Welcome to my non-WoW rant of the day!
I don’t know if you’ve read this, if you’re aware of it, or even if you care.
According to a news story in USA Today from last Friday, a recent study by the Institute of Medicine, a study specifically requested by the VA and the Pentagon, recommends that there be a complete ban on all tobacco use for the United States Military, to ban it’s use on military property, and to ban it’s sale on Military property.
Okay, you can read the article yourself. It’s available online, and it all boils down to banning tobacco use by any military personnel… and it’s use on base as well, which would by extension mean no smoking bans would be enforced on all military property… any bets on if that would include on-base housing where the civilian families of active duty military members live?
Now, before I share my thoughts on this, let me give you my perspective on smoking.
I started smoking cigarettes in my first year or two in the US Marines. I smoked quite heavily by my personal standards, perhaps as much as a pack, pack and a half a day. I would sometimes, when on deployment and not expecting to spend much time in the field, take my pipe and some cans of tobacco with me because it would last longer and be cheaper than cartons of cigarettes.
When I spent a year in Okinawa, I switched to smoking clove cigarettes in a black paper wrapper with a gold foil ring, just because it was different. About 9 months in I heard that they could make your lungs bleed, so I quit that and went back to cigarettes. Spent most of my time in Okinawa running every day, there’s a very old Marine saying that when stationed in Okinawa, and single, there’s two ways you could go; drinking like a fish, or running like a gazelle. I ain’t much of a drinker. I got my time in the bars in, but they were mostly in a few quiet places off-street that played Jazz and catered to the local sake drinkers… and I loved sitting in a quiet bar drinking warm sake and listenening to the Yellowjackets or Shadowfax on a Saturday afternoon. But for the most part, I ran, and my lungs seemed healthy… but bleeding? Ick, better give that shit a wide berth, my friend.
During one particularly long deplyment in the desert, I ran out of tobacco, both cigarettes and pipe tobacco, and my buddy happened to still have quite a few ‘logs’ of spearmint Skoal long cut in his pack, so he handed some over… and I happily switched my tobacco use to Skoal smokeless tobacco. I figured it might help my run time anyway, if I stopped putting crap in my lungs.
I continued to use Skoal, and smoke the occasional cigar with Manny, for a long time. By the time I got close to being married to Cassie, I’d been using tobacco in one form or another full time for 15 years. And, hey, I’ll be honest here; I loved it. I never found a single thing not to like.
Cassie told me early on that she did not like my using tobacco. She thought my chewing tobacco was nasty, the spit cans were disgusting, and the thought of kissing me after having that stuff in my mouth was nauseating.
I’ll blame it on the tobacco. :)
So I quit. And no, I don’t mean I chased around with patches and gum and whatever, I just mean I quit. I stopped using it, buying it, or having anything to do with it.
I guess it’s been a little over 8 years now, and aside from having a cigar once or twice with Manny when listening to the Tim Malloys play locally in a bar (The Half Time Rec Center), I haven’t gone back. I don’t have secret stashes, I don’t sneak cigarettes around. I just stopped. And, since Manny moved to the east coast, I haven’t even had a cigar in years, damnit. How am I supposed to cultivate a reputation for drunken debouchery if my only drinkin’ and smokin’ buddy moves to Virginia?
So I am a former Marine Corps veteran, heavy tobacco user that has quit tobacco use, and has been clean for 8 years.
This is still, the whole military smoking ban, in my opinion, utter bullshit.
Why? It’s healthier, right?
It’s bullshit, because it comes down to control. Legislators that apparently want to control the activity of as many people as possible. I truly believe that.
There seem to be certain people that look around for someone else that they can control, someone whose lives they can tweak and jerk around on a whim as though they were slaves, and their eyes settle on the ignorant myrmidons, the active duty military, and a piggish gleam shines in their eyes.
“Hey”, they say, “We own them, we can make them do whatever we want. They have to do what we say, or get thrown in jail. Cool. ”
And so, hey, let’s ban cigarette use for active duty military. Let’s take away their choice. We’ll save money, and that’s a good thing!
I assure you, if they could take away the ability for military personnel to vote, they would. I ain’t kidding, either.
Military personnel, so long as we continue to have an armed force consisting strictly of volunteers, so long as there remains no active draft, are free to join willingly, understanding what they’re getting in for. There are damn few people I served with that would have ever said, “Oh hell, if I serve my country they won’t let me smoke? Hell no, man, I’m gonna go to Canada instaid. Take away my right to light up, hell no.”
As we used to say, USMC, “U Signed the Muthaf&*#in Contract”. If you couldn’t take a joke, you shouldn’t have joined up.
Once in, service members are serving under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the rules and regulations that they live under are not the same as civilian citizens of the United States. It’s perfectly acceptable for the rules to change so it’s not allowed for service personnel to be forbidden from smoking.
Why a UCMJ? This state of affairs exists because a combat situation is no place for the rule of committee. Period. A clearly defined chain of command, top down, with specific rules of behavior, strict discipline, is critical to the continued success of our armed forces.
Do you really think this situation was put in place so that a group of legislators could decide what is best for other people, and then take steps to ban an activity… which, once banned, would mean that a violation of that ban could cause loss of rank, privilidges, and even up to or including time in the brig depending on how strict a hard ass the officer overseeing the incident chooses to be?
Personally, I don’t like smoking in my presence anymore. My home is smoke free, and Cassie and I only go to places where there is no smoking, because being around smoke makes me feel… dirty. Gets in the hair, gets in the clothes, I smell it lingering hours later, get back from the club and if there was smoking, I need to take a shower before going to bed.
That does not mean that I think that other people should have their right to choose what they want to do taken away from them.
“Oh, but it’s dangerous! They could die!”
Yes, that’s true. But in my world view, that is not a compelling argument.
Driving a car is also dangerous. Other people driving their cars around me is dangerous to me. (Especially since I’ve seen those people, and they should not be allowed to drive a golf cart, let alone an SUV. And get off the damn phone, moron! If your speed and lane stability varies once you’re on the phone, then you are too stupid to control a motor vehicle at 60 mph and talk at the same time! Shut it the *(^% off!)
Should everyone be banned from driving because they may get in an accident and die? Should you be forbidden from driving because you could get behind the wheel, get in an accident and kill someone else?
It’s regulated here, we have tests, we have laws for whats safe and whats not… but in the end, the choice of whether or not to drive is left in the hands of the citizen.
Ice skating is dangerous, skiing is dangerous, surfing and playing football and sunbathing are dangerous.
Heck, should we forbid people from going out in the sun with exposed skin because they are risking skin cancer?
No, in my opinion there is no difference in degree. It comes down to whether you think people have the right to make certain life altering decisions for themselves, or if you feel that they are cattle that need to be told what to do, whether they like it or not.
I am solidly on the side of folks having the right to do what they want, so long as what they choose to do does not harm or endanger the lives of anyone else.
If the concern is that people will smoke in enclosed areas that endanger others with second hand smoke, than regulate it, have tests, and make sure people have to be educated about smoking in well ventilated areas so as not to endanger others.
You ban it outright, and you’re showing that your only concern is control of behavior, without regard for personal choice.
I already said we don’t like second hand smoke. For us, not so much for health as for the smell and lingering odor. For Alex, we just don’t want it around him. When my mom came to visit us a few years ago, and she smokes like a chimney, she spent a lot of time out on the patio, smoking. She had the choice of staying at our house and respecting our wishes on smoking, or getting a hotel room. She stayed at the house, and she didn’t smoke in the house, because we didn’t want it in the house near our son.
Choice. We didn’t tell her she couldn’t smoke, we said she couldn’t smoke in our house. And we made damn sure there were alternatives available (like a comfy patio with chairs, umbrella, swing, coffee pot, etc.)
It’s what freedom is all about. The freedom to choose for yourself… and it seems to be the one thing that politicians truly delight in taking away from those they can.
Will it happen? It’s probably inevitable.
Will life as we know it end? No, no it won’t.
Will the Marines move on and switch to downing Monster and Red Bull (until that gets banned)? Probably. Hell, I would.
The fact of it happening isn’t all that important in the long run. You already aren’t allowed to smoke in uniform in garrison, at least you weren’t when I was in the Marines, on most bases. It looks unprofessional. You don’t do things in uniform that look unprofessional.
But this goes deeper than that, down to a desire to control the bahavior of people that enlist in the armed forces, because they can.
It’s not mentioned as being done out of consideration for the health of the service personnel, out of kindness or human decency, it’s described as the recommendations of a study looking at whether banning tobacco use would save money in future health care costs. It would, so go do it.
Well, how much money is wasted in hospital stays due to car accidents? Maybe we should ban the use of personal automobile transportation, and switch to light rail, trains and busses for everything. It would save money in future health care costs!
In fact, let’s have a panel to examine every aspect of our lives, and if there is a potential for health care costs as the result of an activity, it should be banned… for our own good, of course.
Hey, and while we’re at it… let’s institute some controls on how much food people are allowed to eat per meal per day. We need some rationing cards. People in this country are getting too damn obese, and clearly the solution is to decide for them when they are allowed to eat, what they’re allowed to eat, and how much. That should cut down a lot of future health care costs, right?
Yeah, after all, thats’ the principle this country was founded on… the right to control or ban any behavior that might lead to increased health care costs for the government, on the average, further down the road.
/Sigh.
Endrant, endrant, endrant.
Agree with me or not, it’s just another thing that when I read it, it makes my eyes bleed.
Amen brother! Your story of tobacco use almost matches mine exactly, except I was Army and I just quit 3 years ago. If the government wanted to make tobacco illegal I could understand, and could even support in some ways, but this idea of just making it apply to only the military is just stupid. The reason they won’t make it illegal is the amount of money the government makes off taxing the damn things, that’s why they don’t mind changing the rules for the military, they don’t pay sales tax’s so there is no income for the government to lose.
Amen. Like you said, the military is an especially attractive target, because of the contract/UCMJ/etc. The truly scary thing is these same people would love to extend their control to everyone…
/sigh
But, like you said, life will go on.
heh my father was in the Corp and even when I was a kid chewed constantly until I was about 10 when my mother finally got him to quit. It was so gross!
But yeah, I don’t know why people have the desire to control you and force you to live their way. So what if something is probably bad for you, people do things every day that is bad for you. making vices into crimes has never been a good answer, I thought we learned that with Prohibition but we still haven’t learned, the busybodies just want more control.. If you dare to suggest letting people make their own decisions is best they scoff, few people even believe that anymore. It is scary, because today it is the vice you are against, tomorrow it will be something you care about.
There is more to it then simply trying to control soldiers, though. While yes, it could be seen that way, there is both the health angle and a discipline angle as well. If you are smoking, or consuming other forms of Tobacco, you are actively taking steps that will lower your level of physical fitness. While it may not make your lungs bleed like clove cigarettes, you do end up with a lower capacity for breath. Theres also the costs of treating smoking, whether its in the forms of the various cessation programs, or for things like lung infections.
And then, there are the discipline issues. My time in the service was in the Navy, and smoking has perhaps some other effects there. I remember in Power School, when it came time for the 10 minutes of every hour that you could break away for a smoke break without being penalized on the logs for it (or between class sessions), you would have this mad rush out the doors to the door, where people would burn one, then hurry back in. This could tend to be very disruptive. When out to sea, I know I’ve heard stories of Surface versus Subs wargames where the surface fleet is running dark, but they were spotted by glowing cigarette, (and ONLY that cigarette).
So while yes, those who are serving in the Military are giving up some freedoms, they already GAVE those freedoms when they signed the contract. A big portion of military military life is mission preparedness, and you will have a very hard time convincing me that a force that smokes will be a better fighting force then a force that does.
Bear! I love you! And might I add to the “it’s dangerous” part…these guys get SHOT AT!! I’m pretty sure the bullets and bombs are a bigger risk to their health. And saving money is so BS. Want to bet costs would increase? What about the guys with PTSD that have some of THAT anxiety relieved by their tobacco use? That’s one LESS medication to take, that would be replaced by the cost of a prescription. Or the sheer amount of patches, pills, gums, lozenges the military insurance would then be paying for? I’m not saying it’s a healthy alternative, but Withdrawal+PTSD= trouble. Domesttic violence rates are bad on military bases as it is, can you imagine the increase when BOTH are forbidden from smoking. I don’t even want to think about it.
My husband is leaving this week. Do I want him in a “foxhole” with some guy that just had his smokes cold turkey taken away? Making him anxious, depressed, scatterbrained? Unable to focus? These are all exactly what withdrawal can and does do. HELL NO!! My husband smokes, Do I want him in a friggin warzone with those symptoms? Hell no! Not a chance. As his wife, I do everything I can, up to and including withholding information, to make sure his head is on his job, these bureaucratic asshats should do nothing less.
And one more thing…the military DOES pay taxes on smokes bought on post. Every time the govt jacks up taxes on tobacco, …PX prices go up too, so the govt is getting a chunk. And speaking of px/bx sales, that’s money used to support family programs on the posts, EVERYONE loses when the PX loses sales.
I completely agree Bear…makes my eyes bleed and my head hurt >.<
Hey God (In what ever form you believe it) gave us the freedom of choose.
Look I was in the Army. I remember the only way my sorry enlisted butt could get 5 minutes to myself was to start smoking. I would race up the motor pool stair all the way to the top and light up as fast as I could before someone could stop me and give me more work. All I wanted was 5 mins to defrag my little brain. My favorite memories are looking down the hill across the motor pool and out into the German vineyards. Best damn view.
