• 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
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.

How is that relevant to what I said?

A soldier cannot criticize the president in uniform in public. How is that even similar to what you say?

Apparently you still don't get it.

Smoking is legal.
Choosing to smoke in the military results in some monies from your paychecks stocked away to pay for extra healthcare costs stemming from smoking.
Smoking is again legal, no bans.

Get it?

You complain about having to take some obligations with a freedom, but you don't complain about actual bans on what soldiers can do. I gave you an actual example of a REAL ban. If you are so anti-bans, how about you talk about ACTUAL bans in the military rather than complain about having to take some obligations for a freedom?
 
Why should you have money taken away for something that is legal and that half the nation does, and at the time this does not affect your career. So why be penalized by any means is my point.
 
Last edited:
Why should you have money taken away for something legal and that half the nation does? and at the time this does not affect your career. So why be penalized by any means is my point.

Do you know what the current taxes on cigarettes are? Federal taxes now are $1.01 per pack. Several states have over $2 a pack sin tax. And counties often have their own taxes. In many places, smokes now cost over $10 a pack.

And it's not half the nation. Adult smokers are roughly 40 million. No way 110 million kids are smoking.

State Tax Rates on Cigarettes

And I've long advocated that those who smoke should pay more in insurance premiums. And they do. Even Airlines are charging for smoking insurance. Several nations already do this on a large scale. America hasn't quite got to the point, but life insurance does cost more if you're a smoker.

If you are a Smoker expect to pay higher Life Insurance Premiums - EQUOTE
Northwest Airlines To Charge Smokers More For Insurance, Fat People Next On List : Diggers Realm

The US government is often going to have to pay for veteran healthcare. Thus is a concern. I suppose there should be an option to forgo VA treatment to eliminate the percent deducted.

You make bad health choices, why should everyone else pay for your screw up? That's why you should be penalized.

I take it you really don't think personal responsibility is important? You are proudly displaying that attitude. If someone makes bad choices, they shouldn't have to face the consequences.
 
Last edited:
Do you know what the current taxes on cigarettes are? Federal taxes now are $1.01 per pack. Several states have over $2 a pack sin tax. And counties often have their own taxes. In many places, smokes now cost over $10 a pack.

And it's not half the nation. Adult smokers are roughly 40 million. No way 110 million kids are smoking.

State Tax Rates on Cigarettes

And I've long advocated that those who smoke should pay more in insurance premiums. And they do. Even Airlines are charging for smoking insurance. Several nations already do this on a large scale. America hasn't quite got to the point, but life insurance does cost more if you're a smoker.

If you are a Smoker expect to pay higher Life Insurance Premiums - EQUOTE
Northwest Airlines To Charge Smokers More For Insurance, Fat People Next On List : Diggers Realm

The US government is often going to have to pay for veteran healthcare. Thus is a concern. I suppose there should be an option to forgo VA treatment to eliminate the percent deducted.

You make bad health choices, why should everyone else pay for your screw up? That's why you should be penalized.

I take it you really don't think personal responsibility is important? You are proudly displaying that attitude. If someone makes bad choices, they shouldn't have to face the consequences.




Not when you are doing a service to your country NO.
Why should you tell someone who is helping you out what not to do in their personal time?? Way should someone that is risking their lives be told they can not smoke outside the base over have a designated area. This is only a way to control people.
 
Last edited:
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.

If you choose to use chewing gum, a certain amount of your pay is deducted and played into an account to pay for future health care costs related to your use of a known carcinogen.
:roll:
 
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.

Have you ever been a soldier?

Once soldiers are out of basic training they have as much free will as anyone else except for when it comes time for work to be done, or deployments.

You act like being in the Army is like being in boot camp for the entire duration, its not.
 
Do you know what the current taxes on cigarettes are? Federal taxes now are $1.01 per pack. Several states have over $2 a pack sin tax. And counties often have their own taxes. In many places, smokes now cost over $10 a pack.

So those in the military who smoke are already paying towards any future healthcare costs. You only need to ringfence the costs so they don't get mis-appropriated into some other budget.
An easy way to make your plan work is to get the military smokers to sign up and have the smoking taxes they pay now ringfenced rather than have some whole new extra tax or worse still start having some form of surveillance to secretly find out who smokes and who doesn't.

Not that I like your idea, the military already make huge sacrifices for the nation - it's the nation's duty of care to make sure that appropriate healthcare is available in turn during and after service.
 
Not when you are doing a service to your country NO.

So thus personal responsibility doesn't count for much in your opinion eh?

So thus, you think it is okay for soldiers to engage in activities not required by their job that will cost taxpayers in the future without any obligations on their part?

Why should you tell someone who is helping you out what not to do in their personal time?? Way should someone that is risking their lives be told they can not smoke outside the base over have a designated area. This is only a way to control people.

I really have to wonder if you can read. Clearly you don't understand that taxpayers pay for the medical care of veterans. If they during the time of their service decide to engage in activities that result in higher healthcare costs unrelated to their service, why should we have to pay for it?

Or would you prefer James's argument, which calls for VA clinics to be prohibited from providing treatment for smoking related diseases?

I'm not for bans, but you don't seem to give a crap about personal responsibility.
 
If you choose to use chewing gum, a certain amount of your pay is deducted and played into an account to pay for future health care costs related to your use of a known carcinogen.
:roll:

If you could show that it poses a material level of risk, sure. But I doubt you can. Furthermore, Methyleugenol is only believed to be. The various chemical parts of tobacco are known to be carcinogens.

Once soldiers are out of basic training they have as much free will as anyone else except for when it comes time for work to be done, or deployments.

They can say whatever they want? By the way, you just said what I said. Good job on failure to read and understand the written word.
 
So those in the military who smoke are already paying towards any future healthcare costs. You only need to ringfence the costs so they don't get mis-appropriated into some other budget.

Can you cite evidence that those who smoke are already paying for more future healthcare costs? That there is allocation of their pay towards such costs?

An easy way to make your plan work is to get the military smokers to sign up and have the smoking taxes they pay now ringfenced rather than have some whole new extra tax or worse still start having some form of surveillance to secretly find out who smokes and who doesn't.

Fair enough. The whole notion I gave was to allow them to do what they want to do, but also enforce some obligations that come with their freedom. Clarence Thomas if you will. One cannot expect freedoms without obligations, which JustinDeeMan seems to think is totally okay, that personal responsibility does not apply to soldiers. I'm against a ban, but I'm also against unnecessary health costs forced upon taxpayers.

Not that I like your idea, the military already make huge sacrifices for the nation - it's the nation's duty of care to make sure that appropriate healthcare is available in turn during and after service.

But is it the nation's duty to pay for healthcare for activities unrelated to the job of serving the country?

Simply taking it a step further, a soldier who gets AIDs from a local hooker should not be expected to have the US taxpayer foot his AIDs bill. Sleeping around is not a required part of the job, just as smoking isn't. By the reasoning you give, whatever healthcare problems a soldier gets during service regardless of whether or not those activities were required should be entirely paid by taxpayers.
 
They can say whatever they want? By the way, you just said what I said. Good job on failure to read and understand the written word.

Yes, they can say whatever they want.

They also don't have to sleep when told to sleep, eat when told to eat, etc like you stated.
 
Interesting, what part of the military is going for the ban or is it some sort of committee made up of parts outside of the military?
 
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.

And, if they can't meet the physical requirements of their, they'll either make the concious decision to stop smoking, or they'll get kicked out of the service.
 
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.

Such a plan is simply not feasible. For instance, how do you quantify the damage of cigarettes monetarily? How would the smoking habits of military members be effectively monitored? It just doesn't seem realistic.
 
I find it funny no, rather pathetic how OC wants to dictate to those who served in combat, something he himself is unwilling to ever do, as to what they can and can not do with thier bodies, with a legal product.


I also find it pathetic how he cackles on about personal responsibility, but when I read my contract in regards to my VA care due to being in the 1st gulf war, no where in said contract was there a stipulation regarding the use of tobbacco... So his entire argument is a nonsensical cry fest disguised as an attack on the troops.. (pm me for more details on this).... Living up to the contract is "personal responsibility".....


I just have to chuckle when non serving people think they have a right to dictate to those who served in combat..... :roll:
 
I find it funny no, rather pathetic how OC wants to dictate to those who served in combat, something he himself is unwilling to ever do, as to what they can and can not do with thier bodies, with a legal product.


I also find it pathetic how he cackles on about personal responsibility, but when I read my contract in regards to my VA care due to being in the 1st gulf war, no where in said contract was there a stipulation regarding the use of tobbacco... So his entire argument is a nonsensical cry fest disguised as an attack on the troops.. (pm me for more details on this).... Living up to the contract is "personal responsibility".....


I just have to chuckle when non serving people think they have a right to dictate to those who served in combat..... :roll:
We should ban guns in the military, someone could get hurt. :mrgreen:
 
I find it funny no, rather pathetic how OC wants to dictate to those who served in combat, something he himself is unwilling to ever do, as to what they can and can not do with thier bodies, with a legal product.


I also find it pathetic how he cackles on about personal responsibility, but when I read my contract in regards to my VA care due to being in the 1st gulf war, no where in said contract was there a stipulation regarding the use of tobbacco... So his entire argument is a nonsensical cry fest disguised as an attack on the troops.. (pm me for more details on this).... Living up to the contract is "personal responsibility".....


I just have to chuckle when non serving people think they have a right to dictate to those who served in combat..... :roll:

You're right that those who serve have a unique perspective. I must note that not everyone who serves has engaged in combat. I also must note that the statutes that the Department of Veterans Affairs follow are those created by Congress, and not every congressman/woman has served in the military, much less combat. My point is that one doesn't have to have served in the military or in combat in order to have an opinion on the subject matter.

In 1998, Congress passed this statute:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a veteran's disability or death shall not be considered to have resulted from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service for purposes of this title on the basis that it resulted from injury or disease attributable to the use of tobacco products by the veteran during the veteran's service.

38 USC 1103 - US Code - Title 38: Veterans' Benefits - 38 USC 1103 - Sec. 1103. Special provisions relating to claims based upon effects of tobacco products - vLex
 
Such a plan is simply not feasible. For instance, how do you quantify the damage of cigarettes monetarily? How would the smoking habits of military members be effectively monitored? It just doesn't seem realistic.

While you are correct that it is somewhat difficult to predict the additional healthcare costs of tobacco usage (and monitor, well not necessary), why should taxpayers be forced to pay for healthcare unrelated to the service performed by soldiers? Under that logic, if a soldier gets infected with AIDs by sleeping around, we should pay for that independent of the fact that it was his bad choices that get him infected and that sleeping around was not part of the job.

I know for a fact that you would get angry for having to pay increased premiums because people on your insurance plan couldn't stop feeding their faces with vast amounts of unhealthy food and not exercising. You get pissed off for being forced to pay for their bad lifestyle choices. Why is this fundamentally any different?

Again, being a soldier does not absolve you from all forms of personal responsibility, unlike Rev's opinion.
 
I find it funny no, rather pathetic how OC wants to dictate to those who served in combat, something he himself is unwilling to ever do, as to what they can and can not do with thier bodies, with a legal product.

Only because I have to pay for it. I noticed you did not want to talk about my other examples which are principally no different even though you would be angry if you had to pay for them. Typical. Either you are being dishonest (which is historically accurate) or you can't read, also historically accurate.

I also find it pathetic how he cackles on about personal responsibility, but when I read my contract in regards to my VA care due to being in the 1st gulf war, no where in said contract was there a stipulation regarding the use of tobbacco.

Where in your contract does it say anything about banging hookers and getting AIDs? Under your argument, anything not prohibited is legal and therefore should be paid for by taxpayers despite not being part of the job and being extremely idiotic to reasonable people.

So his entire argument is a nonsensical cry fest disguised as an attack on the troops.. (pm me for more details on this).... Living up to the contract is "personal responsibility"

lol. There's no contract for what you eat when you sign up for health insurance. Are you saying those who make everyone else pay for the third triple bypass surgery are living up to their level of personal responsibility?

Let's see just how far of a grave you can dig for yourself.

I just have to chuckle when non serving people think they have a right to dictate to those who served in combat..... :roll:

Therefore, you think that soldiers should be able to do whatever and not be bound by any civilian conventions. That they are free of any civilian oversight. That they can and should expect civilians to pay for their bad decisions.

Under Rev's idiotic line of thinking, get Aids from hookers and the taxpayers will pay for it despite you acting like an idiot.
 
Only because I have to pay for it. I noticed you did not want to talk about my other examples which are principally no different even though you would be angry if you had to pay for them. Typical. Either you are being dishonest (which is historically accurate) or you can't read, also historically accurate.

So what if you have to pay for it? They are fighting and dying to protect you and the rest of the country. I'd say that earns them quite a bit.
 
So what if you have to pay for it? They are fighting and dying to protect you and the rest of the country. I'd say that earns them quite a bit.

Read up on ALL the benefits they get while in service and once they get out of service. Paying for their bad habits SHOULD not be one of them. And as I pointed out, VA no longer pays compensation benefits for smoking-related illnesses, which is the right thing.
 
Read up on ALL the benefits they get while in service and once they get out of service. Paying for their bad habits SHOULD not be one of them. And as I pointed out, VA no longer pays compensation benefits for smoking-related illnesses, which is the right thing.




Really? I think getting shot at is far more unhealthy than smoking....


Alchohol kills nearly as much, perhas we should ban troops from drinking as well...


Saturated fats? No SIR, if you have a big mac NO COVERAGE FOR YOU!


I find it perplexing in an era were we are trying to nationalize healthcare, and even give it to the illegal alien hordes, we would want to take it away from combat and retired vets......


I find the stance hypocritical and rather pathetic.



Fortunatley the link you provide says that the smoking damage would have had to had been caused during the service time.... that would be near impossible to prove....
 
Last edited:
Really? I think getting shot at is far more unhealthy than smoking....


Alchohol kills nearly as much, perhas we should ban troops from drinking as well...


Saturated fats? No SIR, if you have a big mac NO COVERAGE FOR YOU!


I find it perplexing in an era were we are trying to nationalize healthcare, and even give it to the illegal alien hordes, we would want to take it away from combat and retired vets......


I find the stance hypocritical and rather pathetic.

The majority of people who serve have not been shot at. Let's get that straight. VA MUST cut corners so that other veterans can get the compensation they need.

Right now, VA does not pay compensation to a veteran who has become disabled due to his/her own willful misconduct. I'm sure you wouldn't want to think that Joe Shmo can drink to his heart's content, get into a car, paralyze himself from drunk driving, and then receive more $2700/month tax free as a result. The same argument can be made for someone who smokes. You know smoking causes cancer of all sorts and you CHOOSE to smoke. Sorry, you shouldn't be compensated for your own willful misconduct.
 
The majority of people who serve have not been shot at. Let's get that straight. VA MUST cut corners so that other veterans can get the compensation they need.

Most people who serve and have not been shot at are uneligable for va coverage.

Right now, VA does not pay compensation to a veteran who has become disabled due to his/her own willful misconduct. I'm sure you wouldn't want to think that Joe Shmo can drink to his heart's content, get into a car, paralyze himself from drunk driving, and then receive more $2700/month tax free as a result. The same argument can be made for someone who smokes. You know smoking causes cancer of all sorts and you CHOOSE to smoke. Sorry, you shouldn't be compensated for your own willful misconduct.



doing so is illegal. if smoking were illegal i'd see your point.


a better comparison would be someone who serves and gets breakfast lunch and dinner at the base mcdonalds.....


should the va deny him lipitor and coverage?
 
Back
Top Bottom