… WASHINGTON — Pentagon health experts are urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property, a change that could dramatically alter a culture intertwined with smoking. [...]Along with a phased-in ban, the report recommends requiring new officers and enlisted personnel to be tobacco-free, eliminating tobacco use on military installations, ships and aircraft, expanding treatment programs and eliminating the sale of tobacco on military property. “Any tobacco use while in uniform should be prohibited,” the study says.
Meanwhile, via Michelle Malkin meet Obama Science Czar John “Soylent Green” Holdren
Comment by Joe on 7/10 @ 10:28 pm #
I think it is crazy to ban cigarettes, but if they want to not subsidize them (they are cheaper in the military) and offer financial incentives not to smoke, I say okay. Cigarettes are bad for you. So is warfare, but I would prefer a beer under such conditions and they mostly ban that in combat.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/10 @ 10:44 pm #
So wait, Obama smokes, but doesn’t want US soldiers to do so…
And is willing to mandate, instead of recommend, it…
Sounds like more of the ol’ Obama hypocrisy, “Tis good for me, but not for thee”…
And perhaps most ironic, these folks are fighting for…wait for it…Freedom!
I understand that it’s better not to smoke, but how can you deny someone who’s been risking their lives, the pleasure of a smoke when off duty..? It’s like in the 60’s when 18 year olds were drafted, but were not allowed to vote until 21!
Did I do it? Yes, at least when on surface ships or ashore…
Did I ultimately give it up..? Well let’s just say that I’m 99% smoke free, a few points better than Obama. I still indilge when drinking, playing cards, or hanging out with my younger brothers…
There would have been a mutiny on the TR back in the day if smoking had been banned!
Comment by Paul Mitchell on 7/10 @ 10:49 pm #
The Obama Administration! Keeping that perfect record alive! 0-98, so far.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/10 @ 10:51 pm #
And that Holden fellow? Well, all I can say is, “Paging Margaret Sanger…”
This guy is horror movie wierd, and needs to be fired immediately. We should all call our representatives, and the White House, and demand his removal…
Science Czar indeed; more like Science Fiction Czar…
Comment by Joe on 7/10 @ 10:58 pm #
And while cigarettes are bad, warfare is worse. If it relieves some stress to smoke, lay off.
Comment by Foxfier on 7/10 @ 11:11 pm #
No tattoos, no cussing, more than one drink (!!!) more than two nights a week is “alcoholic,” and now an utter ban on tobacco products?
I suggest locking them in the same room with at LEAST two shops worth of Navy guys who smoke, with the smoking lamp out, while the ship’s store is out of chewing tobacco. What’s left of them can pass this, if they’re able to write.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/10 @ 11:20 pm #
No smoking on ships…
Well, I guess the CPO’s will be chewing even more asses off…
Comment by Synova on 7/11 @ 1:18 am #
Between when my husband attended AF basic training and when I did nearly 20 years ago they banned smoking at basic training. That made sense to me, I mean, when would a person even have time? When my husband went through the smokers actually got smoke breaks. In basic training! Not at all surprisingly, non-smokers started smoking. I mean, who wouldn’t? Just like not a single person would be stupid enough to stay in the barracks with the drill instructors Sunday morning instead of going to church. If you’ve got the option to be excused for a few minutes to get a smoke and kibitz… you get a smoke.
Thing is… once out of basic or boot camp or whatever the heck it is the Navy does… you’re supposed to get to be a *person* again.
Comment by Glen Wishard on 7/11 @ 3:21 am #
The caption on that cartoon was “I already got a Purple Heart. Just gimme some aspirin.”
I wish Mauldin was still around.
Comment by USS Ben USN (Ret) on 7/11 @ 4:53 am #
What a bunch of fascist BS. I reckon they’ll ban “junk” food, geedunk and sodas next. This won’t help with recruiting, that’s for sure.
Joe- BTW, cigarettes are in no way subsidized on military bases. In fact, it’s only about seven bucks cheaper than Walmart for a carton, and the reason why is because there’s less state taxes on it, in some states. Also, more than fifty miles out to sea and overseas there are no taxes at all, or at least that’s he way it used to be.
It’s a good way to fuck up morale, but the bureaurats don’t give a shit about that. Just as long as they feel good about it.
Comment by happyfeet on 7/11 @ 5:40 am #
This is how the barack obama treats groups what he knows despise his dipshit marxist pansy ass. Can’t win ‘em over, fuck with ‘em hard. Creepy passive aggressive little dweeb.
Comment by Joe on 7/11 @ 5:53 am #
It is probably some dweeby in the military burocracy pushing this issue, not Barack Obama, who could care less one way or the other on the health of soldiers. But it fits with what the Democrats are all about, so look for banning of cigarette…
I guess they will go the other way when they eventually legalize canabis.
Comment by SDN on 7/11 @ 6:26 am #
I’m sure NOW is already denouncing Mr Holdren and the One who chose him, right?
Bueller????
Comment by Joe on 7/11 @ 6:51 am #
A little known fact is Mr. Holdren’s dad was killed in a Nazi concentration camp.
He fell out of a tower.
Comment by Brett on 7/11 @ 7:01 am #
Will the bigotry about smoking never end?
Comment by Joe on 7/11 @ 7:11 am #
Well so long as they allow marijuana when it gets legalized, I suppose that would be okay to ban tobacco.
Comment by Sticky B on 7/11 @ 7:15 am #
As long as our soldiers, sailors, and marines have plenty of Oreos and milk to dip them in, I think we’ll be alright. Lord knows I’d rather have a bunch of cookie munchers taking that hill as opposed to men who might smoke a ciggy and throw back a glass of whiskey.
Comment by Seth on 7/11 @ 7:38 am #
This probably won’t win me any friends, but I don’t think you can hang this one on Obama personally. the report indicates that the Pentagon health people are pushing Gates for it. Truth is, the military has been moving this way for a long time now.
Being honest about who’s pushing it doesn’t excuse it or make it terribly right, neccessarily.
Comment by SBP on 7/11 @ 7:40 am #
So is warfare, but I would prefer a beer under such conditions and they mostly ban that in combat.
Beer and marijuana decrease alertness. Cigarettes and coffee increase alertness.
Comment by KingShamus on 7/11 @ 7:41 am #
Obama isn’t a hypocrite. He’s a paternalistic douche who thinks he knows whats best for the troops.
Okay, he’s a hypocrite too.
Comment by serr8d on 7/11 @ 7:52 am #
Got any chocoholics here? This’ll help dampen your next craving(s).
Comment by Seth on 7/11 @ 7:55 am #
Snickers is people!
Comment by serr8d on 7/11 @ 7:58 am #
This fellow Holdren wrote exactly what Al Gore believes, deep inside his misanthropic core. Big Al wants to speak to Holdren’s beliefs so badly that he can taste it; but Al has enough remnants of sane politico left that he knows he can’t.
But he can certainly press for enabling the results of their commonality in thinking. Feints within feints within feints.
Comment by serr8d on 7/11 @ 8:01 am #
I just watched the video embedded in my BBC link. Seth, I guess you’re racist or something. Mandatory denunciation to follow…
RACIST~~~!!!1!1!!!
Comment by Darleen on 7/11 @ 8:02 am #
Seth
Obama just put tobacco under the FDA and his continued appointment of “czars” for everything on his Transforming America [into socialist Europe] is something we need pay attention to.
And photoshopping out cigarettes has already happened before by the Tobacco Nazis (on pics of FDR and James Dean).
Comment by serr8d on 7/11 @ 8:04 am #
OT, but isn’t thor a big fan of Hemingway? No? Well, he is now…
Comment by serr8d on 7/11 @ 8:14 am #
I could only quit smoking, many years ago, by beginning to dip Skoal (the wintergreen version, because I was a Kool Mild smoker for long years). After a couple three years of spitting on various foreheads, I finally broke the nicotine addiction for good.
Comment by Ric Locke on 7/11 @ 8:32 am #
*shrug*
I thought they didn’t want a military coup.
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 8:32 am #
Darleen,
This is OT, but thought you might be interested. It seems that Soros’ groups are trying to get the press to perform a “Joe the Plumber” routine on Ricci in order to help the Sotomayor nomination…
Get out your rubber gloves, er, goggles, because it’s McClatchy…
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/71660.html
Sorry to jack the thread but I didn’t know if you would get the “tweet”. I sent a copy of this transmission to the e-mail listed at your site…
That is all:)
Best Wishes
Comment by Joe on 7/11 @ 8:41 am #
And Darleen, you might want to “touch” on David Brooks too. Seems like he has some unresolved issues.
Comment by Christopher Taylor on 7/11 @ 8:41 am #
Yeah, that’s a good way to turn the entire military against you, take away every single soldier’s smokes.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 8:42 am #
Synova,
The Navy has boot camp much like the other branches…
Just FYI
Best Wishes
Comment by geoffb on 7/11 @ 8:44 am #
O!wants to downsize the military. Making it full of more BS PC rules is a way to squeeze people out and keep new ones from joining. Nobody forced out, they leave themselves.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/11 @ 8:52 am #
I just performed a Web of Knowledge search on ISI for scientific publications by JP Holdren. You know, I could only find 10 scientific publications going back to 1971. There were 82 ISI publications in total, but the other 72 were all policy papers. The Harvard Kennedy School website has some book chapters, op-eds, reports, etc., but again nothing that could even loosely be described as research papers. This is a chap who was formerly head of the AAAS, yet he seems, as the saying goes, to have risen without a trace. And the policy papers that you care to dip into are, guess what, pushing the progressive side of the equation. If someone with access to other databases can double check my search, I’d appreciate it.
Comment by Old Dad on 7/11 @ 8:53 am #
I’d like to ask these Pentagon geniuses something. What’s more dangerous, a 50 cal. slug heading for your earhole, or a cig? Which scenario should we be spending time and money on avoiding?
When I’m Messiah for a day, I will issue an executive order requiring an 80% reduction in force at every federal agency. That should fix all the goddamn babysitters and thumb twiddlers.
Smoke’em if you got’em.
Comment by Joe on 7/11 @ 9:00 am #
Ace on Holdren and ISI numbers.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 9:17 am #
Ah, so now we get to the real reason for banning cigarettes in the military…
The same taxes are not affixed to those sold there as in the civilian world…
QED
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 9:19 am #
“As long as our soldiers, sailors, and marines have plenty of Oreos and milk to dip them in, I think we’ll be alright. Lord knows I’d rather have a bunch of cookie munchers taking that hill as opposed to men who might smoke a ciggy and throw back a glass of whiskey.”
Even though I recognize the sarcasm here, this passage still makes me shudder…
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 9:24 am #
“Comment by serr8d on 7/11 @ 7:52 am #
Got any chocoholics here? This’ll help dampen your next craving(s).”
Wow serr8d…
I thought oompa-loompas made that stuff…
Does it come in Jameson whiskey flavor?
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 9:27 am #
Darleen,
You are correct about the photoshopping out of historical figures smoking…
Didn’t Stalin say something like, “The past can always be fi to the needs of the present”..?
Same thing
Comment by sdferr on 7/11 @ 9:30 am #
The question the “Pentagon health experts” are looking at isn’t a question of absolute danger, obviously, but the probability of incurred cost through the lens of an actuarial table.
The question “Who gets to define the meaning of freedom?” isn’t of any interest to these “experts”. That one is apparently still up to the people for the time being.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/11 @ 9:31 am #
With respect Joe, those are ISBN searches for books - my point was on ISI publications. Loosely speaking, journals in the ISI database are peer reviewed scientific publications, whereas ISBN numbers are catalogue numbers for any published books, which are not necessarily peer reviewed and could be written equally by sashal, Jeff G or Albert Einstein. A scientist’s CV will contain ISI publications first and foremost as evidence of research; next will come peer reviewed book chapters, conference proceedings and the like; next will come books and finally reports. The peer reviewed ISI research papers are the yardstick by which you as a scientist are measured. This Holdren fellow appears to have a very short yardstick, which I find rather odd for a man with his career.
Comment by Ric Locke on 7/11 @ 9:36 am #
You should also note that all you need to join the “American Association for the Advancement of Science” is $146 and the ability to fill out a form. It’s a smokescreen PAC for the unionized education establishment.
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Joe on 7/11 @ 9:44 am #
Silver Whistle, do you know if Holdren wrote those offensive papers or not? I guess that is the big question. And given the nature of them, he probably would not list them on his CV–which could also explain why it is short.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 9:50 am #
serr8d,
Those Eastwood clips were priceless!
Wales; “Are you a bounty hunter?”
Bounty Hunter; “A man’s gotta make a livin’.”
Wales; “Dyin’ ain’t much of a livin’”…
OUTLAW!
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/11 @ 9:51 am #
Hmmm, Ric, a couple of quick data-shy policy papers, $146 and then look out, I’m chief scientific advisor. Thanks for the tip, I’d better buff up my CV.
Comment by LTC John on 7/11 @ 9:57 am #
Watch it, Ric… there is a whole industry of such associations out here (not confined to “science”) that really don’t want such knowledge made public.
