down the enemy's death star trench and still hit your 2 meter target you can smoke -ANYTHING- you want to.
Edit: Remember, we are talking about 20 years in the future here!
Cause we already have one poster making idiotic assumptions.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Ya that comment was off topic at best and kinda just plain mean.
It's the US military's oldest tradition. If that's not culture, I don't know what is.
My point is that having done a thing for a long time isn't a justification.
Tact
1: sensitive mental or aesthetic perception
2: a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense
Yes, the armed services offer separation pay, and no, it's not to pay for whores.
Actually, the military generally killed any Native Americans who didn't immediately sibmit, and many who did, for the first hundred or so years of its existance. Many of its Cold War actions were distinguished be the wholesale slaughter of civilians. I imagine there were some grumbles when the higher ups decided that that's not okay. More recently, the military is still having trouble getting air force cadets to stop beating atheists, and the army has been looking the other way on all the neonazis they've been letting in.
A ban on smoking saves the taxpayer money theoretically.
Sorry guys, that's what happens when you're in the public sector.
And why stop with just cigarettes? Why not fast food or alcohol?