Proposed Smoking Ban For Military

[MaggieMae]

This is stupid. Just about as stupid as not allowing prisoners to smoke, even outside during designated breaks anymore.

I was a smoker for 40+ years, and quit only because of the cost. And I can tell ya, if somebody wants a smoke bad enough, [she'll] find a way to SMOKE. It's really a sad thing that nicotine is so addictive like that, but once it grabs hold, it rules.

As for the cost factor, I wonder where the tax windfall on cigarettes will come from once the revenue is gone because everyone has quit?

Lets tax water.
The Tax Foundation - Chicago Passes Bottled Water Tax

That's nothing new. Besides, drinking "bottled" water is just about as stupid as taxing it.

 

[MaggieMae]

As for the cost factor, I wonder where the tax windfall on cigarettes will come from once the revenue is gone because everyone has quit?

Good question. That falls in with states losing money on gas taxes because of fuel efficient vehicles, so they put trackers in your car to tax you per mile you drive.

I don't recall any significant problem with the gas tax back in the 70's when fuel efficient cars were popular, so that's a moot point until, if ever, it materializes into noticeable revenue losses. At least the gas taxes usually go into transportation funds. Cigarette taxes in my state go for anything BUT stop smoking programs. We also blew our share of the billion-dollar class action suit against the tobacco companies a few years ago. Now they're trying to figure out how to legally get the tax owed by buying cigarettes from reservations, but the tribes are fighting tooth and nail, and I wish them all the success in the world.

 

[Aztaz]

As for the cost factor, I wonder where the tax windfall on cigarettes will come from once the revenue is gone because everyone has quit?

Good question. That falls in with states losing money on gas taxes because of fuel efficient vehicles, so they put trackers in your car to tax you per mile you drive.

I don't recall any significant problem with the gas tax back in the 70's when fuel efficient cars were popular, so that's a moot point until, if ever, it materializes into noticeable revenue losses. At least the gas taxes usually go into transportation funds. Cigarette taxes in my state go for anything BUT stop smoking programs. We also blew our share of the billion-dollar class action suit against the tobacco companies a few years ago. Now they're trying to figure out how to legally get the tax owed by buying cigarettes from reservations, but the tribes are fighting tooth and nail, and I wish them all the success in the world.

I think one state is already doing it. Washington, maybe? let me go look it up. Be back in a minute or two.

 

[noose4]

i dont smoke, i cant stand smoke, and i support the smoking bans that have been put in place throughout parts of the country that ban smoking in restaurants but this goes too far, service people are adults and if they want to smoke they should be alllowed to.

But people that own restaurants aren't adults, therefore the government should tell them what to do with their property.
Nice logic.
Not.

carcinogens should be regulated, why should tobacco junkies have special rights other addicts dont?

 

[Aztaz]

As for the cost factor, I wonder where the tax windfall on cigarettes will come from once the revenue is gone because everyone has quit?

Good question. That falls in with states losing money on gas taxes because of fuel efficient vehicles, so they put trackers in your car to tax you per mile you drive.

I don't recall any significant problem with the gas tax back in the 70's when fuel efficient cars were popular, so that's a moot point until, if ever, it materializes into noticeable revenue losses. At least the gas taxes usually go into transportation funds. Cigarette taxes in my state go for anything BUT stop smoking programs. We also blew our share of the billion-dollar class action suit against the tobacco companies a few years ago. Now they're trying to figure out how to legally get the tax owed by buying cigarettes from reservations, but the tribes are fighting tooth and nail, and I wish them all the success in the world.

I was wrong. It's Oregon. They've already completed the tests and are just waiting to implement it.

"Last year the Oregon Department of Transportation announced a successful demonstration of a GPS-based system. It tracks individual car’s movements, measures their mileage, calculates a fee and generally enables bureaucrats to collect “mileage taxes.” Now Gov. Kulongoski wants implement that system."
Editorial: Oregon Set to Implement Pay-As-You-Go Road Taxes | The Truth About Cars

Washington's legislature is kicking around the idea.

 

[alan1]

i dont smoke, i cant stand smoke, and i support the smoking bans that have been put in place throughout parts of the country that ban smoking in restaurants but this goes too far, service people are adults and if they want to smoke they should be alllowed to.

But people that own restaurants aren't adults, therefore the government should tell them what to do with their property.
Nice logic.
Not.

carcinogens should be regulated, why should tobacco junkies have special rights other addicts dont?

Well, didn't you just try and side-step your fallacious argument.
So, carcinogens should be regulated except for the military?

You made the statement, I just pointed out your false logic (twice now).

 

[MaggieMae]

i dont smoke, i cant stand smoke, and i support the smoking bans that have been put in place throughout parts of the country that ban smoking in restaurants but this goes too far, service people are adults and if they want to smoke they should be alllowed to.

But people that own restaurants aren't adults, therefore the government should tell them what to do with their property.
Nice logic.
Not.

carcinogens should be regulated, why should tobacco junkies have special rights other addicts dont?

You hit the nail on the head, probably without intending to. The tax on beer and liquor in my state hasn't risen in ten years.

 

[WillowTree]

Obviously you have never been in a combat zone.

Smokers HAVE to smoke.

They will risk their lives for a cigarette.

The US of KKKA has been through many wars! Now! Suddenly this is a problem?

 

[noose4]

But people that own restaurants aren't adults, therefore the government should tell them what to do with their property.
Nice logic.
Not.

carcinogens should be regulated, why should tobacco junkies have special rights other addicts dont?

Well, didn't you just try and side-step your fallacious argument.
So, carcinogens should be regulated except for the military?

You made the statement, I just pointed out your false logic (twice now).

umm no, there is a difference in being able to smoke in designated areas and not being allowed to smoke at all, for example, if they are over 21 they can have alcoholic beverages when off duty but must abide by the laws designating where alcoholic beverages can be consumed.

 

[007]

Yeah... here ya go G.I., git yur ass out there and get shot at, bombed, tear gassed, land mined, car bombed, ambushed, IED'd, or any multitude of other ways we're going to put you in the way of getting your ass offed, but hey, PUT THAT CIGARETTE OUT!

My God... this is just MORE LIBERAL, FEEL GOOD, INSANITY! Sheeezuz Christ, sometimes I hear shit like this that makes me sit and shake my head in absolute disbelief. How utterly, absolutely and thoroughly RETARDED this shit is. Fuck... I'm going to find me a liberal to slap just for reading this lunacy.

 

[alan1]

i dont smoke, i cant stand smoke, and i support the smoking bans that have been put in place throughout parts of the country that ban smoking in restaurants but this goes too far, service people are adults and if they want to smoke they should be alllowed to.

carcinogens should be regulated, why should tobacco junkies have special rights other addicts dont?

Well, didn't you just try and side-step your fallacious argument.
So, carcinogens should be regulated except for the military?

You made the statement, I just pointed out your false logic (twice now).

umm no, there is a difference in being able to smoke in designated areas and not being allowed to smoke at all, for example, if they are over 21 they can have alcoholic beverages when off duty but must abide by the laws designating where alcoholic beverages can be consumed.

For example, a restaurant owner has had his personal property rights restricted, you find that acceptable. You don't find it acceptable to restrict the rights of military personnel. Hypocrite.

 

[Sunni Man]

This isn't just a liberal issue.

I am a right wing conservative on just about every social issue.

But I support the ban on smoking in the military.

Don't like it. Don't join.

 

[noose4]

i dont smoke, i cant stand smoke, and i support the smoking bans that have been put in place throughout parts of the country that ban smoking in restaurants but this goes too far, service people are adults and if they want to smoke they should be alllowed to.

Well, didn't you just try and side-step your fallacious argument.
So, carcinogens should be regulated except for the military?

You made the statement, I just pointed out your false logic (twice now).

umm no, there is a difference in being able to smoke in designated areas and not being allowed to smoke at all, for example, if they are over 21 they can have alcoholic beverages when off duty but must abide by the laws designating where alcoholic beverages can be consumed.

For example, a restaurant owner has had his personal property rights restricted, you find that acceptable. You don't find it acceptable to restrict the rights of military personnel. Hypocrite.

yes i do, restaurant owners should have to abide by health codes,you are not free to do whatever you want when running a business and dealing with the public, besides smoking not being allowed restaurant owners are also restricted from selling rancid meat sandwiches or having roach farms in the kitchen.

 

[alan1]

i dont smoke, i cant stand smoke, and i support the smoking bans that have been put in place throughout parts of the country that ban smoking in restaurants but this goes too far, service people are adults and if they want to smoke they should be alllowed to.

umm no, there is a difference in being able to smoke in designated areas and not being allowed to smoke at all, for example, if they are over 21 they can have alcoholic beverages when off duty but must abide by the laws designating where alcoholic beverages can be consumed.

For example, a restaurant owner has had his personal property rights restricted, you find that acceptable. You don't find it acceptable to restrict the rights of military personnel. Hypocrite.

yes i do, restaurant owners should have to abide by health codes,you are not free to do whatever you want when running a business and dealing with the public, besides smoking not being allowed restaurant owners are also restricted from selling rancid meat sandwiches or having roach farms in the kitchen.

In other words, as long as you agree with restrictions on personal property rights it is ok. It doesn't matter to you that you have the choice of what restaurants you choose to give your business to, you want the government to choose those rights for you. Cept when it comes to the military personnel, you want them to have rights you don't have.

 

[noose4]

For example, a restaurant owner has had his personal property rights restricted, you find that acceptable. You don't find it acceptable to restrict the rights of military personnel. Hypocrite.

yes i do, restaurant owners should have to abide by health codes,you are not free to do whatever you want when running a business and dealing with the public, besides smoking not being allowed restaurant owners are also restricted from selling rancid meat sandwiches or having roach farms in the kitchen.

In other words, as long as you agree with restrictions on personal property rights it is ok. It doesn't matter to you that you have the choice of what restaurants you choose to give your business to, you want the government to choose those rights for you. Cept when it comes to the military personnel, you want them to have rights you don't have.

military members can not smoke in restaurants where smoking is prohibited and yes i support health codes and laws, i dont want to go to a restaurant where the restaurant owner is free to serve maggot riddled meat if he chooses to do so.

 

[alan1]

yes i do, restaurant owners should have to abide by health codes,you are not free to do whatever you want when running a business and dealing with the public, besides smoking not being allowed restaurant owners are also restricted from selling rancid meat sandwiches or having roach farms in the kitchen.

In other words, as long as you agree with restrictions on personal property rights it is ok. It doesn't matter to you that you have the choice of what restaurants you choose to give your business to, you want the government to choose those rights for you. Cept when it comes to the military personnel, you want them to have rights you don't have.

military members can not smoke in restaurants where smoking is prohibited and yes i support health codes and laws, i dont want to go to a restaurant where the restaurant owner is free to serve maggot riddled meat if he chooses to do so.

We aren't talking about maggot riddled meat.
Try and keep up.

 

[noose4]

In other words, as long as you agree with restrictions on personal property rights it is ok. It doesn't matter to you that you have the choice of what restaurants you choose to give your business to, you want the government to choose those rights for you. Cept when it comes to the military personnel, you want them to have rights you don't have.

military members can not smoke in restaurants where smoking is prohibited and yes i support health codes and laws, i dont want to go to a restaurant where the restaurant owner is free to serve maggot riddled meat if he chooses to do so.

We aren't talking about maggot riddled meat.
Try and keep up.

so you want restaurant owners to be able to pick and choose which health codes to follow? smoking in a restaurant as well as a restaurant serving rancid meat are both health code issues.

 

[Aztaz]

This isn't just a liberal issue.

I am a right wing conservative on just about every social issue.

But I support the ban on smoking in the military.

Don't like it. Don't join.

Welcome back. You skipped over my earlier question, so I'll ask again.

You stated earlier in the thread that you support this ban. Your reasoning was that soldiers in combat would give away their position at night, and also the smell would allow them to be detected. When I asked if smokeless tobacco was ok, you said "Nope".

I asked you why that was, since your reasoning for supporting the smoking ban did not apply to smokeless tobacco.

well?

 

[Gunny]

All active military personal should be banned from smoking. Period

All US citizens should be banned from being Muslim. Period.

 

[Gunny]

Let me guess why you think that. Because you think the government owns you once you join and your body belongs to them. Am I warm?

Not even close.

Besides being unhealthy and diminishing a persons lung capacity.

In a combat zone it poses a danger to all of the other soldiers.

At night the glowing end of a cigarette can be seen for a long, long way.

Thus exposing your position.

Secondly, the smell of cigarettes linger for a long time and carries very far.

Which also can make the enemy aware of your presence and expose your position.

You fuckin' idiot. Do you think the boys smoke when they are on a mission that requires their position not to be known?
Seriously, you can't be that fuckin' stupid, can you?

Rhetorical question?