John Adams Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Is anyone really surprised? Apparently it costs too much money to treat veterans for "smoking related illnesses." We do seem to have enough money however to provide free medical care to illegal aliens. Also, how does this get enforced? Mandatory blood tests and dishonorable discharges to was heros, and other brave soldiers? Do we oust F-16 pilots from the service if they have traces of tobacco in their blood? I'm not too worried. At least we have politicians from both parties who will certainly stand up for the rights of soldiers. Let me be clear: I am 100% against telling private businesses that they should/should not allow smokers. In today's environment, the market would happily dictate market winners and losers (or likely winners and winners) if restaurants designated themselves as smoking and non-smoking. Each would create a niche market. I would never frequent a smoking restaurant--others would never go to a non-smoking one. To this story though. There's a better justification than long-term health. How about short-term health concerns? It would make sense to me if the military required non-smoking because it contributes to poor physical fitness in a physically demanding job. If, for example, I owned a professional cycling team, I'd require that my cyclists didn't smoke. Doesn't it make sense that the military might do the same? Anyway, that would be a better justification for this but I stink the whole thing is dumb. I'd let soldiers smoke if they want to smoke, out of respect for what they are doing for the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Im digging the sh-- out of the irony of Cat's ramblings in this thread. Ramble ramble ramble ramble ramble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 There's a better justification than long-term health. How about short-term health concerns? It would make sense to me if the military required non-smoking because it contributes to poor physical fitness in a physically demanding job. If, for example, I owned a professional cycling team, I'd require that my cyclists didn't smoke. Doesn't it make sense that the military might do the same? Anyway, that would be a better justification for this but I stink the whole thing is dumb. I'd let soldiers smoke if they want to smoke, out of respect for what they are doing for the country. That's precisely what occurred to me too. Further, has it been discussed here how the no-drinking rules in Iraq (Afghanistan and Pakistan too?) have affected troop morale? I assume no booze is worse for a man's soul/body than no smokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Im digging the sh-- out of the irony of Cat's ramblings in this thread. I am, however, cautiously curious about your definition of "irony." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I am, however, cautiously curious about your definition of "irony." It contains a ferrous compound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 Let me be clear: I am 100% against telling private businesses that they should/should not allow smokers. In today's environment, the market would happily dictate market winners and losers (or likely winners and winners) if restaurants designated themselves as smoking and non-smoking. Each would create a niche market. I would never frequent a smoking restaurant--others would never go to a non-smoking one. To this story though. There's a better justification than long-term health. How about short-term health concerns? It would make sense to me if the military required non-smoking because it contributes to poor physical fitness in a physically demanding job. If, for example, I owned a professional cycling team, I'd require that my cyclists didn't smoke. Doesn't it make sense that the military might do the same? Anyway, that would be a better justification for this but I stink the whole thing is dumb. I'd let soldiers smoke if they want to smoke, out of respect for what they are doing for the country. I worked out with a guy who was retired from the Army Special Forces. He was 46, smoked like a chimney, and ran a mile faster than young kids. The military consists primarily of young people. I am thinking that if a guy in the Marine Corps smokes, he will still be a tough guy. Hank Aaron smoked cigarettes in the dugout, and nobody threw him out of baseball, ya know? If you remember way back from our drama days, I don't care so much about the bans in restaurants. The ban in bars, these bastions of health, is what freaks me out. I would bet a lot of money that many of the same a-holes pushing this ban were whining about their rights as youths. Many of them simply hate the men and women that defend our country as well. Also, the military is a hard sell these days. I guarantee that there are some able bodied kids who would not enlist if they were banned from smoking. Can we really afford this ever, let alone in a time of war? It really is a freaking mess. Maybe Obama and Mc Cain will help out and give the citizens some rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 That's precisely what occurred to me too. Further, has it been discussed here how the no-drinking rules in Iraq (Afghanistan and Pakistan too?) have affected troop morale? I assume no booze is worse for a man's soul/body than no smokes. I've found it to be quite the opposite. There's nothing worse than a bunch of big aggressive guys getting loaded after combat. Bad things man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Let me be clear: I am 100% against telling private businesses that they should/should not allow smokers. In today's environment, the market would happily dictate market winners and losers (or likely winners and winners) if restaurants designated themselves as smoking and non-smoking. Each would create a niche market. I would never frequent a smoking restaurant--others would never go to a non-smoking one. To this story though. There's a better justification than long-term health. How about short-term health concerns? It would make sense to me if the military required non-smoking because it contributes to poor physical fitness in a physically demanding job. If, for example, I owned a professional cycling team, I'd require that my cyclists didn't smoke. Doesn't it make sense that the military might do the same? Anyway, that would be a better justification for this but I stink the whole thing is dumb. I'd let soldiers smoke if they want to smoke, out of respect for what they are doing for the country. Yes because all that smoking during WWII really messed up that fighting machine we had then. And BTW war was much more physical then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I've found it to be quite the opposite. There's nothing worse than a bunch of big aggressive guys getting loaded after combat. Bad things man. War...is HELL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 No smoking in the workplace is already the rule for the majority of the military. They pretty much follow the same rules and regulations as their civilian counterparts. The major difference is the cost of tobaco products for service members. Because they buy "Tax-Free" at the Exchange they pay a much lower price. The Pols aren't collecting taxes on tobaco sales to service members, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 What does this have to do with Obama? Obviously everything. Cuz he, like me, smokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 "I think the government would do a much better job of running health care than ANY company whose main concern is their bottom line. Read that carefully before you respond." Who are you kidding? The government can't even do a good job running the government--you know, the company where our welfare is the bottom line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 For fux sakes people...This is America...."Bans" shouldn't be placed on anything the people want...It seems a few do-gooders cry and things are banned. I don't smoke and really don't like people to smoke around me, but who am I to say they can't do it except on private property or a private business? You wanna kill yourself...Who cares? It's not the governments right to decide. This reminds me of 1994...The Dems had control of the congress and banned assault weapons...and were promptly voted out afterwards. I fully expect the same in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Tobacco use in the military is more widespread then college drinking. It is not uncommon for guys to chew and smoke at the same time. The averatge 18-24 year old could care less about the long term effects of tobacco, when he sees his peers getting killed or wounded. The thought of telling a guy who is putting his life on the line for freedom, he can't smoke is laughable. Hey Marine, go assault that enemy stronghold but I better not see a smoke in your mouth. Our culture is embarassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Yes because all that smoking during WWII really messed up that fighting machine we had then. And BTW war was much more physical then. Smokes were actually rationed out by the military then. Then again we use to allow our military to fight as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 A classic line from Apocolypse Now sums this up perfectly: "We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "!@#$" on their airplanes because it's obscene!" The military can be truley retarded sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Anyway, that would be a better justification for this but I stink the whole thing is dumb. I'd let soldiers smoke if they want to smoke, out of respect for what they are doing for the country. Yeah, we really respect what they do. The VA speaks volumes about how much respect what they do for us gets them. Embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 "I think the government would do a much better job of running health care than ANY company whose main concern is their bottom line. Read that carefully before you respond." Who are you kidding? The government can't even do a good job running the government--you know, the company where our welfare is the bottom line! I agree completely. We should begin dismantling the government run military IMMEDIATELY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Uhhhh....I REAAAAALLLLY dont think the US Military is a good case history to support your argument that the Feds should take over Health Care. Explain. Because you either a.) agree with me or b.) aren't making any sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Uhhhh....I REAAAAALLLLY dont think the US Military is a good case history to support your argument that the Feds should take over Health Care. I'm waiting for someone to point out something the government runs that is a good arguement. Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts