Should The Military Be Tobacco-Free?

Amen

I'm an XO now, was a platoon leader for 17 months beforehand. I can tell you that a tobacco ban on military grounds would amount to a revolution. Haha, I'm only partially kidding too. The stress of work and the fear of rapid deployment is often eased by the comfort of a cigarrette. Taking that away from people that fight to protect the freedoms of America would be wrong. Like Zom Zom said, like we weren't misterable enough anyways. What's next, no alcohol? No swearing?

I'd add to that, Iraq-free. Or... make Iraq... U.S. military-free... you get what I'm trying to say. It would certainly cut a lot more costs than banning tobacco.

Adding to that, Scienceguy, let's get rid of the strong religious push at the Air Force Academy; though I know my comment is a little off subject.

Tobacco-Fee!

Yes! Our solders are putting their lives on the line every day so I think the least we can do is give them Free Smokes if they want them! :]

The military requires troops to be in the best physical condition possible.

No, no it doesn't. The military requires it's members to pass a semi annual physical fitness test. That's it. Oh, and be able to perform their jobs, but, generally if you can do one you can do the other.

I've said it before on other threads, I'll say it again: A total prohibition is just the next step in what they have already been doing for 20 years. In 1989 recruits were not allowed to smoke during training and had to give them up for the duration. The program has been only marginally successful as many take it right back up on family weekend or the minute they graduate. As far as I know the policy is still in place with the same lackluster results.

They can try, but I don't think they'll succeed. It's ridiculous anyway since smokers still have to perform and pass physical tests. A no brainer indeed: leave it the hell alone!

It's ridiculous anyway since smokers still have to perform and pass physical tests.

I think this has to do with how much they are spending on medical treatment for smokers not on passing physical tests. With that said, how would they ever enforce this?

I think this has to do with how much they are spending on medical treatment for smokers not on passing physical tests.

I think you right but some would say the soldiers that live long enough to get cancer are the lucky ones.

It may cost more to care for smoking Vets but I personally think they're worth it!

how would they ever enforce this?

Let me see, oh yeah I know...article 134

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

http ://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm

Hey Scott, you're right.

Article134, that magic article of the UCMJ...better known as the "catch-all".

This is how the deck is stacked to ensure compliance with "all" rules and regs.

Scott,

I've seen some commands really use this article (mostly to weed out "non-hackers" and "sickbay commandos") while others don't have much use for it, never really figured out why the difference...maybe it just comes down to the CO & XO, I guess.

No prob, glad to help... :)

Bob , right on we should let them use a drug that impairs your judgement

More simply than a chapter, the Post Commander would just have to come out with a directive banning all smoking on post. At that point it would be disobeying a direct order from most likely a 2-star general. A simple Article 15 would suffice for the crazy amount of infractions that would happen. If it continued, you could then chapter them out of the Army for patterns of misconduct. But then again, all this trouble just for smoking?

Well one reason for banning tobacco is to make it harder to recruit soldiers and force a draft, a goal of the Democrats.

I found one comment above somewhat humorous:

The administration, through the Pentagon, for its part has declined to start implementing a program to phase out tobacco saying that the troops are already sacrificing enough by fighting two wars at the same time.

Only fighting one war would not be that much of a sacrifice?

kwolf,

I was a smoker when I was a officer in the Army. (Combat veteran, Vietnam... and you?)

As of ROTC basic training (have YOU been to Benning??), I learned never to throw away a cigarette butt. Pinch it out, pocket it... You're right -- the military is different!

Do this anti-smoking stuff gradually, and I repeat, without ever prohibiting completely, and you can be sure that there would be very few smokers left in the military.

Soldiers have very strong habits, but they are not stupid.

THe military is (and I've said this before) a microcosm of society. We have many of the same problems, less racism and discrimination than the civilian world, but we are still just a smaller example of the population at large. To demand that members quit would be the equivalent of President Obama telling everyone in America that smoking is now illegal and you can't do that anymore. Anyone have a doubt how that would fly? It wouldn't even make it through the first appellate level before being thrown out.