The poeple I knew in the Military (all the branches) always addmitted to starting smoking just to get a few minutes to themself. Sometimes you just need a few minutes to think about the problem your having with what ever job your on. It you just sit for a second you get your ass chewed on. I hated the smell and taste of the smokes. Still do. I stopped shortly after I started. I have always been know for handleing stress well, but sometime I just need a few minutes to think.
P.S. Oh ya that was a great post!
And another thing…On physical Fitness. The effects of proper exercise can actually help reduce the effects of smoking. Hubby is 35 years old, been smoking since he was 12, passes EVERY PT test thrown at him including running 2 miles in under 17 minutes. He clears that easily. So do his soldiers. Bottom line…you want to see suicide and domestic violence rates skyrocket and family programs in a downward spiral? You want to see reenlistment numbers plummet, and enlistment drop like a stone off the grand canyon? Implement this.
That’s fine, take away the soldiers’ smokes. But how about the legislators give up their mistresses in return?
I couldnt disagree with you more on this one. While driving and skiing are dangerous activities – hell, life is a dangerous activity while we’re on the subject – smoking is really something you cant justify. The “benfits” are miniscule next to the risks. Its a dangerous, addictive drug. Governments have a responsibility to their citizens to keep them safe. Driving is not a dangerous, addictive toxin. It is an essential part of the modern world. The world has to move forwards, and find new solutions to new problems that arrive (eg pollution kills, but we dont want to regress to a pre-industrial age, do we?) Smoking is a hangover from a much older world. It has no place in the modern world. Its not part of the human project, that great surge forward into the future. Its just a dangerous drug that need much tougher regulation, and should eventually be outlawed.
Saying people have the freedom to choose is a blanket black & white statement. Really government is about endless shades of grey. Smoking is so unnecessary, and its the single biggest preventable cause of early death in the US. Imagine the future – imagine a future where all civilized governments have made smoking illegal in their countries. That day is coming my friend, and American is pretty much leading the world :) Maybe not in our lifetimes, but you cant stop it. Smoking is on the way out.
Name says it, I’m a smurf, or USAF. I’ve been on AD for coming up on 7 years(not that long, I know). I totally get the dislike of the USA Today article; it’s a really poorly written article that slants the study to nothing but $$$ savings. However, in defense of the study itself, the numbers are there to punctuate the overall goal as put forth in an article in this weeks AF Times: The overall goal of all the cessation plans available through the military, and even the proposed ban IS an increase in the health of the force.
Yes, there is a large deal made about the amount spent by VA about how much they spend annually treating diseases related to tobacco usage. It’s a big number which is very eye grabbing. Here’s some quotes from the article(admittedly short) from the AF Times:
“But it’s not just money. Smokers are more likely to drop out of service before fulfilling their enlistment commitments; they have worse night/day vision; and they miss more work. They bleed more heavily after surgery, heal more slowly after injury and are at higher risk for infection than their nonsmoking counterparts”
Cynthia Smith, a spokesman from the Pentagon had this to say: “The evidence is overwhelming that tobacco use harms military readiness and adversely harms the health of military members, retirees, and their families. The department supports the goal of a tobacco-free military, and believes it is achievable.” I personally disagree with that last bit, short of an outright ban, but it’s not a bad goal.
As for the argument that they’re already out on the frontlines, putting their life on the line, I don’t buy that. The same arguement could easily be made for any high risk activity. The major difference is that tobacco use WILL have an adverse effect on your health. Continued for a lifetime, there are mountains of reports evidencing the negative effects tobacco use has, from shortened lifespans(how long would the man who smoked a pack a day for 60 years have lived otherwise?), to other measured effects listed previously. The bottom line here is that while deploying and being in the military in general can kill you, and could possibly have an effect on your life, tobacco use will kill you and will have a negative impact.
All in all, I really wish there were other methods of achieving their goal. But at the end of the day, I really do think that an outright ban is the only way to solve it. And honestly, I wouldn’t mind a basewide ban on smoking. If nothing else, it would keep me from having to walk through clouds of smoke from inconsiderate people going in and out of anywhere on base without either a remote smokepit, or with people who just don’t give a damn.
ARA, I have two words for the fact that it is dangerous and addctive:
SO WHAT
People already know, they may choose to do it anyway. Who am I to tell someone they can’t do something?
And where will you stop, how about nutrition, we make tons of laws about nutrition, yet they all backfire. We used to think saturated fat was horrible, but most of those studies did not separate transfatty acids from saturated fat. We know many ofthe studies were wrong, and our allout attempt to remove fat actually made our health worse.
There’s many other exampls of “government knows best” backfiring. how about this: give people the information and let them decide.
I have family addicted to even more dangerous drugs than nicotine. I have a relative close to me that destroyed her life, and other friends that have done so. But you know what? Making dangerous addictive drug use illegal has done NOTHING to help these people, in fact the criminalization of vices has done nothing but HARM. They can’t come forward for help quitting because it’s illegal. When they are arrested they’re given a “choice” between jail and rehab, which fails because that’s no choice at all, and they won’t get better until they want to. We could spend a fraction on treatment than we do on enforcement, and violence would go down, drug use would go back down. Remember these drugs were not illegal 100 years ago, and use was not rampant. I’ve seen first hand the horrible things that happen to people I care about, but I know they’d be better off if drug use was not a crime. There would be a lot more help for them.
Please people that want to control others move to China or Russia where that sort of thought is encouraged. I’m serious. I dnot’ want any more people that believe that garbage to be running for office or voting here. We have enough problems without taking away liberty.
No offense to your husband, Lady Jess, but how much better could he pass his PT tests if he weren’t smoking? He does well for the sounds of it, but he could probably shave a minute or two from his time.
Stress relief is a concern, I admit, and not an easy one to fix. Something would have to change culturally to fill the void. That doesn’t mean, though, that it isn’t for the benefit of the service to have a force that doesn’t smoke, for myriad reasons. Individual freedom and stress relief are the biggest things to counter this, and the freedom is something you gave away when you took the oath of enlistment.
One thing they are NOT talking about is making this a cold turkey ban, but rather it’s phased. They aren’t saying that suddenly, a soldier in a foxhole will suddenly find himself without.
I wouldnt cry over smoking going away forever, Ara, but not like this… not in a way where it cramps what an individual may do in their own home and on their own time… thats infringing on personal freedoms. Let me set it straight… I hate smoking, I hate the smell, the way it gets into everything, and I think its a filthy disgusting habit and I’m happy that my town has stopped it in restaurants where I have to endure the stink. but taking away the choice in one’s own space and time is wrong. I feel the same way about other things, too. The fact we can choose these things is what made our country different, and great. yes, like adults, we have to bear whatever consequences come our way, but the right to choose it should not be restricted in a legal substance.
I do not smoke nor do I ever plan on smoking, I nonetheless support you 100% BBB. The beauty and appeal of living in a free country is choice. I believe if someone chooses to smoke, and they understand the health ramifications, more power to them. Grats to Cassie for providing incentive to help you live healthier. I also think the financial argument is laughable. As callous as it is, if I were an insurance company I’d be pushing smoking on all of my clients because although the upfront medical costs may be a bit higher than a non-smoke, I expect the shortened life expectancy to save the insurance company/government money in the long run. Just my 2 coppers.
ARA:
Caffeine and alcohol are also “dangerous, addictive [drugs].”
The real question is: Why should I have to “justify” my smoking to the federal government? What business is it of theirs?
A sedentary lifestyle is dangerous. Fast food is dangerous. Donuts are dangerous. A diet high in saturated fats and red meat is dangerous. Whiskey is dangerous (hell, it can actually kill you relatively easily compared with smoking). Does this mean we should have regulations in place that require 30 minutes of aerobic activity three times per week, 5 small meals per day following the modified Mediterranean diet, and a limit of one glass of red wine per day?
The problem is that a government’s supposed “responsibility to keep [their citizens] safe” is a carte blanche for the sort of Nanny State regulations that conflict with Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
TLDR: Bear, 100% in agreement with you on this one, though I don’t smoke myself.
I’m hard-pressed to pick a side with this. My boyfriend smoked a pack+ a day but kept himself in top physical condition, and it almost killed him anyway with throat cancer. I hate smoking, I hate when I see my mom or my father or my stepdad or my grandparents or my best friend smoke. Being in an area around smoke makes me cough, and it gives my former Co-RA asthmatic allergy attacks. I would love nothing more for all tobacco to disappear off the face of the earth.
But I hate taking away people’s right to choose, as well…
So, I don’t know. I can’t stand cigarettes, tobacco, any of it, and I don’t think it’s a smart or good choice at all with any real benefits. But controlling behavior is almost as bad as giving someone cancer. Almost.
If the idea is to reduce health care costs then there is one big thing they need to deal with, since most accidents happen in the home, people should not be able to live in houses.
The part that bothers me the most, is that the US Govt on one hand subsidizes tobacco, and on the other tells people not to smoke.
If they want to get people to stop smoking.. quit paying the tobacco industry to keep making the bloody things. Then, big tobacco will have to make it on it’s own, market demands will push cigarette prices higher than they already are (6 bucks a pack for marlboros right now) eventually nobody will be able to afford it, unless they grow their own.
I do not now, never have smoked, but my dad did for 40 years. He had a high stress job (as is the case with a lot of smokers) and at one point was a 2-3 pack a day smoker. that means 12-18 bucks a day he was burning x 365 days = about 4400 – 4600 bucks a year out of his pay at today’s prices..
Is it really worth it? I can’t answer that. to some it is. to some it isnt. But the bear is right, the govt is taking freedoms away from the people fighting and dying to keep us free. WTF???
I for one, think they need to focus more on protecting our soldiers in the here and now, and not in the possibly long term. I bet the cost of the study could have put a couple more tanks on the ground where it’s needed. and guys, the hummer is not, and never was designed to be a tank. it was designed as a replacement for the jeep. granted you can gain some measure of protection by adding armor plating, but in a hot zone when you need a flipping tank. use a tank!
Though personally divided – I really dis-like anything tobacco but I do agree the way they are going about is wrong, I find an interesting connection. I spent a year in the Osaka area for study and I to started running….and running everyday. Must be a Japanese thing.
またね
Hells yes. You want to smoke till your lungs turn black? Power to you. In the end you have no one to blame but yourself. But this country was founded on the right to make that choice for your self, not on having government decide what is and isn’t good for you.
I’m curious why they decided to look at curbing tobacco use and not alcohol? I remember drinking a lot more when I was in the Corps than smoking. I think I peaked out at smoking around 1/2 to 3/4 of a pack a day though. We’d go through a ton of booze though (like wall-lockers-with-4-or-5-cases-of-beer-in-them amount of booze… for a single weekend). And I’m pretty sure there’s already a ton of studies out there done on the effects of alcohol on your health and fitness. And none of that had much impact on my level of fitness – I still did 3 miles in about 24 minutes (I hate running) and maxed the rest of the PFT out.
As far as walking out the door into clouds of smoke, you put the smoking area at least 10 feet away from any door or something like that, you don’t go and ban smoking on the whole base.
Incredibly awesome comments, a lot of things y9ou’re asying are making me think, and I appreciate it. It helps keep the bleeding down. :)
I will say that Bell, I think you nailed it with your very short but spot on analysis of the debate… on the one hand, I hate smoking around me in any way… but who the hell do you think you are to forbid me from doing it if I so choose?
And of course I loved Tom’s analysis of where to go next… I know people that just are on the anti-smoking side no matter what won’t want to address the aspects concerning choice, but make it about your right to pursue a cheeseburger or a loaded pizza, and I bet we’d see a different spin, most rikki tik.
Atros and A Smurf, you’e both got some great points, and I agree that, if it’s possible to eliminate tobacco use for an entire armed force, that force will, all other things being equal, become healthier.
The same argument can be made concerning alcohol use. And the balanced intake of proper vitamins and nutrients in coordination with the already existing wieght and exercise standards.
And to manage those other aspects, it’s about absolute control, backed up with punishment for failure to obey.
I think that if you look at things honestly, we could agree why it’s smoking that is getting this treatment, and nothing else. Smoking is the current designated whipping boy, and it’s cool to be anti-smoking.
I want to see the rabid anti-cheeseburger coalition. (And a million cats cried out in pain, and can haz suddenly be silenced)
I’m sitting here with a new packet of smokes in my pocket. The problem is I gave them up 6 weeks ago. ;-)
I’m not in the service and have never been. I work in an office. If I want to smoke I get in a lift and go down 29 floors, out the door into the street and smoke. I can’t smoke in bars, resteraunts, public transport, golf courses or even my own home. I understand it is bad for me and I should give it away. Problem is that I like it and it is not illeagal.
Personally I don’t believe you would ever be able to design and market a product these days that clearly kills people like cigarettes do. I would like to see it banned completely and made illeagal. That would make it easier on everyone. But until they do that they should refrain from interfearing and discrimiating against smokers.
Cheers
Kolan
I’ve no love for tobacco or smokers. Neither did my father, but he believed that no other group was so marginalized in the modern U.S. Every year laws get tougher, taxes get higher, and somehow pot comes closer to being legalized. Go figure.
If an 18-year-old has sufficient responsibility and knowledge to be allowed to enlist and put his life—and the lives of others—on the line, how on earth can we pretend he’s too dumb to make a decision on smoking? Smokers know what they’re putting into their bodies. The military requires them to pass certain minimum standards of physical fitness. If they can do both, why take their cigs? If your argument is that “they could be better”, why not push for higher minimum standards? So our whole military is better?
I’m sure heathcare cost is an issue, and in current times the federal administration is looking to cut costs. But this is ridiculous. We offer condemned criminals this comfort, but not the honorable men and women in our armed forces? Let ‘em smoke.
Perhaps a nit-picky point here, but the article pretty clearly indicates that this has nothing to do with legislators or any other elected officials. The study that offered the proposal was requested by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It’s being given to Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, at the urging of another appointed Pentagon official.
This isn’t about congress critters trying to pass a law to ban smoking in the military – it’s about the military itself deciding what is best for the needs of military, especially in terms of physical readiness and potential cost savings.
I don’t necessarily agree with those recommendations! Don’t shoot me! I just wanting to point out that comments suggesting this is about lawmakers wanting more control over our lives are, well, wrong.
What I don’t like about this article is that it appears they are trying to remove the freedom of choice.
I don’t smoke and am very grateful that I live in a state where you are not allowed to smoke in restaurants. However, in the privacy of your own home or out on the streets, do what you want. My employer recently implemented a smoke free campus and I disagreed with that too. They did it because it was healthier, but forced the decision to quit on those individuals that choose to smoke.
@ Malphailuron – If they want to cut costs, they should take a look at the government funded healthcare programs (specifically Tricare) and stop paying claims more than once. You don’t even want to know how much money I refund back to government programs.
Stafford, you are essentially correct. Absolutely.
However, we ARE talking about the upper levels of the Pentagon, and I hope that you’re not trying to tell us that the people involved in this are not… political animals. In the Pentagon. Proposing the study be made, and funding it.
I will 100% concede the point that my use of the generaic phrase ‘legislators’ rather than ‘politicians in both military and civilian attire’ was a gross inacuracy on my part. :)
Crazy. I get so tired of politicians who feel that the American people are idiots who can’t make decisions for themselves. There are so many REAL issues they should be spending their time (and our money) on… /sigh.
first thing: like any sort of medical study *isn’t* going to say “BAN SMOKING!” that’s part of the zeitgeist for medical studies. anything smoking-related is bad.
second, i agree and disagree. i agree that banning smoking for soldiers (or any other class of people, for that matter) is flat out wrong. that isn’t a choice that the govenment is allowed to make in my book, even if you are taking the commander-in-chief’s shilling. what ii’m not going to agree with is the possible of banning smoking on bases or at least “no smoking outside of designated areas,” or some such thing. in my state, they’ve banned smoking in restaurants and bars, and it isn’t hellish to go out at night anymore. before? you go to a bar, and your clothes smell like smoke for a week. now, it’s fine. people who want to smoke tend to do so just outside the door, and that doesn’t seem too bad a situation. likewise, the ban on smoking in bars has done a lot for those who work there and don’t have to breath someone else’s smoke. so long as there is some provision for some sort of reasonable location where those who do smoke can do so out of the way, i won’t say a damn thing against any location based smoking ban.
Wow I’m surprised at the pro-smoking sentiments. Being from outside the usa, I always admired america for its policy on smoking, getting stricter and stricter in public places and so forth. Freedom of choice is a loaded word, for people who brought that up. I wish it were black and white (freedom of choice=good, restriction=bad). But its not so simple. You also have to take it case by case. You cant argue “well, what if they decide to close macdonalds next?”. We’re not talking about fast food. We’re talking about cancer sticks. (but yes, diet + nutition is the 2nd biggest cause of preventable death in the US….)
Look at it from the pov of the future – when smoking has beeen eliminated. I dont really care about the military one way or another. I care about everyone. Are the non-smokers of the 22nd century going to look back at our world and say “god, I wish I lived in 2009 when I could have a smoke. The government back then was so evil for restricting people’s freedom of choice”. Of course not. They’re going to look at it as a more primitive age, and thank god their health & welfare is a lot higher now than it was then.
And I am totally surprised at your portrayal of my irritation as being pro-smoking rather than pro-choice, Ara. That seems to me to be an intentional narrowing down of the discussion to attempt to make my position that of defending smoking itself rather than one concerning the freedom to make decisions as a responsible adult. I know what I said and what I mean, and I don’t remember saying I feel everyone should go out and light up.
I could say that you clearly are in favor of treating people as cattle… but I don’t really want to make assumptions about your position. I prefer to think that you are simply very, very firmly against smoking, and thus place anyone in opposition to this strongly held view as an enemy to be crushed, a fairly common attitude in any hot button discussion.
Discussions devolving to that point are one of the primary reasons I don’t care to discuss politics here. I don’t hold that democrats or republicans are, either one, evil. They are all, in this country, Americans, and I don’t feel that half of the country is evil for daring to hold a different opinion than myself on the serious issues of the day. I don’t respect the rhetoric of victimization of self and demonization of opposing points of view. I fought for people to have the right to have the beliefs they choose to have, their freedom to choose even if I disagree with them, expeically if I disagree with them, and you will never hear me tell someone that seeing them demonstrate the depths of their belief made me physically ill and sick to my stomach.
I still reserve the right to rant about what I believe here on this site. Cassie and I do pay the bills. :)
I just try not to encourage the language of hate directed towards any entire group of Americans for what they believe. Now the leaders of those Americans… the ones that I expect to know better, or be better informed… I’ll yell at them all day long. :) It’s fun, it’s one of the privilges I get for paying taxes. You take my money, I yell at you.
My position on this issue is that while government should maximize the personal freedom accorded to the citizens of the country it runs, this should only be applied to activities that do not impose costs on others. Smoking does not conform to this description.
It is true that the individual may have considered the pros and cons of smoking and thereby has made a reasoned decision to smoke(or otherwise). However, the problem with this analysis is that while it considers the private benefits or costs to the smoker, it does not reflect the costs that smoking inflicts on others. These costs are basically the health problems that are the documented results of smoking. The private individual does not (and is not in a position to) determine whether these costs are outweighed by the benefits that smoking brings to society, and in the case of such a divergence, the government does have a role to play in the regulation of tobacco. An example of this would actually be you quitting tobacco use because Cassie disapproved of it; however, in most situations, smokers do not have an intimate connection with those who are affected by smoking and thereby are unlikely to make such as decision.
It is possible to “regulate it, have tests, and make sure people have to be educated about smoking in well ventilated areas.” The issue here, however, is that it is nearly impossible to enforce private behaviour in a private setting(for example, law enforcement does not have a presence in the average household). Education is something that is likely to be even less effective; for example, people are educated that (say) drunk driving is dangerous, and yet people still do it. Regulations, and bans, should be put in place if they can be enforced effectively – such as a ban on smoking in the military.
Even if second-hand smoking were not an issue, there are still other social costs that governments have to take into consideration. Not being from the US, I am uncertain as to the extent of government expenditure in healthcare; however, to the extent that taxpayer’s money is used to treat smoking-related disease, taxpayers are incurring costs from smoking that are not compensated by the benefits that smoking may provide to them.
Those serving in the military indeed possess the rights and freedoms of the individual, however, this rights and freedoms may be restricted to the extent that this restriction is conducive to the operations of the military. For example (to discuss another contentious issue), the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas decriminalized homosexual activity; however, the military still possesses the right to discharge homosexuals in its ranks based on the argument that it is not conducive to unit cohesion. Likewise, while the individual has the right to smoke, this right may be restricted if smoking affects the ability of military personnel to discharge their duties(no offense intended). And this ability may indeed be affected if smoking affects the physical fitness of military personnel.
In conclusion, I believe that the Department of Defense’s stance on smoking in the military is appropriate.
I know the political debates are going to be dicey, but I respect your decision to enter into one. Its not so much the pro-choice vs. pro-smoking as far as I was commenting. I dont see how you can discuss pro-choice outside of the context of what’s being choosen. How can oppostion to smoking be the same as treating people like cattle? My original point is that you have to take each of these discussions as their own thing, and debate it on that ground. You cant turn the smoking debate into the fast food debate, or the unprotected sex debate, or the abortion debate, can you. Each has to be discussed on their own terms. Arguing by analogy to some other unrelated debate is really not fair; it just complexifies and muddies the waters. These issues are not as simple as choice vs restriction. Take each one on its own terms, thats all I ask.
I understand you were making more of a pro-choice post. People have the right to damage and kill themselves – its their choice. Many comments are the same. But should the taxpayer spend money to help them recover? That’s an impingement on other people’s freedom, is it not? I quit smoking myself and it took a lot of effort and many failures. Why should a big amount of my tax go to people with smoking related diseases who arent willing to make that effort, when we could be spending it on… oh I dont know, education and environmentally sustainable power technologies, for example. Things that matter. Things that take our civilization forwards.
So I dont see how you can turn a blind eye of the “choice” under discussion. You’re right – I’m a vehement antismoker, and I think all western leading world governments should have a plan to eradicate smoking from their countries, much like maleria, polio and cholera have been eradicated. Freedom to drink dirty water? Freedom for a baby not to be vaccinated? Those are “freedoms of choice” too, but I’m glad my government has something to say about.
Simple :
Ban people from smoking? No, its thier own choice.
Ban people from smoking where their 2nd hand smoke affect others who choose not to smoke? Yes, who gives you the right to choose for them? If you want to smoke step outside- in combat etc you may wish to re-assess your desire to smoke, if you have to step outside – but its still your own choice/risk.
Activley encourage smoking by subsidising it? No, if you want to smoke and poison yourself, again that is your choice, but the govement/top brass/pentigon/etc should not be encouraging it by paying for part of it for you.
Basically, if something is harmfull the government etc should not be encouraging anyone to do it, you should not be forcing anyone else to do it, but if you want to do it to yourself, well thats your own damn business.
I despise smoking. I get ANGRY when someone smokes near me. Its inconsiderate, disgusting, it clings to my clothes so I have to then wash MY clothes because some other idiot decides to stick some disgusting crap into their lungs, and it can even effect my health.
Luckily for me I live in the UK and about a year ago there was a Smoking Ban in pubs, clubs, restaurants, shops and work places. So now if I go out for a drink or meal with my wife, I don’t have to put up with some inconsiderate morons smoke blowing into my face, disturbing my meal and making me feel quite nauseated.
I don’t believe they should be able to take military peoples choice away to smoke though, but I do think they should ban it from inside buildings where non-smokers have to put up with it.
Soldiers have precious few freedoms. If a soldier wants to use tobacco, exercising what little choice that he or she has, then it would be wise to let them do so. This person lives with stress that most of us will never have to know. If tobacco is an indulgence that helps a soldier stay sane, then the cost of taking it away would be higher than leaving it, imho. Also, smoking is not too dangerous for someone who signs up for the military. I believe a soldier has some grasp of the concept, “acceptable risk.” The idea of it is condescending. If someone can make a choice to pick up an automatic weapon and go to war, that same someone can choose to smoke, or not.
Banning smoking would be ultimately futile, and just create a black market. Noone would stop smoking because they weren’t allowed to. While I’m not in the military, a lot of my friends have been and one thing I’ve learned about military folk: For people who live and die by following orders, it’s virtually impossible to get them to STOP doing something they want to do.
I’m fervently anti-smoking. I don’t care about the health issues, really, I just find the smell utterly revolting, right up there with bad BO and the like. I kissed once kissed a smoker, and it was an incredibly disgusting experience. That one kiss ensured I’ll never, ever smoke!
Anyways, ultimately, I firmly believe that it is extremely important to preserve people’s right to do as they please, so long as they do not harm anyone else. I could definitely support penalties in regards to health care from smoking-related health problems, however – taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill after all.
I do not feel the government should protect people from themselves. There are arguements for it, but it’s a slippery slope. Where do you stop? If you ban people from smoking due to health concerns, what’s next? Someone above mentioned cheeseburgers… what if the government banned fast food joints entirely? Millions would be out of work, people would lose their businesses (but, like the tobacco companies, McDonalds must be pure evil for peddling such filth, so who cares about them!?)… But, people would be fitter, healthier, live longer, look better. Health care costs would go down. Then what? Legislate daily exercise?
While I try to avoid overreacting, there really is a very serious slippery-slope issue involved here.
The best way, IMHO, is to heavily regulate WHERE people can smoke – specifically falling under that “…so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else” clause. Inside public places, etc, absolutely ban it. After all, I can hardly argue that I should be able to windmill my arms around wildly and just declare that “people should just go somewhere else if they don’t want to get punched.”
But definitely don’t take away people’s choice.
@ Tom
You cannot compare Smoking to Drinking Alcohol and Caffeine.
How many people do you know who smoke? How many are addicted? (for me personally, its everyone I know who smokes, is addicted).
How many people do you know who drinks alcohol? How many are addicted? (for me personally, everyone I know drinks alcohol and I seriously do not know 1 alcoholic)
Same as above for Caffeine.
Christopher made my day with this comment: “That’s fine, take away the soldiers’ smokes. But how about the legislators give up their mistresses in return?”
In relation to the ban, I do not smoke, but my father in the military does. While I agree with the idea of a phased banning on such activity on-base, within public areas, it should NOT apply to a person’s home. (or on-base civilian family, etc). Granted, there’s probably some weird culture/bylaws for on-base living, but the concept to my mind is that the home is personal space. Just liek an off-duty cop is allowed to grab a beer with his buddies after work, yet not on the job.
One lesson, probably the biggest thing my father instilled in me, was the idea of freedom. He’s always said, to others who disagree with his view politically or religiously, that he disagrees, and will argue the point, but by God he will stand and fight beside you if someone wanted to force the choice on you. That’s what this country was founded on, Freedom of choice.
I agree that smoking would be best left by the wayside, and improve the health of our armed forces, but if they want to smoke on off-duty time in the comfort of their own homes, Top-brass shouldn’t disallow the choice to do so. While active or on-base, a penalty applies, which can be enforced, of course. That’s a choice too. If it affects a soldier’s performance, than that’s a choice they made as well, off-duty that impacts on-duty, but the choice is still available to make.
(hope that made sense)
I quit smoking 5 years ago after 20 years of tobacco use and I did start while I was in the Army. I am glad I did quit, but for the Pentagon to start tell our service members they can not smoke it is wrong. Our freedoms is what makes America. Remember what you may find as inconsiderate others may not. I have more problems with people who feel that they need to swim in Cologne or perfume before going to work in a small shared office with others. Or what about people that feel everyone likes there music and play it very loud and get upset if some one ask them to turn it down. But this is America and people have fought and died for us to have these freedoms and no one has the right to take them from us. The government works for the people not the people are here to serve the government.
One thing is for sure – when you raise a subject like this, you are sure to get comments :P
A great rant never the less.
The thing is, that this is a great example of the state of things today – And since I am residing in Denmark, I can assure you that this is not just an US thing …
Back when I was at school, we were told to sit down and shut the hell up, if we had something to say we had to raise our hand. That way a teacher could make sure (‘ish) that everybody was heard – everybody could voice their opinion if they wished to do so.
Fast forward 20 or so years, and you find a world where the ones that scream and shout their opinion are the ones that happen to get front pages in the newspapers – and we all know that politicians today are muppets that act on front pages.
And for some reason, the health-fanatics seem to be quite good at shouting (maybe they get too much energy from their bran and water diet?) – and mark my words, smokers are just the beginning, in 10 years you will find the the junkie, the drunk, the smoker and the overweight in the dark alley tending to their addiction, whether it is heroin, alcohol, cigarettes or cupcakes … oh! perhaps even the meat-eaters as well, almost forgot those. And to quote a great American mathematician; “Who’s next?”
Between committing suicide and living perfectly healthy (not like a health fanatic, since that is not even close to being healthy), there is a massive gray area of things you can do with your body, some are instantly lethal, others take a while to kill you, yet others are good for you if you do not overuse etc. etc. etc. – my point being there is no obvious line to draw where you separate good from bad.
So, Do.not.tell.me.what.to.do.with.my.life, kthanks?
I do not feel comfortable in a society where it is suddenly accepted that you mock the overweight smoker, because you feel that you obviously can see at first glance that he/she is a weak person, that just ought to get a grip!
I despise preaching in any form, and the health-fanatics are the missionaries of today.
Uhm … I am not sure that made too much sense, nor am I sure that I stuck enough with the subject … Sorry.
Audrid, that was one heck of a compelling argument. Thank you very much, there’s a ton of solid food for thought there.
BBB, I have to agree that I think & feel the same stuff when I hear this. My personal feeling is that if the Marines are signing up to potentially give up their lives for our country, then they should be able to do whatever the hell they want! They’re the ones who make sure the rest of us are free to have personal liberty (which is slowly eroding).
The other thing is that now nobody can claim they don’t know smoking is harmful. Back in the day (like the 50s), everyone did it to be cool and had no clue it was harmful. Now, that excuse is gone so if people still want to smoke, well, that’s their business (as Drudesa says). I applaud you for quitting though. I know it had to be hard. My dad quit cold-turkey like that when I was born because he didn’t want it around his kids, and he said it’s the hardest thing he’s ever done.
The one comment I would make, (not having read all of the 44 comments when I posted this) is:
As a tax payer and supporter of the armed forces (never served was too dumb and ornery to go in when young and now have three small children) I don’t want my dollars for our soldiers, marines, seamen, and airmen treating lung/throat cancer, COPD, emphysema, etc. when they could be used to improve readiness, living standards, survivability of combat injuries, treatment for PTSD, child care, giving our enlisted personnel a wage that allows them to proudly support their families without food stamps or WIC (nothing wrong with people on this programs, but we should take better care of our service members)
Officers are already forbidden tobacco use in both the Army and the Airforce (I assume the Marines and the Navy as well, but I don’t know any active duty officers in those branches). It is considered a bad example.
I agree with A Smurf’s assessment and the data cited is spot on.
I also fully agree with Patton’s assessment that the job of our Military is not to die for their country, but to get out there and make the other fellow die for his. Anything that can be done to make that easier for such a low opportunity cost (btw, a pack a day habit is up to $1700/yr for civilians, I know smokes are cheaper at the PX but still, what could you do with $1000 extra a year?) Our service personnel do tough, dangerous jobs in terrifying environments, They risk their lives because we tell them to take the risk. We owe them every consideration, and the training program and lifestyle enforced should all contribute to keeping them alive while they do that job. Even if they don’t like it.
@ARA
I disagree that pro-choice can’t be discussed outside of the context of a specific topic like smoking. What BBB is talking about is that a person should have the choice to do as they wish, as long as they don’t harm others. With that in mind, I see no difference between a ban on smoking, unhealthy eating, alcohol, or other behaviors which are risky to the individual. It seems a lot of commenters are engaging in what logicists call a “false charge of fallacy”, in which you attempt to refute an analogy by referring to a property that the two compared items do not share. As the analogies are comparing two different things, there will always be some properties that the items do not share. The important thing is that the differences are not relevant to the analogy.
I don’t recall BBB ever mentioning abortion as a analogy – that could be an entirely different story depending on whether you consider it to harm more than just the individual. That could be a relevant difference, and would rightly disclude abortion from the discussion. It seems that you are ‘muddying the waters’ by bringing in more controversial behaviors that were never even mentioned, possibly trying to appeal to the emotion of other commenters.
As for your claim that due to smoking, others are harmed due to taxes paid towards smoking related diseases: your issue is not with the freedom of choice but rather, what our taxes pay for. Again, the analogies hold true here – unhealthy eating, reckless driving, and alcohol all can cause seriously health issues that our tax dollars pay for. They may not be on the same scale as smoking related diseases, but the costs are still there. If the appropriation of tax dollars to help people who engaged in such risky behaviors is your true issue, than you should be arguing that we spend these dollars elsewhere – NOT that these people’s choices should be taken away. A ban on behaviors may be a solution, but a better one would be to say “Well if these individuals engaged in these behaviors that harmed their health, they should pay for the consequences”. The company I work for reduces the cost of it’s health care for non-smokers – it does NOT take the choice to smoke away, but it does penalize the smokers for engaging in behavior that would likely cost the company more in health care expenses.
Although you dislike the analogies that BBB used, you seem to enjoy using them yourself – comparing smoking to malaria. The logical fallacy here is astounding. “Smoking harms your health. Malaria also harms your health. Malaria has been eradicated in the Western World. Smoking should also be eradicated.” Does anyone else see any issue with that argument?