I like you, and I’d rather you not disappear, with only a pile of applications, forms, membership cards, “accreditations” and certificates left behind as evidence of who may have ‘disappeared’ you…
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/11 @ 9:57 am #
Joe, he was certainly co-author with those wacky Erlichs on Ecoscience - Population, Resources, Environment. I don’t have a copy to check whether the scans are accurate, but the eugenics and sterilization recommendations in it are well known. I only have one book by the Erlichs (One With Ninevah), and I use it as a teaching aid for my seniors - a cautionary tale on how not to polemic, propaganda, and unsupported assertions in scientific writing.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 10:05 am #
So Obama’s science czar is really no scientist at all…
Save for the fact that he “bought” his membership in a questionable association…
Doesn’t that mean that just about any policy, ideology, or other proclamation he promotes on behalf of The O!ne! is at best pseudo-science…
Discounting, of course, his eugenics fetish which is just plain twisted and evil…
Comment by sdferr on 7/11 @ 10:16 am #
This proposed ban on tobacco falls under the general rubric of tanstaafl doesn’t it? It’s a trade of a modicum of liberty (tobacco use) for an enhanced security (pension and health care through the VA).
Comment by Ric Locke on 7/11 @ 10:17 am #
Col. John, I’m well aware those associations exist. They most likely outnumber the “real” ones, and of course even the ones that do something pad out their memberships with distantly- or un-related dues-payers. The point is a critical mass for political purposes. I don’t belong to any of them at the moment, so when I disappear there won’t be any paper trail — which would be redundant, anyway; I’m perfectly capable of disappearing myself without help, and seem to be in the process of doing so.
Silver Whistle: Better yet, start your own!
Regards,
Ric
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/11 @ 10:18 am #
Bob,
I would never accuse Holdren of not being a scientist; he has risen to the top of the academic pile with a very small number of scientific publications. I am certainly not competent within the field to pass judgement on “Fokker-Planck Calculations For D-T Fuel Cycle” or his 9 other research papers. Maybe he is a phenomenal lecturer/professor/dept head/grant obtainer. Or maybe he possesses the correct politics.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/11 @ 10:24 am #
Thanks Ric, it’s about the only club that would have me for a member.
For those interested, here is the link to Holdren’s publications page at the HKS. Also note that for a chap who is touted as a climate change expert, there are astonishingly few research papers on the mechanic of climate change. Did I say few? It’s less than 1.
Comment by serr8d on 7/11 @ 10:33 am #
My guess is that a lot of the Nishi’s of this generation cut their milk teefs on Erlich, Holdren, Rachel Carson…and of course the father of eugenics, Sir Francis Galton. And would’ve enjoyed that 1917 flick “The Black Stork”.
(Oh, this is not a YouTube of 1917’s “The Black Stork”, but is one of the best YouTubes I’ve ever encountered. I’ve have paid a quarter to see it, fo’ sho! )
Pingback by David Brooks needs stop whining and “woman up” [Darleen Click] on 7/11 @ 10:39 am #
[...] Joe) Posted by Darleen @ 10:35 am | Trackback SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “David Brooks needs stop [...]
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 10:50 am #
SW,
I’ll check out some of those papers, thanks for the link…
I’m no scientist, just an engineer; but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
Did you all have that advert campaign where you are? If not, sorry for the culture-specific reference…
I figured with the whole TV/Internet cultural leveling thing going on…
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/11 @ 10:51 am #
Dude, that went over my head at 30,000 ft.
Comment by meya on 7/11 @ 10:54 am #
Experts schmextperts.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 11:02 am #
SW,
It was based on a lame advertising campaign not worth the words wasted on it’s description…
I was tryin’ to be witty, but succeeded only in being nit-witty…
Take it easy…
Comment by Danger on 7/11 @ 11:44 am #
“I’m no scientist, just an engineer; but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!”
Bob,
Are you drinking milk as well;)
Comment by Rusty on 7/11 @ 11:46 am #
Be sure that a bloke,
‘as plenty to smoke
when you send ‘im to fight your wars.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 11:51 am #
It dies a body good, Danger!
I swear, I hear all these things on the radio while driving around!1!!1!eleventy
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/11 @ 11:54 am #
Experts schmextperts
¿Que? Yo no hablo absurdo.
Comment by Danger on 7/11 @ 11:55 am #
“It dies a body good, Danger!”
“And one of these days,… Bob”
although that one is a little older I like it better.
Comment by serr8d on 7/11 @ 12:01 pm #
OT seriously, but Jeff should know of this Croco’dillo.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 12:16 pm #
Danger,
I don’t get the, “And one of those days…Bob”, refernce…Must have missed it!