Clipped to several military/veterans groups.

The tobacco lobby would snuff out any attempt to do any such thing, you can be sure of it.

Well one reason for banning tobacco is to make it harder to recruit soldiers and force a draft, a goal of the Democrats.

What source did you find this at?

Minan and Scott,

No fair! If people can no longer use straw-man arguments, they'll be... speechless...

;-)

That's a fairly rare item on NV, attacking a veteran for his service in combat.

Needless to say, I've reported your post as inflammatory.

Note to other posters here: Drop A Log seems to be another manifestation of a slimy troll who has been stalking me, and a few others, for a couple weeks. Drop A Log has been on NV since July 2009, with no article and no posts. Four comments, including two personal insults for me and one for Tyler.

Sick puppy. Sad case.

Do you have even the slightest proof or logical rationale to support that?

How about this: You eliminate 25% of the population right off the bat. Many will choose to not quit if it means serving. Right now, anyone who enlists knows it's just a few weeks they have to cut the habit out of. No real sacrifice and only a temporary one at that.

Proof it would reduce enlistments? No, just a substantive argument that when you tell 25% of the population they are doing something you won't allow you *most likely* are eliminating them from the service pool, or at least a good majority of them. Especially when you consider that the military has a higher than average number of smokers than the US population as a whole.

Just my opinion on it, coming from a dozen plus years of my own service. Feel free to take it with a grain of salt or disregard it totally.

Ah, sorry, I tend to not look at things in Rep/Dem terms. I tend to only look at them in the big picture way, as in overall reactions or effects.

Now, whether or not either party wants a draft I don't know. I just know they have had the discriminatory policy and procedures in effect for a long time now that would speedily enact one. Worst thing they could do, but, what the hell do I know. I'm not the government, and we all know they know best on everything.

I am sick and tired of everyone thinking that they have the right to interject what they personally believe to every other person's lives in this country. If you don't want to smoke, then don't smoke but leave everyone else alone.

The new fun thing to do is sit around all day saying "I don't want my tax payer money going towards "fill in blank". We do not get to individually decide what "we" will and won't pay for and we should ALL be thankful. Otherwise every person's lives get be under a microscope ALL of the time.

I don't want my taxpayer money going towards the obese 400lb+ guy in the McDonald's drive thru lane but I also don't want him telling me that I can't have a cigarette so I will shut-up about his grotesque obesity if he will shut up about my cigarette.

Nobody on this planet is perfect in every way, so mind your own business!

We do not get to individually decide what "we" will and won't pay for and we should ALL be thankful.

I don't know why that is so hard for some people to understand that. I've made that point for years and it's like talking to a wall.

The constitution only guarantees representation, it says nothing about people, individually, making budgetary decision. Only congress can...period!

great point

The new fun thing to do is sit around all day saying "I don't want my tax payer money going towards "fill in blank". We do not get to individually decide what "we" will and won't pay for and we should ALL be thankful. Otherwise every person's lives get be under a microscope ALL of the time.

Very much agree with this part.

Nobody on this planet is perfect in every way, so mind your own business!

Not so much that part. I am, but I don't hold it against the rest of you.

Nobody on this planet is perfect in every way

I meant to say, "except Zom Zom". I must have forgot, sorry. :)

Can you forgive me just this once?

Somehow... I hadn't actually thought of tobacco as the ideal after-action tranquilizer.

If all our troops were chain-smokers, would there be an end to PTSD?

I don't know that it's a good post traumatic stress coping device, but I wouldn't tell someone they couldn't. I guess if they could find another way to deal, ie playing video games or blasting some tunes... that were better, however it's not ideal to tell someone that their stress coping device is banned, when you just put them through hell.

... but if you banned it before you sent them to hell...

;-)

Geez, Rod!

Thoughtful compromise...

You must be new on NV!

;-)

LOL...kinda sorta ;)

BTW, the USMC has always had restrictions on smoking.

In uniform:

No smoking while walking (must stand in one place in public)

No smoking in public while in Alpha dress uniforms (I think this was from the Wing CO & SgtMaj)

No somking out in town, while in public and in B, C or D class uniforms

No smoking in public in Dress Blues (any class) on or off base.

lol...pretty much.

Basically, If you are in the squadron area, or any area not open to the public, it's ok. If you are in public stay in place, finish your smoke and then continue on your way.

The goal, I think, was aimed at not allowing the public to see us smoking in uniform (the Marine Corps doesn't allow you to put your hands in your pants pockets, either...makes the pockets stickout). That is an ALMAR (standing order for the entire Corps).

The Corps is kinda anal about our public image, smoking shows a weakness...we are not suppose to have any (we were never issued any, I should say...LOL).

...may sound over the top, but if a guy does not have the self-discipline to follow the smoking rules, sure don't want him in combat with me watching my back...may fall asleep and get us all killed.

Geez... I'd forgotten the "no hands in pockets" thing. Long time ago.....

Gee, Rodney, sorry service in the Army doesn't match up to your requirements, or that your narrow point of view doesn't allow you to possibly consider that other services have different standards. I wonder who it was, than, that fought all those battles...couldn't be the army since they "were in the rear with the gear". /s/

Never thought I'd say this, but I don't salute sanctimonious, holier than thou service like that. I can do without it, thank you.

Gee, Rodney, sorry service in the Army doesn't match up to your requirements

Not MY requirements, the Marine Corps' requirements and yes the PT standards in the Army are different (the Army requires a mile and a half run and the Corps runs 3 mile on a PFT).

This was the quote:

No, no it doesn't. The military requires it's members to pass a semi annual physical fitness test. That's it. Oh, and be able to perform their jobs, but, generally if you can do one you can do the other.

The MILITARY does not require that, the Army may...but the Marine Corps' standards (the last time I checked they were still in the military) are much more stringent when it comes to PT.

Your quote mad:

your narrow point of view doesn't allow you to possibly consider that other services have different standards.

Makes my point!

Never thought I'd say this, but I don't salute sanctimonious, holier than thou service like that. I can do without it, thank you.

I don't really care you think the Corps is "sanctimonious, holier than thou", the Corps has only one mission - to defend this nation and keeping Marines alive. I served with honor and continue to support all of our services.

If you understand the military, those in the rear do have different standards than a infantry unit.

Marine Corps combat units, will PT just about everyday, usually by starting with a morning run of 5-10 miles, while those in a support MOS (in the rear with the gear) may not have daily PT at all and will be on their own to maintain physical readiness until they are required to take a PFT.

So, before you run off at the mouth, you may want to do a little more research.

My comment was not a "slight" aimed at the others services (though, after re-reading it, I understand how it can be taken that way), that said, there is always a "back and forth" between services, this comment was not different.

If I got angry every time I was called a F-ing Jarhead (yes, that's an insult when done so by the other services), I'd always have a headache.

Just a tidbit, Army is a 2 mile run. Also, I've always enjoyed the friendly competition with Marines, the jeering and making fun of each other. When it comes to serving, I've always been fine serving in the same AO as Marines, and they've always been fine serving in mine. I'll just continue with my 1 year deployments while yall go home after 6 months.

Also, in the current wars we are fighting there really isn't a rear or a front line. The only safe spots overseas is Qatar and Kuwait, but being anywhere in the combat zone makes you a combat unit, believe me. This is true regardless of your branch or your stated mission. Though I agree, mostly in garrison the diffrence between the standards of combat oriented units and support oriented units.

All the best to ya.

Thanks XO,

We all are on the same team, different mission-same goal, guess that's what I was trying say.

Put Marines and soldiers in the same bar together and we'll fight like cats and dogs, but I'll be right by your side when the rounds start flying.

Semper Fi...