Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5992

A new study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs recommends a complete ban on tobacco, which would end tobacco sales on military bases and prohibit smoking by anyone in uniform, not even combat troops in the thick of battle.

According to the study, tobacco use impairs military readiness in the short term. Over the long term, it can cause serious health problems, including lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. The study also says smokeless tobacco use can lead to oral and pancreatic cancer.

The Defense Department's top health officials are studying the report's suggestions and will make recommendations to the Pentagon's policy team and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The study recommends phasing out tobacco products such as cigarettes and cigars over a five- to 10-year period.

However, the suggested ban does not sit well with many in uniform, including retired Gen. Russel Honore, best known for coordinating military relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina-affected areas with an ever-present stogie. He said soldiers at war need to puff.

"When you're tired and you've been going days on end with minimum sleep, and you are not getting the proper meals on time, that hit of tobacco can make a difference," said Honore, who was in charge of the Army's training programs before he retired.

Other soldiers questioned whether this was a good time to stamp out smoking, given the Army's concern with a high suicide rate.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/12/milita … index.html
So should smoking be banned for military personal for health reason or is the sanity of our troops more important then their health.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7168

jesus fucking christ
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|7113
That's unexpected.
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|7061

Let's take away the freedoms of those protecting our country
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6936|Global Command
This is just another attempt to have people be less inclined to join the military. Like Obama wants.

Smoking is more dangerous than ied's don't you know?

At one time soldiers were issued smokes, because any comfort is good comfort for those who have killed for us or held the intestines of their buddy from falling out

Why anyone would want to serve this nation...oh wait, that's what they want; a disheartened spiritually defeated military. 

Hope and change baby, at work.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6812|North Carolina
Jesus ATG...  do you really believe that crap?

Whatever the case, this is a very stupid policy that is a slap in the face to all those who serve.
legionair
back to i-life
+336|7030|EU

I would ban smoking at home bases, but allow it when fighting in a hot zone. As a former smoker I know what a fucking satisfaction can cigarette give when you are exhausted or under stress.  (Pity that US soldiers are all the time involved in some military conflict, so it would be useless).
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|7088|Disaster Free Zone

ATG wrote:

At one time soldiers were issued smokes, because any comfort is good comfort for those who have killed for us or held the intestines of their buddy from falling out
LOL. Or pure genius marketing and expanding future customer base by the tobacco companies.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7168

legionair wrote:

(Pity that US soldiers are all the time involved in some military conflict, so it would be useless).
not rly but if you say so
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6929|...

mtb0minime wrote:

Let's take away the freedoms of those protecting our country
I don't agree. You give up many other concrete "freedoms" when you commit to the military. It makes sense from a health cost and performance standpoint.  Make sense, healthier war fighters.

Also ...

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html wrote:

In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a "national socialist duty" (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit, though this didn't stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide). Armed with such senior sanction -- loyally, Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler banned SS men from smoking, though not shooting, on duty, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels was obliged to hide his ciggie whenever he was filmed -- anti-tobacco activists succeeded in banning smoking from government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces. Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on smoking while driving.
better source ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany wrote:

After German doctors became the first to identify the link between smoking and lung cancer[1][2] Nazi Germany initiated a strong anti-tobacco movement[3] and led the first public anti-smoking campaign in modern history.[4] Anti-tobacco movements grew in many nations from the beginning of the 20th century,[5][6] but these had little success, except in Germany, where the campaign was supported by the government after the Nazis came to power.[5] It was the most powerful anti-smoking movement in the world during the 1930s and early 1940s.[7] The National Socialist leadership condemned smoking[8] and several of them openly criticized tobacco consumption.[7] Research on smoking and its effects on health thrived under Nazi rule[9] and was the most important of its type at that time.[10] Adolf Hitler's personal distaste for tobacco[11] and the Nazi reproductive policies were among the motivating factors behind their campaign against smoking, and this campaign was associated with both antisemitism and racism.[12]

The Nazi anti-tobacco campaign included banning smoking in trams, buses and city trains,[7] promoting health education,[13] limiting cigarette rations in the Wehrmacht, organizing medical lectures for soldiers, and raising the tobacco tax.[7] The National Socialists also imposed restrictions on tobacco advertising and smoking in public spaces, and regulated restaurants and coffeehouses.[7] The anti-tobacco movement did not have much effect in the early years of the Nazi regime and tobacco use increased between 1933 and 1939,[14] but smoking by military personnel declined from 1939 to 1945.[15] Even by the end of the 20th century, the anti-smoking movement in postwar Germany had not
attained the influence of the Nazi anti-smoking campaign.[14]

read more ...

Last edited by jsnipy (2009-07-12 15:01:03)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7168

performance?  gtfo bro.  i knew people in The Suck on the three mile test run that would smoke a cig at the 1.5 mile point, and still finish under 20 minutes.  not to mention my platoon was up for almost 3 days straight during the invasion in 2003 and had no issues with smokers performance.
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6929|...

usmarine wrote:

performance?  gtfo bro.  i knew people in The Suck on the three mile test run that would smoke a cig at the 1.5 mile point, and still finish under 20 minutes.  not to mention my platoon was up for almost 3 days straight during the invasion in 2003 and had no issues with smokers performance.
Sorry wrong, there are health problems with smoking at all time ranges its just the youth hiding the effects. The main risk smoking poses to the military is health care, especially for those who are career folks whose health care get taken care of uncle sam.

When I was younger nothing had an effect on me either.

Last edited by jsnipy (2009-07-12 15:04:45)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7168

jsnipy wrote:

usmarine wrote:

performance?  gtfo bro.  i knew people in The Suck on the three mile test run that would smoke a cig at the 1.5 mile point, and still finish under 20 minutes.  not to mention my platoon was up for almost 3 days straight during the invasion in 2003 and had no issues with smokers performance.
Sorry wrong, its just the youth overriding the health risks. The main risk smoking poses to the military is health care, especially for those who are career folks whose health care get taken care of uncle sam.
youth?  most badass dude in our platoon was our gunny and he was 33 at the time of the invasion.  chain smoker also.  could outrun most people.
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6929|...

usmarine wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

usmarine wrote:

performance?  gtfo bro.  i knew people in The Suck on the three mile test run that would smoke a cig at the 1.5 mile point, and still finish under 20 minutes.  not to mention my platoon was up for almost 3 days straight during the invasion in 2003 and had no issues with smokers performance.
Sorry wrong, its just the youth overriding the health risks. The main risk smoking poses to the military is health care, especially for those who are career folks whose health care get taken care of uncle sam.
youth?  most badass dude in our platoon was our gunny and he was 33 at the time of the invasion.  chain smoker also.  could outrun most people.
Sure there maybe exceptions, but you would say overall it makes zero difference?

I will concede that maybe performance of the war fighter is not the primary issue with this.

Last edited by jsnipy (2009-07-12 15:06:45)

usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7168

jsnipy wrote:

usmarine wrote:

jsnipy wrote:


Sorry wrong, its just the youth overriding the health risks. The main risk smoking poses to the military is health care, especially for those who are career folks whose health care get taken care of uncle sam.
youth?  most badass dude in our platoon was our gunny and he was 33 at the time of the invasion.  chain smoker also.  could outrun most people.
Sure there maybe exceptions, but you would say overall it makes zero difference?

I will concede that maybe performance of the war fighter is not the primary issue with this.
well, i dont see the point then.  i mean people can go to the hospital and get free health care.  so, shouldnt we ban all smoking everywhere then?
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6929|...

usmarine wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

usmarine wrote:


youth?  most badass dude in our platoon was our gunny and he was 33 at the time of the invasion.  chain smoker also.  could outrun most people.
Sure there maybe exceptions, but you would say overall it makes zero difference?

I will concede that maybe performance of the war fighter is not the primary issue with this.
well, i dont see the point then.  i mean people can go to the hospital and get free health care.  so, shouldnt we ban all smoking everywhere then?
Well, if nationalized health care ever becomes a reality I wouldn't be surprised to see more federal laws having to do with smoking. Any private health insurance company penalizes you for smoking. Why wouldn't the government. But then again this is the government. I dunno lol.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7058|USA
An interesting issue.

when I was in Iraq, it was my experience that the PX ran out of everything at one time or another EXCEPT tobacco.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7168

lowing wrote:

An interesting issue.

when I was in Iraq, it was my experience that the PX ran out of everything at one time or another EXCEPT tobacco.
not to mention the logs of chew people had sent to them.  more chew than you could chew lol
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7056

usmarine wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

usmarine wrote:


youth?  most badass dude in our platoon was our gunny and he was 33 at the time of the invasion.  chain smoker also.  could outrun most people.
Sure there maybe exceptions, but you would say overall it makes zero difference?

I will concede that maybe performance of the war fighter is not the primary issue with this.
well, i dont see the point then.  i mean people can go to the hospital and get free health care.  so, shouldnt we ban all smoking everywhere then?
According to a buddy of mine who works for the NHS, smokers actually save the taxpayer money by dying before they get to all the costly stuff when they get older.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7058|USA

ghettoperson wrote:

usmarine wrote:

jsnipy wrote:


Sure there maybe exceptions, but you would say overall it makes zero difference?

I will concede that maybe performance of the war fighter is not the primary issue with this.
well, i dont see the point then.  i mean people can go to the hospital and get free health care.  so, shouldnt we ban all smoking everywhere then?
According to a buddy of mine who works for the NHS, smokers actually save the taxpayer money by dying before they get to all the costly stuff when they get older.
Now that is an interesting stat worth looking at.
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6929|...

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

usmarine wrote:


well, i dont see the point then.  i mean people can go to the hospital and get free health care.  so, shouldnt we ban all smoking everywhere then?
According to a buddy of mine who works for the NHS, smokers actually save the taxpayer money by dying before they get to all the costly stuff when they get older.
Now that is an interesting stat worth looking at.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5992

jsnipy wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

According to a buddy of mine who works for the NHS, smokers actually save the taxpayer money by dying before they get to all the costly stuff when they get older.
Now that is an interesting stat worth looking at.
I see where this is going
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/Logans_run_movie_poster.jpg
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7058|USA

Macbeth wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

lowing wrote:


Now that is an interesting stat worth looking at.
I see where this is going
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … poster.jpg
I said look at a stat, I didn't say kill everyone at the age of 32
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5992

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

jsnipy wrote:


I see where this is going
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … poster.jpg
I said look at a stat, I didn't say kill everyone at the age of 32
-_- I was kidding. Learn to laugh lowing.
Chorcai
Member
+49|7055|Ireland
The armies are looking for fit people, ie non-smokers, whats the big deal. If you smoke you dont get in.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard