The point is not “oh well we take freedoms away all the time so it’ no big deal” that’s the very defeinition of slippery slope, the way to stop a slippery slope is to not have the attitude ‘well it doesn’t matter’

For example, alcohol has all the same problems as smoking, yet most of us would not dream of making alcohol illegal. We tried it and the costs of restricting were higher than the cost of letting people drink. That is also true of smoking: dont’ forget there is a cost to using force against your neighbors to stop them from smoking. That cost is the police, the legal system, to increase their watchfulness, they’ll need to hire more, do more paperwork. The fines for people breaking the law have to be processed. And of course there is a human cost to society of using force against others “for their own good”.

We realized that cost was too high for alcohol. What makes anyone think the cost is not too high to force people to stop smoking? When will we realize the cost is too high to stop people from doing other drugs? There is a huge cost to making a vice a crime instead of just a vice. Always, the cost of treatment for people has been less than the cost of trying to stop them. But you will never get people to vote for treatment because “they brought it on themselves”. We’d rather fine and imprison people than help them, all in the name of “the common good”

Then where do you stop? In the UK with “universal healthcare” you already do not have the “right” to certain surgeries if you are obese. If we are going to use force against people for smoking, certainly we would start doing the same for obesity, after all it’s already happening in the West.

People talk about costs. they should be honest and analyze ALL the costs.

Certainly agree with your basic premise, but if they can model the expected savings in future health care costs why not look at the expected future health care expenses for tobacco related health issues and tax it. If the price of tobacco included the cost of paying for this (future) negative externality then freedom of choice could be left with the individual.

I do not think that I can really expand on a lot of the ideas of the health benefits for the military more than what others have said, but I do have a question to anyone on the side that this is an infringement on the right to choose. How do they feel about other military restrictions on choice, such as piercings (which I completely understand) or locations where one may have tattoos (which I do not entirely grasp aside from mere appearance)?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_odd_quadrillion_dollar_debit

So let’s give these chemically immature brains millions of dollars in equipment, various firearms, teach’em how to kill (and hopefully survive)?

My point was not telling people how to spend their money, when I was a heavy smoker (up to three packs a day, thank the gods my wife managed to give me incentive to quit) I was spending $40 a week on cigarettes or about $2000 a year. And I was smoking cheap stuff, and found a place I could buy a carton for $20, an unheard of price in today’s market. Most enlisted personnel live at or below the poverty line. Anything that can improve that is a step in the right direction, even if there need to be standing orders to not spend money on cigarettes. The difference between financial freedom and poverty is often only a lack of perseverance and education. The military teaches perserverance, it tries to give an education. The military has always been a pathway to social and economic mobility. Increasingly it is not offering this mobility to enlisted personnel (no facts to site here, unfortunately, but that is the impression I get from my friends still in service, all of whom are officers) but simply replacing one set of bad habits with another.

Finally, as I age I am getting to be one of those people, I am closer now to 40 that I am to 30 and I look at 18-25 year olds (many if not most enlisted personnel) as still kids. The facts back me up. There are significant changes in brain chemistry that continue through age 25 that are similar to changes that occur during puberty. Especially in young males. They lack the physiological structures and chemical components to make rational decisions. It sounds ridiculous, but according to brain development studies and psychiatric research it is approaching certainty.

Do I want to infringe on our servicemembers any more than we already do? No, I want a VA system that works (my father was a doctor dealing with PTSD patients and there are simply not enough hours in the day, and the structure of the bureaucracy is largely to blame.) I want people who risk their lives for the safety of me and mine to know that they are supported and they will be taken care of regardless, that their sacrifices are appreciated, and never treated in a trivial manner. That their lives are valued so that wars are not fought on a whim, that every time they are put in harms way the only reason they are there is because there was no other solution. That their causes are just, their commanders are well trained, and every politician who sits in a comfortable office while they risk their lives is forced to spend seven days living their life and taking their risks before they are allowed to speak on the subject.

So now it’s ok for the taxpayer to decide where a soldier spends the money they earned literally though sweat and blood?????

Don’t even go there. I guess since WoW is such a sedentary hobby (hardly conducive to physical fitness) that maybe the soldiers that spend about $1800 a year on it should have asked permission from the taxpayers to see whether thats ok too.

The point is that more and more of the decisions that should be left up to the INDividual are being legislated (or outright ordered) by the Federal Government.
Are cigarettes illegal?…no. Is alcohol illegal….no. Are they bad for your health, hell yeah.
But on the flip side to this day I still think one of the most ridiculous things the military ever did was make 21 the legal drinking age for soldiers. I know I know, but you know bullets don’t give a crap how old you are. You know how much an Abrams costs? Somewhere in the vicinity of $3,000,000 EAch. An 18 year old is responsible enough to drive one but not have a can of beer. Still haven’t wrapped my mind around that one.

On the topic of alcohol usage, I’d probably back a military ban on usage of that as well, if for no more than one reason, and one reason only: Never having to get up on my day off to go stand around in formation because some dumbass thought that he was OK to drive after knocking back some drinks. Instead, the senseless individual would be individually subjected to the Commander’s Righteous Fury without my becoming involved. But that will never happen, because the Clubs would cease to exist and AAFES would lose profits from Class 6.