Care to clue me in?
Comment by Danger on 7/11 @ 12:34 pm #
Bob,
The commercial went,
I am drinking milk, and one of these days…
usually followed by the transformation of a little kid into a hulk of an athelete.
or in your case perhaps a kid playing with tinker toys transforming into a rocket scientist would fit;)
Comment by Seth on 7/11 @ 1:12 pm #
serr8d:
I denounce myself. By the way, are they going to bury that poor soul in New Orleans?
…after all, it’s a chocolate city.
Comment by Seth on 7/11 @ 1:17 pm #
Darleen (@#25):
I don’t disagree with the need to keep an eye on Czarist Washington, simply pointing out that this has been going on for awhile in the armed forces. If anything, it proves to some degree the validity of worrying about slippery slopes.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/11 @ 1:31 pm #
Now I remember Danger…
Sometimes, the little grey cells, they slip a bit…I like to blame it on my mis-spent youth…
But the march of time, well, you know…Another “inconvenient truth”!
Take it easy
Comment by mojo on 7/11 @ 1:41 pm #
Oh yes, can’t let men in combat smoke, for god’s sake! Why, they might increase their risk of heart attack!
Comment by Seth on 7/11 @ 2:40 pm #
Heh, Danger. I remember those commericals, too.
Comment by Jamie on 7/11 @ 4:23 pm #
Nothing, and I contend absolutely nothing has undermined the individual liberties of the American citizen as has the anti-smoking campaign.
First the numbers were “cooked” to illustrate how damaging second-hand smoke was. This was, to put it mildly, bullshit. No scientific link has ever been found between smoking-related ailments and secondhand smoke. Period. And before I get taken to task for that statement, look closely at the margin of error in EVERY study that is cited by the anti-tobacco zealots. It wouldn’t hurt if you had some scientific background, as well.
Second, the “public good” goat was trotted out, and it seems that everyone was forming a line to ride the little bugger. I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir when I point to what the founders thought of the broadness of the “general welfare” phrase in the Constitution.
Folks, it’s a personal choice. Nobody’s arguing that it’s a smart decision to start, nor that it’s somehow good for you, but it’s not something that any government, federal or state, should be persecuting to the level that’s now commonplace.
Any state in the Union has complete freedom, likely without any fear of Federal repercussions, to make all forms of tobacco completely illegal for manufacture, sale, or possession within its borders. Wonder why none have, considering how horrible it is to personal health, community health, and the public “bottom line?” Follow the money, people. They’d be high and dry without the revenue smokers provide.
And as for this festered bullshit about how addictive nicotine is, how many people would be ready to level everyone in the neighborhood McDonald’s without their morning coffee or Coke? Get off the heroin comparisons. It’s particularly offensive to those who have kicked a REAL addiction as opposed to a habit.
Shut the fuck up and let the servicemen (and women) smoke as much as they want. Let the rest of us enjoy it too.
/rant
Comment by LTC John on 7/11 @ 9:15 pm #
I can see the Armed Forces surviving the end of smoking - but if they take the smokeless tobacco away - I wouldn’t want to get near too many combat arms types. Brrr…
Pingback by Sarah Palin – Loved By Americans, Hated by Socialists; Why? She is Mainstream American, not one of the Limousine Elitist “Political Progressives” « VotingFemale Speaks! on 7/12 @ 8:52 am #
[...] Cuz even if you put your life on the line for your country … [Darleen Click] [...]
Comment by Lt Gen Von Strudellhefer on 7/12 @ 9:56 am #
This means the Armed Forces are behind Italy, Ireland, France, and US military aircraft on the smoking ban. If these other entities survived I think G.I.s can find another source to bu smokes. There is no reason for the military to subsidize smoking–that’s socialism, remember. We call smokers “power agers.” Good riddance to them.
Comment by McGehee on 7/12 @ 9:58 am #
Thor, your definition of “subsidize” is non-standard.
Comment by meya on 7/12 @ 1:14 pm #
“Any state in the Union has complete freedom, likely without any fear of Federal repercussions, to make all forms of tobacco completely illegal for manufacture, sale, or possession within its borders”
Several localities have opted for much less restrictive regulation.
Comment by Jamie on 7/13 @ 9:44 am #
meya, that’s my point exactly…they opt for regulation that still allows tobacco products to be sold, and therefore taxed. If it’s so damned harmful, just get rid of it…don’t keep it around just for the financial benefit that we’re told doesn’t outweigh the public costs.