[hyteckit]

Well, if they are lifting the ban on the gays, they'll need to have something in its place.

Seems like the best alternative is to ban cigarettes.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Well, I was more thinking "on" the job, while doing a tour in Iraq, on the field.

At least, there's no alcohol for the Navy on the ships.

I don;'t know where the army draws it's line.

-t

In the field is a completely different thing from the majority of military functions, and has its own rules. I don't know where the Army draws its line on cigarettes either, but I've never seen photos or videos of people smoking while on patrol in the desert. I kind of think it's an operational issue-in an Islamic country, maybe smoking would "announce" the patrol's presence...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Nanny statification isn't limited to liberals. There's plenty of social conservative nanny state laws.

Yes, get rid of those, too.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

In the field is a completely different thing from the majority of military functions, and has its own rules. I don't know where the Army draws its line on cigarettes either, but I've never seen photos or videos of people smoking while on patrol in the desert. I kind of think it's an operational issue-in an Islamic country, maybe smoking would "announce" the patrol's presence...

What I want to see is a reasonable line drawn.

Prohibiting sales of cigs and use even in private housing on base is going too far, IMO.

If health is really a concern, they should ban fast food from bases as well.

-t

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, get rid of those, too.

-t

Then we're on the same page. I have no problems with people doing whatever they want to themselves, be it smoking, doing drugs, gambling, marrying the same sex, as long as what they do doesn't affect others unwillingly.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Then we're on the same page. I have no problems with people doing whatever they want to themselves, be it smoking, doing drugs, gambling, marrying the same sex, as long as what they do doesn't affect others unwillingly.

But second-hand smoke gives me teh cancer!

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But second-hand smoke gives me teh cancer!

Yes, for Pete's sake, be grateful, it's free.

-t

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Turtle, who told you alcohol was banned? It would be a surprise to Army and Air Force Morale, Welfare and Recreation units world wide. And it would bankrupt them. The Army and Air Force Exchange Service also sells tax-free bottled booze, and would be in a seriously bad financial position if they had to stop.

Before smoking became an issue, alcohol use was an obvious and critical threat to mission accomplishment. And it's at least in part because of the culture of alcohol use-and abuse-that it seems all military services have developed. But as recently as 2004, I could have a beer at lunch - IN UNIFORM ON BASE - and nobody would bat an eye. And I keep an eye on what's happening in the services, and there have been no blanket bans on alcohol anywhere that have made the military news outlets-and there would be a LOT of stories about that if it were to happen.

There's definitely some sort of restriction, if not ban, on alcohol in Iraq for servicemen. I don't know exactly what's going on there or why, but a friend of mine has been over there several times in the past couple years and is not allowed to drink while she's over there (and has stated that neither are the soldiers, she's CIA).

[Laminar]

Are firefighters and other emergency workers allowed to drink when they're "on call?"

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Are firefighters and other emergency workers allowed to drink when they're "on call?"

Are they "on call" for 9 monthys straight ?

-t

[andi*pandi]

I'm basing this opinion solely on information garnered from The Colbert Report, but I thought they were dry in Iraq out of respect for the traditions there?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Are they "on call" for 9 monthys straight ?

-t

I'm not sure why this is relevant.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm not sure why this is relevant.

Because there's a significant difference if you cut someone's liberties for a couple of hours on call, versus 9 months tour overseas. See, during those 9 months, they are not literally 24/7 on duty; however, even when they are back in their base camp (off-duty), they are still not allowed to drink.

Question is: how far do you want to go restricting things that they can do while back in their base-camp, waiting for their next shift to start.

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Because there's a significant difference if you cut someone's liberties for a couple of hours on call, versus 9 months tour overseas. See, during those 9 months, they are not literally 24/7 on duty; however, even when they are back in their base camp (off-duty), they are still not allowed to drink.

Question is: how far do you want to go restricting things that they can do while back in their base-camp, waiting for their next shift to start.

-t

I guess I'm not too familiar with the military and how things work, but I would assume that if you're off in the middle of a foreign (sometimes hostile) nation, you'd want your soldiers to be ready at a moment's notice.

And referring to the alcohol ban as "cutting liberties" is laughable. They're not rationing oxygen here, they're not restricting food and water. It's alcohol. There are very few scenarios where I could imagine alcohol being a positive addition to our soldiers' performance.

[Dakar V]

It's also amusing to refer to soldiers "losing liberties" when in essence they've handed their life over to the US Government for a set amount of time.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

And referring to the alcohol ban as "cutting liberties" is laughable. They're not rationing oxygen here, they're not restricting food and water. It's alcohol. There are very few scenarios where I could imagine alcohol being a positive addition to our soldiers' performance.

I'm just explaining how banning other things (like smoking) has a profound impact, because they don't do a 9-5 job like firefighters.

YOU started a nice Apples to Oranges comparison that just doesn't make sense.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What I want to see is a reasonable line drawn.

Prohibiting sales of cigs and use even in private housing on base is going too far, IMO

Base housing is almost always a voluntary choice. And it costs extra money to rehabilitate a house that has had smokers in it. There is no such thing as "private" base housing-especially when the base already has its finger on the thermostat in every housing unit, requires very specific lawn care (people actually come out and MEASURE how high the grass is on a regular basis) and so on. It is not "forced on" many people, though some commanders have no choice, but they get some plush digs-and have to "on duty" entertain there too. I lived on base with my family ONCE, through safety concerns while stationed overseas. I've lived in dormitories while single or unaccompanied, and these places were all non-smoking after about 1980. It is no big deal to go one step farther and ban smoking in government-provided family housing.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There's definitely some sort of restriction, if not ban, on alcohol in Iraq for servicemen. I don't know exactly what's going on there or why, but a friend of mine has been over there several times in the past couple years and is not allowed to drink while she's over there (and has stated that neither are the soldiers, she's CIA).

The whole country is considered a combat zone. Note I mentioned earlier a difference between "regular facilities" and those in a combat zone.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I'm basing this opinion solely on information garnered from The Colbert Report, but I thought they were dry in Iraq out of respect for the traditions there?

Colbert doesn't make all of it up. In this case, I think there's a huge chunk of truth in this. I also mentioned this earlier, buried in another post.