• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban on Tobacco urged in military

Is banning tobacco products within the military going to far

  • Yes

    Votes: 37 90.2%

  • NO

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • Total voters
    41
JustinDeeMan said:
This is another way for the government to control how we live our lives.
The tobacco act is forcing Philip Morris to make an AD to show people how smoking is bad for you! How can you instruct a company to tell people not to buy there product?? This would force them over time to lose profits and maybe bankrupt themselves. Genocide our own company's.
Click to expand...

I'm supposed to feel sorry for tobacco companies who intentionally hid information showing how smoking is addictive and detrimental to one's health? Sorry, I can't do that.

The Minnesota settlement exposed the tobacco industry's long history of deceptive marketing, advertising, and research and ultimately forced the industry to change its business practices.

Open Doorway to Truth: Legacy of the Minnesota Tobacco Trial
Click to expand...
 
aps said:
I'm supposed to feel sorry for tobacco companies who intentionally hid information showing how smoking is addictive and detrimental to one's health? Sorry, I can't do that.
Click to expand...

I would think common sense could tell anyone that, if they had any to start with.
 
JustinDeeMan said:
I would think common sense could tell anyone that, if they had any to start with.
Click to expand...

I don't care if a reasonable person would have known that smoking is dangerous. When a company intentionally hides negative information from the public, it has no morals, and it deserves to suffer the consequences for such lack of morals. JMO
 
aps said:
I don't care if a reasonable person would have known that smoking is dangerous. When a company intentionally hides negative information from the public, it has no morals, and it deserves to suffer the consequences for such lack of morals. JMO
Click to expand...

every food company does that as much as possible.
 
aps said:
I don't care if a reasonable person would have known that smoking is dangerous. When a company intentionally hides negative information from the public, it has no morals, and it deserves to suffer the consequences for such lack of morals. JMO
Click to expand...


You don't think every company will lie to you, to make themselves a profit?
 
Tobacco is a perfect example how people dont give a **** about peoples right unless it is something they wanna do.

It also shows the thinking of many people in power who think they own the citizens and knows what best for them.
 
mikhail said:
every food company does that as much as possible.
Click to expand...

The peanut guy who knew salmonella was found in the peanuts and still allowed the peanuts to be processed? He WILL suffer consequences, and he should.

I do see your point. Nevertheless, I hate cigarettes, and so I couldn't care less about a business who makes them.

Again, just because I hate cigarettes doesn't mean I think there should be a ban on tobacco in the military (maybe I would feel differently if I was in the military (i.e., I would support it)).
 
The point is every company is going to lie and unless you have czar controlling them all, you will always be lied to. The country is slowly becoming socialist by the government taking control of our company's. I mean why don't we just let the government take control of everything because it is in our best interest.
 
aps said:
The peanut guy who knew salmonella was found in the peanuts and still allowed the peanuts to be processed? He WILL suffer consequences, and he should.

I do see your point. Nevertheless, I hate cigarettes, and so I couldn't care less about a business who makes them.

Again, just because I hate cigarettes doesn't mean I think there should be a ban on tobacco in the military (maybe I would feel differently if I was in the military (i.e., I would support it)).
Click to expand...

You would support a ban on a product you don't use being placed on your fellow soldiers if you were in the military?

Can you tell me how this makes any damned sense whatsoever?
 
Kandahar said:
Just to play devil's advocate here (I don't really have an opinion on tobacco in the military), but I would think that use of tobacco would make people less able to handle the physical strains of their job.
Click to expand...

Cigarettes are a mental comfort in combat zones.
 
I don't see how tobacco products affect job performance in the military whatsoever. Its not as if the people under fire, need to have a smoke while in a fire fight,. They have more important things going on at the moment. Its not like a sniper is going to light up while waiting for his target to appear. Its not as if you can smoke while working around aircraft.

One thing I wouldn't mind NJP'd anybody who dips and leaves their spit bottles laying around. Nasty ****s.
 
There's a better solution. If you choose to use tobacco products during your service, a certain amount of your pay is deducted and placed into an account to pay for future health care costs related to your use of a known carcinogen. If you kick the can during your service, that amount is then added to any amount given to your beneficiaries.

Soldiers should not have tobacco restricted, but they should not expect us to pay extra for their associated health costs from a preventable cause. Thus, we leave the choice up to them with an added future cost to themselves.
 
obvious Child said:
There's a better solution. If you choose to use tobacco products during your service, a certain amount of your pay is deducted and placed into an account to pay for future health care costs related to your use of a known carcinogen. If you kick the can during your service, that amount is then added to any amount given to your beneficiaries.

Soldiers should not have tobacco restricted, but they should not expect us to pay extra for their associated health costs from a preventable cause. Thus, we leave the choice up to them with an added future cost to themselves.
Click to expand...



Um. No.

Imagine how many people will quit or not join because of this, also this is part of socialism government telling people that want to help their country what to do.
 
obvious Child said:
There's a better solution. If you choose to use tobacco products during your service, a certain amount of your pay is deducted and placed into an account to pay for future health care costs related to your use of a known carcinogen. If you kick the can during your service, that amount is then added to any amount given to your beneficiaries.