BBB, I appreciate you giving me something to think about during lunch. It was a very well thought out post. I am also pleased with many of the commenters – it is always refreshing when people are able to use logic on a controversial issue regardless of their personal preferences. I think smoking is a disgusting habit, and I am so pleased to live in a state where it is not allowed in public places. Sometimes I wonder whether even that law is crossing the line. A capitalist friend once told me that banning smoking should be up to the individual restaurant/place. If smoking was truly something people didn’t want to be around, then they would only visit those restaurants that didn’t allow smoking. The issue, should, according to capitalist theories, resolve itself. I’m not sure if this would work in practice, but it is interesting to think about.
Ok, I’ll stop before my comment is too much longer than the original post :)
You know Kaelynn, I too live in a state with the same situation (imagine that!) :)
Let me be perfectly blunt here… Cassie and I lived here when smoking was still at the discretion of the individual establishment.
We both love shooting pool and throwing darts. Bowling, not so much (it hurts her wrists a ton, we like bowling, it’s the afteraffects on her wrists we dislike).
We would go out once in a while and throw some darts and shoot pool, but we never found a place near to us that was no smoking. After a while, we stopped going. The irritation of dealing with the stench of smoke on our hair and clothes after a fun time began to outweigh the fun we had itself. We found other things to do, at places that did not have smoking.
We exercised our right to choose not to go somewhere where smoking was unavoidable. If someone came out with a non-smoking place nearby where we could shoot pool or throw darts, we woulda gone.
When they began talking about a flat statewide ban on smoking in public places in this state, I was appalled that the right to choose was being taken away from the owners of the establishments.
I’m still appalled.
In this particular situation, the right to choose was taken away from others… and it happens to benefit Cassie and myself. It is nice to know we can stop being careful about where we go, we no longer need to make even a token effort to check out where we’re going to go when we want a dinner out.
And that’s all we ever had to do; make a token effort to find out if a place allowed smoking or not. If they did, and the smoking section was too close to the non-smoking section or there was the possibility their ventilation wasn’t that good, we wouldn’t go. Awww.
So yeah, we get benefits out of the ban. We can be lazy and irresponsible in our choices of where to go, and still not be subjected to smoke. We tried to do our part, we went out and we tried to vote it down and failed. And it was a moral loss, but heck, we’re enjoying the consequences.
Would I riot if the ban was repealed? Of course not. It would just mean that we’d have to be conscientous about checking the places we intend to go again.
Awwww, shucks.
Bear, you’re right that the state ban on smoking in public places is a moral loss. Though I selfishly enjoy it, deep down I know that its wrong. I don’t think the state should control things like that. Another one that bothers me is the restriction of alcohol sales on Sunday (this one bothers me from a personal level as well as a moral one).
I recently moved here from a state that has no bans on smoking. I didn’t like smelling like smoke after coming back from restaurants or bars, but it didn’t stop me from going, because hanging out with my friends far outweighed my annoyance. I may have complained about it, but it never occurred to me that we should ban it. Many family-friendly restaurants didn’t allow smoking, and they drew in people who wanted a smoke-free environment. Bars, on the other hand typically did allow smoking, becase a lot of their typical clientele smoked. The more I think about it, the more I realize how well this works. As time goes on, more establishments realize that a smoke-free environment is a selling point – but the choice is still there.
The problem, of course is that people are selfish – they voted for the ban here because it positively benefited them. They didn’t stop to think about whether it was ‘right’. If everyone voted for what made them more comfortable, of course the smokers would lose as statistically there are less of them.
There is another facet of this issue that discussants may not be familiar with. It is now widely acknowledged by tobacco research and policy experts that smokeless tobacco products are 98% safer than smoking. While no tobacco product is completely safe, the majority of cigarette smokers are routinely misinformed – by government agencies and by anti-tobacco extremists – about the relative safety of smokeless products. Unlike cigarettes, smokeless does not cause lung cancer, heart disease or emphysema. In fact, the risk for mouth cancer with smokeless tobacco use is minuscule and far lower than it is with cigarettes. The risk is so vanishingly small that nine epidemiologic studies published in the last decade, including one from the American Cancer Society, have not found a link between smokeless use and mouth cancer. In summary, smokeless users have about the same tiny risk of dying from mouth cancer as automobile users have of dying in a car wreck.
Thus, it is idiotic and senseless for the military to ban smokeless tobacco products, which invariably provide substantial benefits to deployed troops. I invite discussants who want more information to visit my University of Louisville based research web site at http://www.smokersonly.org In addition, I have also posted a blog entry on this ban at rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com
Brad Rodu
Professor
University of Louisville
I just stumbled upon this today and I really wanted to add my thoughts to this. Specifically after “Are the non-smokers of the 22nd century going to look back at our world and say “god, I wish I lived in 2009 when I could have a smoke. The government back then was so evil for restricting people’s freedom of choice”.”
No, they’re not, and do you know why? Because Tobacco use will most likely go into the history books as a purely unhealthy addiction. My father, now around 70, smoked since he was 15 years old, and he still smokes. Personally I always thought that cigarettes were disgusting. I enjoyed the smell of them, just not once the smoke got stale, but after tasting one once I didn’t understand how anyone could enjoy smoking them. I was always curious about cigars but was unsure about them. Upon landing a new and totally awesome job and getting my first pay check I had decided that I would try a cigar. I went and got one, some matches, and a cigar cutter, even though I wasn’t even sure if I’d like it. Snipped my cigar, lit it, smoked it, and you know what? I enjoyed it.
I really truly enjoyed it, and I’ve been a semi-casual cigar smoker ever since. Sometimes I’ll go months without a cigar, sometimes I’ll enjoy a couple a week. I never have any craving for them, I just really enjoy the taste, smell, and experience and don’t find them to be addictive. I just really like them, and I don’t get anything out of it as far as I can tell. As in there isn’t some huge craving, withdrawl symptoms, and instant relief upon lighting up a cigar. I don’t see it as something horribly primative, or disgusting, or wrong, it’s just something that I enjoy doing. I know that people tell me that cigars are just as dangerous as cigarettes, but then even if I accept that as true (I always assume the worst, so I assume it is) it’s MY choice. Why can’t I be left alone about it?
Personally I don’t like to be around cigarette smokers while they’re smoking. I don’t like the smell that gets on your clothes and in your hair, and since taking up cigar smoking I don’t enjoy the cigarette smoke smell anymore either. I don’t like that sometimes conversations are interrupted because “I have to go smoke a cigarette I’ll be right back.” – But you know what’s more irritating? People going around and telling you that you’re in some way wrong because you’re doing something you enjoy, and you’re destroying your lungs/throat/mouth/whatever and blah blah blah. I can barely smoke anywhere now, except on my porch or in my back yard, and even there I don’t really have peace and sanctuary as I’ve been whined at by passersby. *sigh*
One by one we’re losing our freedoms and it sucks. Hopefully they’ll let the soldiers keep their tobacco, as really it seems like it would be one of the few enjoyable things that one can do while deployed.