Military studies show that prolonged exposure to smoking is bad for your health (you don’t say!) And apparently, there will be a recommendation to the Pentagon to enforce a no-smoking policy over the next 5-10 years for any man or woman in uniform—including those in combat!
Now we all get that smoking is bad, but something about this just doesn’t seem right. If I spent all day in combat I think it's my freakin’ choice or not if I want a cigarette!
What do you think? Do you think it’s the government’s duty to look out for their soldiers’ health when they wont do it themselves? Or it should be personal choice?
Here’s the article, from CNN.
Now we all get that smoking is bad, but something about this just doesn’t seem right. If I spent all day in combat I think it's my freakin’ choice or not if I want a cigarette!
What do you think? Do you think it’s the government’s duty to look out for their soldiers’ health when they wont do it themselves? Or it should be personal choice?
Here’s the article, from CNN.
I have to say being a wife of a smoker the idea of a government entity being able to stop a smoker and succeeding is a dream come true! however, that is just my selfish desire talking. Being a non-smoker I am constantly surrounded by smokers, whether it be my loving husband at home, or the people I work with. It is annoying to us non-smokers, my hair, clothes, office everything smells like smoke, and it really is irritating that they walk around thinking they own the place. The rest of us inhabit this originally green planet. However, I think that the writer of this prestiges blog bring up an intelligent point by stating that there is a line that needs to be drawn! sure those that smoke are sub-humans that are slowly killing the rest of us, however, a goverment's duty isnt to stop a soilder from damaging is own health. It is kinda ironic that they care about the soilders health, but sending an 18 year old, pimply faced kid into a war that has no merit or point and then have him come home in a metal box, really doesnt make much sense to focuse on the smoking, now does it?
ReplyDeleteI would personally like to thank the highly intelligent writer of thewatercooler blog for bringing up such a heated issue, keeping the coming M. Your one in a million.
you know you love me....
XOXO
Poltico Girl
I agree Poltico Girl. And furthermore, the government should spend their time and resources educating, training and protecting the troops rather than waste their time on a widely unpopular policy that deprives the men and women protecting their country from their Marlboro fix.
ReplyDeletePerhaps they can promote more education and ban smoking in more areas on their army bases, but the ultimate choice should be up to the individual.
I mean what's next? No drinking? Drinking is determent to ones health, should they ban that from the troops?
hmmmm interesting point. I guess to some extent, military leaders have always been in charge of their subordinate's health. Back let's say in George Washington's army, he was admant about sanitation and not fraternising with local prostitutes to protect the health of his soldiers (as their numbers were few anyways). He provided punishment in the form of lashes to the back.
ReplyDeleteSo in a sense generals are in charge of the safety of their soldiers, wether it be medical or physical harm.
Also smoking is a nasty habit, (even thought I smoke and should know better) and any attempt to curb it is well worth the effort.
It's kind of a tough call as you stated before, if i've been in combat all day, its my right and choice to smoke if I want to. And government intervention in the personal lives of people is something I've always frowned upon, but this just might be a good thing.
Interesting topic nonetheless