Soldiers should not have tobacco restricted, but they should not expect us to pay extra for their associated health costs from a preventable cause. Thus, we leave the choice up to them with an added future cost to themselves.
Click to expand...

As others have already pointed by the time tobacco usage starts to affect their health most of the people would have already retired from the military.
 
JustinDeeMan said:
Um. No.

Imagine how many people will quit or not join because of this, also this is part of socialism government telling people that want to help their country what to do.
Click to expand...

Did you even read what I wrote?

The government isn't telling you what you can or cannot do. It is informing you that you are free to do so but you must also accept the obligations of your choice. Furthermore, when you join the military, the government is essentially your owner. They tell you where to go, what to eat, what to do, when to sleep, you name it. You act like soldiers have lots of free will. They don't. Complain that the government will set aside from money to pay for your healthcare from your choice as socialism is nuts when that government indirectly tells you what you will do in your job and how you will do it.

The notion that people won't join the military because it will cost them some pay for smoking is nuts.
 
jamesrage said:
As others have already pointed by the time tobacco usage starts to affect their health most of the people would have already retired from the military.
Click to expand...

Which is my point. They made the choice that adversely affects their health (and taxpayers' wallets). It seems reasonable that they should accept at least SOME obligation to pay for a very unhealthy choice they made. If you smoke, then some money is accumulated out of your pay to defray the costs of your choice.

Should a person who made bad lifestyle choices get to pay the same rate as someone who made good choices?

Just because you joined the military does not mean you can forsake personal responsibility.
 
obvious Child said:
Which is my point. They made the choice that adversely affects their health (and taxpayers' wallets).
Click to expand...

Then the solution is to ban VA treatment for smoking related illnesses,if it hasn't already done so. Not take out money for problem that may or may not happen.


Don't insurance
Just because you joined the military does not mean you can forsake personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

By the time most of these people will have suffered any smoking related illness they would have already retired out of the military.So your point it mute. In a military occupation you are more likely to suffer an injury or health problems from training or going to war,especially if it is a combat MOS or a MOS that requires working around dangerous equipment or just a dangerous MOS like EOD(89D) or a chemical operations specialist(74D).
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Then the solution is to ban VA treatment for smoking related illnesses,if it hasn't already done so. Not take out money for problem that may or may not happen.
Click to expand...

Eh. I'm not a big fan of bans in general. Especially something that calms nerves during combat.

By the time most of these people will have suffered any smoking related illness they would have already retired out of the military.So your point it mute.
Click to expand...

Except that retired military are often covered under military healthcare plans. Thus, the point is not moot. I thought that was common knowledge. Retired career military generally have their healthcare paid for under some VA plan.

In a military occupation you are more likely to suffer an injury or health problems from training or going to war,especially if it is a combat MOS or a MOS that requires working around dangerous equipment or just a dangerous MOS like EOD(89D) or a chemical operations specialist(74D).
Click to expand...

Except that those are required activities of the job. Smoking is not.
 
JustinDeeMan said:
We will see what the future holds.
Click to expand...

If you are going to join an organization which prohibits what you can say, being forced to set aside some money for smoking is a minor issue, if an issue at all. The notion that choice obligations attached to smoking trump free speech IMO is certified class A crazy.
 
obvious Child said:
If you are going to join an organization which prohibits what you can say, being forced to set aside some money for smoking is a minor issue, if an issue at all. The notion that choice obligations attached to smoking trump free speech IMO is certified class A crazy.
Click to expand...

I would not join if I could not have the choice to smoke.
The less choices people have in the army the less likely they will join.

Next is you can not drink alcohol either.
 
Last edited:
JustinDeeMan said:
I am a smoker, I would not join if I could not have the choice to smoke.

The less choices people have in the army the less likely they will join.
Click to expand...

This again questions if you even bothered to read what I wrote. Nothing I said constitutes a ban. What I said is that if you choose to smoke, then you have to accept certain obligations for your choice. You seem to think that joining the military absolves you from personal responsibility. My plan is if you choose to smoke, which are you free to do so, a small percentage of your pay is allocated towards future health costs stemming from your choice. No one is saying you can't smoke. Only that if you choose to do so, you take some responsibility for your actions.

If people wanted choice in the military, they wouldn't join. You seem to have this notion that the military is like a club where you get to choose everything you want and nothing you don't. Tell me, do you think you can avoid boot camp because you don't want to do it? Do you think you can easily refuse orders because you don't like the choices given? :rofl

Next is you can not drink alcohol either.
Click to expand...

Can I interest you in a dictionary? Your understanding of the word "ban" is highly suspect.

If you are complaining about bans, how about you discuss how the military severely restricts what soldiers can say in public while in uniform? There's an actual ban there.

For an self proclaimed "very conservative" person, you sure don't seem to think that personal responsibility is important.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Can I interest you in a dictionary? Your understanding of the word "ban" is highly suspect.

If you are complaining about bans, how about you discuss how the military severely restricts what soldiers can say in public while in uniform? There's an actual ban there.

For an self proclaimed "very conservative" person, you sure don't seem to think that personal responsibility is important.
Click to expand...



Well let's just tell the world when and were we are bombing or invading a place.

What you say and What you DO are two different subjects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom