# Latest Threat to CF in Combat:  Smoke Breaks?!?



## The Bread Guy (27 Jun 2007)

Lucky we have MSM looking out for the welfare of the troops in such an efficient & useful manner....  :  Again, I challenge the reporter and/or the chain to share with the public the entire document on which this story is written - I'll believe it when I see it.

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Cig danger on front line*
KATHLEEN HARRIS, NATIONAL BUREAU, Sun Media, 27 Jun 07
Article link

OTTAWA -- Lighting up a cigarette in a combat zone could make Canadian soldiers a target, internal documents on smoking in the military warn.

Reports on tobacco use obtained by Sun Media under Access to Information say smoking has a significant impact on troops in the battlefield and could place soldiers and their units at risk.

Any form of tobacco use in a war zone adds hazards to an already dangerous environment, said a report from Donald Dery, co-ordinator for Canadian Forces anti-tobacco and gambling programs.

A lit cigarette makes the soldier a target. It could be hidden but the smell of smoke can't be hidden. The smell of cigarette smoke can travel a long way and is easy to track.

Dip spit leaves a trail that can easily compromise troop location. The Canadian Forces offers cessation programs to help soldiers kick the habit, but Dery has recommended other tough-love measures.

He urged the military to adopt a smoking ban on all CF and DND property and grounds, to establish a policy that rejects new recruits who smoke, to prohibit puffing while in uniform and to strictly enforce human resource policies on breaks.

About 75% of military personnel are already non-smokers, but the CF hopes to increase that figure to 83% by 2010. Smoking is most prevalent among sailors (27%) and lowest in the air force (21%), while 24% of men and women in the army light up daily.

The report says soldiers who use any form of tobacco are at greater risk for vision problems, as nicotine reduces blood flow and smoke affects night vision.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jun 2007)

I'm going out to have a smoke now. 

Need to calm my nerves after reading this one!!


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jun 2007)

I certainly hope your break doesn't reduce your combat effectiveness.....  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2007)

If I remember correctly, this story actually dates back to WWI, where it was said that if three smokers gathered together to light their cigarettes, the third one to light up would be killed by a German sniper. (presumably he used the time of the lighting of the match and first two cigarettes to take aim).

While on the surface everything claimed is "true", it is also being quoted in isolation. I can't imagine soldiers lighting up while patrolling or doing an approach march for example, and I would bet a fairly large sum of money that the vast majority of smokers only indulge when it is safe to do so. There are lots of other, valid, reasons to quite smoking. Mr Derey is probably indulging in a bit of scare mongering to shore up his own budget and visibility inside the department.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jun 2007)

Of course it is.....what else would you expect "Donald Dery, co-ordinator for Canadian Forces anti-tobacco and gambling programs", to say?

* "Aww, puff away kids, and stop at the casino on the way home, smokes are cheaper there."*

Hey Kathleen, 
cleaning out the goop from the bottom of your 'filler' file, are ya.?? :boring:


----------



## armyvern (27 Jun 2007)

I'm going to assume that the anti-smoker (obviously given the tough-love comment) who was responsible for this study ... did it from the confines of a nice desk in Canada.

Apparently unaware that the smell of a bunch of troops humping their rucks on a patrol or fighting in 140 degree heat creates a sweaty smell that announces (and negates the smell of a puffers cig) one's presence as well and is most certainly trackable. That's it. The CF needs to ensure our troops never work up a sweat; especially in a war zone, it puts them at imminent risk of attack.  :

Need a study for this?? I can't be the only one who used to have to drop the kit and the uniforms outside the front door before being allowed into the house after a mere 2 weeks in the field on an exercise (and I'm a mere Sup Tech) so they could air out for 24 hours.

So, only 24% of the Army are smokers ... but all 100% of us sweat.  Hmmm. I think, tacticlly, on the ground in Afghanistan, the smell of sweat drifting through the air would do more to give our position away. 

Do I advocate smoking? No. Absolutely not. If you don't smoke ... don't start!! We ALL know smoking is BAD for us. This is not news ... or shocking. Someone's budget for the FY must have recently been delivered ... with no increase.

I've already learned something new today; I'll never cease to be amazed at the value of spin doctoring.


----------



## Reccesoldier (27 Jun 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, this story actually dates back to WWI, where it was said that if three smokers gathered together to light their cigarettes, the third one to light up would be killed by a German sniper. (presumably he used the time of the lighting of the match and first two cigarettes to take aim).



A story which if my memory serves me correctly was invented by... a strike anywhere match company exec.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2007)

Anyway, I thought embedded journalists, the ones who should know, (Blatchford, _Globe and Mail_, LaFlamme, _CTV_, etc) complained that the major smell problem with Canadian soldiers is related to their tendency to produce methane gas at irregular but frequent intervals.


----------



## 2 Cdo (27 Jun 2007)

Let's see if I have this clear. Smoking is bad for you, kind of a no-brainer. Smoking on patrol, I'm a smoker and I would probably beat you myself for this! Smoking on an advance or during a battle, guess what, the enemy already knows you're there a cigarette or chew is not going to make a difference! Another arsehole with an agenda. Now all he needs to do is tell us that incoming fire is "bad" for us! :


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Jun 2007)

It must have been a very slow news day.

If the smoking police wish to push their agenda (which is a worthy one), they should do so for health reasons, not on the basis on dubious tactical assumptions.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jun 2007)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It must have been a very slow news day.
> 
> If the smoking police wish to push their agenda (which is a worthy one), they should do so for health reasons, not on the basis on dubious tactical assumptions.



Ahhh, but tactical spins give the angle so much more importance and priority!! The value of spin. It is amazing isn't it?


----------



## Old and Tired (27 Jun 2007)

I gather this guy has never ventured outside the Confines of Fort Ridiculas on The Rideau.  We went through this when I was out west with the Strats.  Anti smoking Nazi's came down to lecture us on the evils of smoking.  We had a really long in tooth WO with more time on tanks than most of us had on the Planet.  He casually stood up, Lit up his Colts Cigar and asked, whether either of the two distinguished visitors from Ottawa had ever been in a Tank while it was in operation.  NO says they.  Come with me says he.  Out to Range Sixteen for a few rounds down range during Gunner Practice.  After a couple of rounds each in two different tanks, the question was asked:  What’s a little cigarette/cigar smoke compared to what’s inside a tank.  Not unsurprising was the lack of a response.

Last time I check with the guys here in CTC, there is no step in battle procedure that says, Stop here and have a smoke break.


----------



## Teflon (27 Jun 2007)

SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH!??!


----------



## Old and Tired (27 Jun 2007)

To quote Denis Leary,

"Holy sh*t man I thought there was vitamin C and stuff in here."

I know smoking is bad for me, however there have been more than a few occasions where My Bad Habit was good for some one elses health because it gave me a reason to walk away from them before I felt compelled to use other methods.  March the guilty bastard in would have been the next command that I had to respond to.


----------



## beands (27 Jun 2007)

I would have expected something along the lines of gambling and Paris Hilton getting out of the slammer in the midst of these VERY slow news days.

How much does this "echo maker" earn in a year? From what I hear, the CF could use more bullets rather than his statements.


----------



## 284_226 (27 Jun 2007)

It may surprise you (or it may not) to learn that Donald Dery is coordinator of the March 1st "I Quit" program from - you guessed it - CFPSA.

And we all know CFPSA would _never_ do anything to attract attention to themselves to gain even more power than they already have...


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jun 2007)

Quote from article:



> Maj. Laurie Kannegiesser, a spokeswoman for CF recruiting, said new employees must meet medical requirements but a non-smoking policy could be deemed unconstitutional.



Ummm, ya think?  Next thing they'll be telling us not to drink!!  

You know, when everyone bans smoking everywhere and everybody quits, they'll have to find something else to tax and write stupid useless news stories about.  :


----------



## geo (27 Jun 2007)

Smoking is dangerous?
Duh - no kidding!

Remember the old story of "three on a match" being unhealthy for the last guy to lite up?
Sniper sees flare, sniper aims, sniper fires... real old story that goes back to ww1

the glow of the cigarette and the smell of the cigarette giving away your position?... hell - there are a hell of a lot larger clues that will do that.... the rumble of the LAVs diesel engine, the drone of the generator, the wire, the trenches, etc, etc..... 

Crap!


----------



## FascistLibertarian (27 Jun 2007)

> Anti smoking Nazi's


But Nazis smoke, those long evil cigs.  ;D
Or at least thats what the movies told me.


----------



## TN2IC (27 Jun 2007)

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> I gather this guy has never ventured outside the Confines of Fort Ridiculas on The Rideau.  We went through this when I was out west with the Strats.  Anti smoking Nazi's came down to lecture us on the evils of smoking.  We had a really long in tooth WO with more time on tanks than most of us had on the Planet.  He casually stood up, Lit up his Colts Cigar and asked, whether either of the two distinguished visitors from Ottawa had ever been in a Tank while it was in operation.  NO says they.  Come with me says he.  Out to Range Sixteen for a few rounds down range during Gunner Practice.  After a couple of rounds each in two different tanks, the question was asked:  What’s a little cigarette/cigar smoke compared to what’s inside a tank.  Not unsurprising was the lack of a response.
> 
> Last time I check with the guys here in CTC, there is no step in battle procedure that says, Stop here and have a smoke break.



Waste of budget..... that money could of went for a few more litres of diesel for us!

I guess these guys haven't started up a whole fleet of HLVW's in the dead winter morning too? Hehehehe.... Marco.....









Polo.....






Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## RCR Grunt (27 Jun 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Smoking is dangerous?
> Duh - no kidding!
> 
> Remember the old story of "three on a match" being unhealthy for the last guy to lite up?
> ...



And don't forget the well aimed fire and artillery followed by AH or airstrikes... If your close enough to smell the dirty smokers, you should be dead shortly.


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Jun 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Quote from article:
> 
> Ummm, ya think?  Next thing they'll be telling us not to drink!!



I thought they arleady did that, aren't the tours there dry?

No go on the girly mags either If I am not mistaken.  Man next meat will be removed the menu as it may cause heart disease!

dileas

tess


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Jun 2007)

284_226 said:
			
		

> It may surprise you (or it may not) to learn that Donald Dery is coordinator of the March 1st "I Quit" program from - you guessed it - CFPSA.
> 
> And we all know CFPSA would _never_ do anything to attract attention to themselves to gain even more power than they already have...



I wonder if mister Dery is aware of how many of the CFPSA staff in KAF smoke.

I dunno about anyone else here, but I've never smoked during a recce or patrol, day time or night. While we may kill ourselves slowly with nicotine, there is a sense of self-preservation and discipline.

This article is make-noise BS.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jun 2007)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I thought they arleady did that, aren't the tours there dry?



Well, sort of.....but the article was referring to recruits.

Hey, where's my bracelet??


----------



## Armymedic (27 Jun 2007)

I agree 100% that the CF should be a tobacco free zone. 

The military even gives the nicotine patches, gums and councelling for free.

Its bad for you, its bad for those around you. There is no good reason anyone in the CF should smoke. 

We do enough things as part of our job in the CF that can hurt and/or kill us.

And no, I am not joking nor being sarcastic.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jun 2007)

Though there is the valid question:  if DND/CF opposes smoking why do we (a) provide smoking areas and (b) let people take smoke breaks?  We don't provide ongoing support to other addicts during the day - no heroin breaks, or booze breaks, so why to we enable and encourage nicotine addicts in their day-to-day self-abuse?


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I can't be the only one who used to have to drop the kit and the uniforms outside the front door before being allowed into the house after a mere 2 weeks in the field on an exercise (and I'm a mere Sup Tech) so they could air out for 24 hours.



I'm guessing I'm not the only one to throw away, shall we say, no-longer-wearable "inner wear" in such situations, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Though there is the valid question:  if DND/CF opposes smoking why do we (a) provide smoking areas and (b) let people take smoke breaks?  We don't provide ongoing support to other addicts during the day - no heroin breaks, or booze breaks, so why to we enable and encourage nicotine addicts in their day-to-day self-abuse?



Because it would render whole generations of corporals mute.

Remember: "Smoke if ya gottem.  If y'aint gottem borrow one from a friend.  If y'aint got no friends, go trew da motions!"


----------



## RetiredRoyal (27 Jun 2007)

From the perspective of air ops, if they banned smoking, where would one go to find enough troops to put together a tow crew or recovery crew? At least with the 'smoke tent' out beside the hangar, I always knew where my techs were.


----------



## sigtech (27 Jun 2007)

Super great idea, let's take a bunch of guys already under a ton of stress and say you can't smoke, then give them a loaded weapon and send them out on patrol. 

hmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if that would turn out badly


----------



## seamus (27 Jun 2007)

I just want to know, how our military did so well in all its previous conflicts when the smokers were at a higher percentage?


----------



## NL_engineer (27 Jun 2007)

> He urged the military to adopt a smoking ban on all CF and DND property and grounds, to establish a policy that rejects new recruits who smoke, to prohibit puffing while in uniform and to strictly enforce human resource policies on breaks.



I like this line the best.

Seeing it is not possable because the Supream Court has ruled that smoking is a disability (I'll have to find the case link when I get home  darn work computers : ).


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Jun 2007)

> to establish a policy that rejects new recruits who smoke



I missed this bit.

Let me get this straight. We are driving recruiting so hard that we actually REMOVE the fitness testing from the application process, but he want to reject smokers....

 ???


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jun 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> I missed this bit.
> 
> Let me get this straight. We are driving recruiting so hard that we actually REMOVE the fitness testing from the application process, but he want to reject smokers....
> 
> ???



Yep, be as unfit as you want, but don't be a smoker.  Or have visible tattoos.   :


----------



## RetiredRoyal (27 Jun 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> I missed this bit.
> 
> Let me get this straight. We are driving recruiting so hard that we actually REMOVE the fitness testing from the application process, but he want to reject smokers....
> 
> ???



too funny. I started smoking in Cornwallis. It seemed to us recruits that when a 'smoke break' was called, the non-smokers were often called on to do some kind of job. It paid to be a smoker.


----------



## Sig_Des (27 Jun 2007)

Oh my God, I have visible tats, and I smoke! I guess I'm a bag, and that's it....

I'll have to walk the NDHQ halls covering my head, yelling "Unclean!".

Oh waiiit.....I can pass my fitness testing.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> And no, I am not joking nor being sarcastic.



Nor am I when I say, so does alcohol. But it's not illegal either. Alcohol has also caused the premature deaths of CF members and of innocent bystanders etc etc.

Wait a minute though, the exact same may also occur while doing our job on the two-way firing range.


----------



## sigtech (27 Jun 2007)

RetiredRoyal said:
			
		

> too funny. I started smoking in Cornwallis. It seemed to us recruits that when a 'smoke break' was called, the nonsmokers were often called on to do some kind of job. It paid to be a smoker.



Hell ya one of the reasons I started again, when the only way to get a brake is to smoke, what do you do ? You start puffing

Yes send us you fat and lazy , the people ready to drop with hart attacks from over eating but please keep the smokers and those evil evil people away with tattoo's (BTW I smoke and have many tats   )

I understand trying to get people to be more health aware, god I can't count the times I have stopped smoking and as of the 1st I am going to try again, but dame it don't tell people they can't smoke if someone chooses to do it let them. Considering our jobs if that is on the ways you help with stress have at it.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2007)

I wonder if Donald Dery knows he is being mercilessly mocked on these pages.

Maybe he will have to step outside for a smoke to calm his nerves...... >


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2007)

Be a real man -- and chew


----------



## Armymedic (27 Jun 2007)

sigtech said:
			
		

> Considering our jobs if that is on the ways you help with stress have at it.



There are better ways then smoking, drinking and overeating to control stress. Sex, unfortunately is one of the best, but we can not do that in uniform either.

Tobacco use is bad for all of us.


----------



## Armymedic (27 Jun 2007)

I6, 
too bad for those of us in the green army, we can not wear a basebat cap, fire hollowpoint rounds, so nor should we dip. But thanks for the offer.


----------



## RetiredRoyal (27 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> There are better ways then smoking, drinking and overeating to control stress. Sex, unfortunately is one of the best, but we can not do that in uniform either.
> 
> Tobacco use is bad for all of us.



Wasn't that the last big scandal...."Canadian troops go through huge supply of viagra and condoms."


----------



## sigtech (27 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> There are better ways then smoking, drinking and overeating to control stress. Sex, unfortunately is one of the best, but we can not do that in uniform either.
> 
> Tobacco use is bad for all of us.


Yes it is but if you try and force someone to stop , they will just hide it , let them do educate them and they will stop on there own if they "choose" to.


----------



## Munxcub (27 Jun 2007)

The thing about beating any addiction (I only have experience with quitting smoking) is that you can only succeed if you're doing it for you. You cannot quit for anyone else, or for any other reason other then that YOU want it. That's the only way to be successful. Like sigtech just said, by putting rules in and forcing them to quit, they're just going to go underground.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jun 2007)

Munxcub said:
			
		

> The thing about beating any addiction (I only have experience with quitting smoking) is that you can only succeed if you're doing it for you. You cannot quit for anyone else, or for any other reason other then that YOU want it. That's the only way to be successful. Like sigtech just said, by putting rules in and forcing them to quit, they're just going to go underground.



Yep 24% of the Army over in the counsellors office (a legal requirement under the addictions disability auspices) every couple of hours when they get stressed out and have a nic fit undergoing the DTs ... only to get home that night and spark one up while saying .... ahh stress relief to begin repeating the same cycle again the next morning.

Well, I guess every couple of hours beats 24% being on full days or half days stress leave forever and a day.


----------



## Munxcub (27 Jun 2007)

I found nicotine gum integral to my quitting... it bad to be the mint tho (not fruit flavoured) only because the menthol in it would make your lip turn numb, which made it feel like it was working.  I actually enjoyed that stuff way more then I ever did smoking (eventually...)


----------



## oozieman (27 Jun 2007)

Although I don't agree with being "just like the Americans", they do ban smoking in basic trg and I think that's an excellent idea.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (27 Jun 2007)

I've heard everthing now, has this idiot fool ever been in the military. I had a real good laugh at his expense. Its bad enough these idiots are trying to get us smokers to butt out in civilian life, but now they're delving into a world they know absolutely nothing about. : I think he may have watched to many "wanabee" Audey Murphy war movies as a child and it's scarred him for life  :

I'd like to have some of what he's smoking, and i don't mean cigarettes. ;D


----------



## Kiwi99 (27 Jun 2007)

So he says that the enemy can smell smoke, and follow spit stains on the ground that haven't already evapourated in the 60 degree weather.  Well, I guess i better bottle my pee and bag my shyte and hump it out of Afghanistan so that they don't gather int value from my shyte contents.  We could always leave nicotine patches as a trail for the bad dudes to follow, eh.  Perhaps we should stop farting at work as well, as I really don't like smelling other peoples guts.  Its all about quality of life is'nt it?  Smoking MAY cause death, but if I am so uptight from not having a smoke in the last 20 day operation that I screw up and get dead, well, I would take cancer 30 years down the road anyday.  What about blood, no more bleeding troops, damnit.  The enemy gets int from that...maybe.  This is gay.  Buddy is a clown who gets paid by the government for making up the stupid posters we have to look at while at work, and the sad thing is, he gets paid more than any of us!!!


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> I agree 100% that the CF should be a tobacco free zone.
> The military even gives the nicotine patches, gums and councelling for free.
> Its bad for you, its bad for those around you. There is no good reason anyone in the CF should smoke.
> We do enough things as part of our job in the CF that can hurt and/or kill us.



What about the people who have had multiple DUI charges?  Make them quit drinking? Driving? Both?  And don't even get me started on our so-called "zero tolerance" for illegal drugs policy..... 
I agree with Vern, I'm not trying to encourage smoking either, but as Munxcub said, people have to quit for themselves, not for anyone else.  If they ban smoking on DND property, well, I guess my breaks will just be longer when I get in my car and drive off the base.


----------



## 3rd Herd (27 Jun 2007)

Was not the first round fired long ago with the removal of smokes from ration packs. Hmm, finish timed 10 miler, 3/4s would light up. And yes it did pay to smoke during 'smoke breaks', "Hey you over there, standing there doing nothing, get over here I need this latest pile of bovine..... dealt with.


----------



## KevinB (27 Jun 2007)

I would not encourage anyone to smoke or to dip.  However I posted for a bit fo levity since this recent blurb is getting a little too out of control.

I never appreciated 7 guys smoking at once in an Arctic tent - when I was the only non-smoker, but there should be a happy medium where one can enjoy one's legal vices and still not infringe on others.

I would not doubt that the CF has more problems from troops with heart problems from  all the double doubles at Timmie..


----------



## Scott (27 Jun 2007)

I6 sums it up best.

As well, I agree that this is getting a bit out of control, let's ease up a bit - calling the whole thing "gay" adds little to the conversation except fodder for more criticism.

Thanks.


----------



## TN2IC (27 Jun 2007)

I would honestly prefere my Plt WO to smoke while over seas. Even if it kills us slowly... I am sure he"ll kill me, without a smoke. 



So this waste of an idea is NOT a win win deal!


----------



## Yeoman (27 Jun 2007)

Dip spit leaves a trail that can easily compromise troop location.

and that  my friend, is why I spit in a bottle........................ :
anyways; I spit in a bottle? so take that?


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Jun 2007)

While my first post on this topic was fairly sarcastic, I think that a troop undergoing a severe nicotine fit is at extra risk. For Pete's sake, we used to issue cigarettes to the troops to help them unwind; what do we give them now, tofu shakes?

Oops, can't kick the sarcasm habit. Is there a patch available?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jun 2007)

Only complaint I have about smokers is when they do it in the artic tent, usually all at once.


----------



## jbeach95 (27 Jun 2007)

> If you are smoking a cigarette, we can see you at five miles. If you are smoking a cigar, we can spot you at ten miles.


-- F-16 pilot with NVGs
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/jan_98/jan3a_98.html

There are certain situations when smoking is tactically dangerous -- NVGs picking up the glow or people or dogs smelling the smoke (I'm sure that you have noticed that cigarette smoke is far more potent than sweat or bug repellant). Spitting out tobacco juice is also a concern when it is possible that you are being tracked (unless you use a bottle as Yeoman does). 

But the situation at hand should determine whether it is safe to smoke or not. Does the enemy have the capability to do this? Do they employ these tactics? How concerned are you with remaining unseen? These should be determining factors in whether smoking is acceptable in the front lines or not.

As for on DND property and such, I do not smoke but have no problem with others smoking as long as it does not affect me. If people are smoking in some place that I do not have to go, such as a smoking point, I don't care if they decide that polluting themselves in order to relax is best for them. Luckily I haven't had the problem with the arctic tents yet.

As for the use of tobacco affecting people's vision, isn't that what the vision tests everyone takes are for? For the reduction of night vision, if this is a concern, maybe they should include a night vision test for eveyone (if there isn't one already -- I've never had to take one). Finally, as for fitness, again there are fitness tests that everyone takes. Whether someone is a smoker or not shouldn't matter as long as they pass these tests.


----------



## jbeach95 (27 Jun 2007)

PDF from US Navy about smoking:
http://www-nehc.med.navy.mil/Downloads/Hp/QTWin/Jun2005.pdf


----------



## beands (27 Jun 2007)

I am working on quiting smoking, and doing pretty good.
Out of curiosity, however, I am wondering what smoking rules are like in the forces.
I can understand and agree with the fact that at BMQ or deployed and front lines it would be a great risk and not allowed. But, other than BMQ and front line (or even on ex's) what are regulations?
A time and a place are understandable. I just see alot of smokers on here, and wonder how they remain smokers if (from what I can see) the "time and places" are few and far between.
So how DOES it really work?


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Jun 2007)

As crazy as it seems...

Prior to leaving Baghdad, we all had recieved numerous paperwork on what we had been exposed to. This all went on our med docs, and pers files. 

Some of these medical documents included, exposure to types of radiation, types of various chemicals and dusts, loud noises such as bombs and gunfire etc, and the rest of the shyte you're exposed to in theatre, plus even SECOND HAND SMOKE (yes, from smokers) whilst inside LAVs, and around the accomodation. Of course that form was only given to us non-smokers. I reckon they were just absolutly covering our arses for eveything, which is fair enough, as for when times move on, over the years, and one catches something which has links to the past, its good for compensation.

Some guys smoked like an eastern europe industrial plant, as cigarettes were around $5US a carton, plus the fact they many smoked more than normal to handle their daily stresses from the job.

When you're young , you might not thinks it seems it matter, as you're bullet proof, but when you get older and time catches up, you'll wish you had some evidence to back a claim.

Better safe than sorry


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## josh (27 Jun 2007)

Pub becomes embassy to beat cig ban

Landlord Bob Beech is getting around the cigarette ban by turning his bar into an embassy for a remote Caribbean island.

He claims the Wellington Arms in Southampton will be the only pub in Britain to allow smoking after Sunday - by becoming the UK base for tiny, uninhabited Redonda.

Earlier this month a senior "attache" to its ruler named it as the UK consulate for the island, which is 35 miles off Antigua.

As an embassy, it would be classed as "foreign soil", allowing smokers a haven - as well as VAT-free cheap drinks, reports The Sun.

The attache who granted consulate status is Redonda's official cardinal Edward Elder - a regular at the pub.

Cardinal Elder, 72, said: "We'll be declaring our credentials to the Queen and will see what happens."

Redonda's ruler is King Robert the Bald, 60, who lives on Antigua.

The Canadian-born novelist, who recently granted a knighthood to landlord Bob, regularly sails his yacht to survey his one-mile square kingdom.

Bob said of beating the fags ban: "I have a legal team looking into the legalities at the moment but I am confident."

The Department of Health admitted: "The smoke-free law will not be enforceable against premises that have diplomatic status."


----------



## jbeach95 (27 Jun 2007)

I fail to see what the last post has to do with smoking in the CF... :



			
				beands said:
			
		

> I am working on quiting smoking, and doing pretty good.
> Out of curiosity, however, I am wondering what smoking rules are like in the forces.
> I can understand and agree with the fact that at BMQ or deployed and front lines it would be a great risk and not allowed. But, other than BMQ and front line (or even on ex's) what are regulations?
> A time and a place are understandable. I just see alot of smokers on here, and wonder how they remain smokers if (from what I can see) the "time and places" are few and far between.
> So how DOES it really work?



Smoking on your BMQ and other courses is pretty much up to the course staff, whether they'll let you or how much time you have to do so.

Otherwise, there is actually a lot of time to smoke, with frequent breaks and times when you're not working. There isn't really a strong anti-smoking movement within the CF, at least at the unit level. It is tolerated by pretty much everyone. Some people start smoking because of being in the army due to stress, the availability of cigarettes, the willingness to share cigarettes, etc.

This has been my experience.


----------



## Pte AJB (27 Jun 2007)

JDBeach said:
			
		

> Luckily I haven't had the problem with the arctic tents yet.



Had you come on a winter ex. this year then maybe you would have. ;D There's nothing worse than a smokehouse of an arctic tent. I could only imagine how a LAV would be.


----------



## jbeach95 (27 Jun 2007)

FifthHorse said:
			
		

> Had you come on a winter ex. this year then maybe you would have. ;D There's nothing worse than a smokehouse of an arctic tent. I could only imagine how a LAV would be.



Hey, I was on the one in February. I was your section 2IC. Remember who was the one who sent you on the ML rather than hike to next biv site? 

Look at what the dark side is doing to you!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jun 2007)

The LAV isn't as bed as the Arctic tent as long as the hatches are open.


----------



## Pte AJB (27 Jun 2007)

I'm just razzing you buddy, didn't ya notice the feces eating grin I attached? Hopefully I'll see you at the Christmas dinner.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Jun 2007)

Dinner, aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves.  Do I know you??


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Jun 2007)

FifthHorse said:
			
		

> Had you come on a winter ex. this year then maybe you would have. ;D There's nothing worse than a smokehouse of an arctic tent. I could only imagine how a LAV would be.



I never whinged about smoking around and in the LAVs as we had to endure at times, some tough situations, and I don't think complaining about the driver having a fag would go over too well, as there was much more serious stuff going on than to worry about that sort of thing. I just let it go.

Anywher else though within our compound, ADF policy was pretty much met. We had established smoking areas for the 'puffers'.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## Pte AJB (27 Jun 2007)

I suppose I should use the quote function more effectively.  ;D I meant to reply to Beach's quote. 



			
				JDBeach said:
			
		

> Hey, I was on the one in February. I was your section 2IC. Remember who was the one who sent you on the ML rather than hike to next biv site?
> 
> Look at what the dark side is doing to you!





			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I never whinged about smoking around and in the LAVs as we had to endure at times, some tough situations, and I don't think complaining about the driver having a fag would go over too well, as there was much more serious stuff going on than to worry about that sort of thing. I just let it go.
> 
> Anywher else though within our compound, ADF policy was pretty much met. We had established smoking areas for the 'puffers'.
> 
> ...



Absolutely. If it makes buddy feel better, then you feel better too. It is when one smoke in an arctic tent turns into three (per person) that things get a little excessive, but those situations are rare. 

Cheers, 

FH


----------



## midget-boyd91 (27 Jun 2007)

FifthHorse said:
			
		

> Had you come on a winter ex. this year then maybe you would have. ;D There's nothing worse than a smokehouse of an arctic tent. I could only imagine how a LAV would be.



Open doors arctic tents are worse than smokehouse ones. Believe you me. I've spent a few nights in arctic tents during the winter (one was the coldest night of the year IIRC) with someones foot keeping the door partly open. I drooled in my sleep, and with the temperature that cold.... lets just say it was s bit painful fulling the sleeping bag from my face  
At least in a smoke filled one, you can cover your face or have the puffer sit near the door.


----------



## Armymedic (28 Jun 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> What about the people who have had multiple DUI charges?  Make them quit drinking? Driving? Both?  And don't even get me started on our so-called "zero tolerance" for illegal drugs policy.....
> I agree with Vern, I'm not trying to encourage smoking either, but as Munxcub said, people have to quit for themselves, not for anyone else.



Multiple DUI....are they not administratively handled and released? And if not...why not? 

All that need to happen is banning of tobacco use on base. No smoke breaks, no smoking what so ever during duty hours. No smoking in the field or on deployment, as per non authorized alcohol use. Atleast the occasional and minimal use of alcohol has some health benefits....Tobacco use has absolutely none.

It is your choice to smoke, drink, do drugs....It is also your choice to stop. All the CF has to do is make it inhospitable for you to do it during work.

And it is not a hard thing for us (the CF us) to do.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> If they ban smoking on DND property, well, I guess my breaks will just be longer when I get in my car and drive off the base.



I guess that is an option if you are in the CF for just a 0800-1600 hrs paycheck, never to deploy to the field or overseas operations.

Oh-BTW, what is the percentage for people with one addiction to be at risk of becoming addicted to something else (usually illegal)?


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Multiple DUI....are they not administratively handled and released? And if not...why not?


I know a couple of them ... who are still in. Why? You'll have to ask those involved in their specific sits.



			
				St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> All that need to happen is banning of tobacco use on base. No smoke breaks, no smoking what so ever during duty hours. No smoking in the field or on deployment, as per non authorized alcohol use. Atleast the occasional and minimal use of alcohol has some health benefits....Tobacco use has absolutely none.



Bullshit. I guess you drink but don't smoke eh? We could pull up a whole bunch of adobe files to post into this thread too on the ill-effects of alcohol to ones liver etc etc. and it's effects on ones judgement capabilities and detrimental effects to being able to soldier/fight while under its influence; which happens to be one of the very reasons it's use is restricted. Smoking is NOT illegal nor does it affect ones ability to fight in the detrimental manner that alcohol does. 



> It is your choice to smoke, drink, do drugs....It is also your choice to stop. All the CF has to do is make it inhospitable for you to do it during work.
> And it is not a hard thing for us (the CF us) to do.



Absolutely correct. Our choice, but again, NOT illegal. So when they ban alcohol use as well (Mess Dinners or Men's Christmas Dinners anyone?), I'll be OK with that.



> I guess that is an option if you are in the CF for just a 0800-1600 hrs paycheck, never to deploy to the field or overseas operations.
> 
> Oh-BTW, what is the percentage for people with one addiction to be at risk of becoming addicted to something else (usually illegal)?



Bullshit. I smoke. If I leave to go for a smoke that means I'm here for an 0800-1600hrs paycheck?? I can be off CF property, have my smoke, and be back at my desk before the guys are out of the canteen. That's a pretty twisted high-n-mighty insinuation for you to be making about me or any other soldier for that matter. Smoke breaks ... what's the problem? I go for one (in the smoking area) while the non-smokers are sitting in the canteen drinking coffee. BTW, so you feel better, that would be everybody else in this location because I'm the only smoker; and trust me, they harass me every day about it ... it hasn't worked yet. 

Totally unprofessional.

Other addictions?? No thank you ... I obey the law and stick with my legal vices. Another high-n-mighty assumption by you. We actually have regulations in the CF banning the use of those ILLEGAL substances, and the vast majority of us (and that includes us smokers) are professional enough to comply with that. You've already admitted in your previous post as to the calming effects of having a smoke but have stated there are better ways to calm oneself. So health benefits of smoking?? No. But there are calming/relaxation benefits to it.

Point FYI though, the last two troops that I had reason to request drug tests be conducted upon (both positive) were non-smokers; well non-smokers of the legal stuff anyway. I wonder what the percentage of those types are because your linking/jump from legal to illegal doesn't take that into account.

My enrollment medical paperwork, will also show that when I volunteered to serve, the CF was well aware that I was a smoker. Perhaps it's high time some people started remembering that this is a volunteer force, smoking is legal, and that it is absolutely ludicrous to expect that members of the CF should be expected to lay down their lives prematurely (if required) in battle ... but give them a big FU when it comes to calming their nerves before going into that battle.


----------



## Benny (28 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Bullshit. I guess you drink but don't smoke eh? We could pull up a whole bunch of adobe files to post into this thread too on the ill-effects of alcohol to ones liver etc etc. and it's effects on ones judgement capabilities and detrimental effects to being able to soldier/fight while under its influence; which happens to be one of the very reasons it's use is restricted. Smoking is NOT illegal nor does it affect ones ability to fight in the detrimental manner that alcohol does.



I don't think you can compare the two like that. A non smoker has to breath in a smokers smoke, but a non drinker does not have to drink a drinkers drink. 

Drinking does affect a soldiers taskworthiness, as does smoking. Being enemy party when the 'friendlies' have smokers. They show up brilliantly in NVGs. It also means they are holding something that is not a firearm, and the Australian Army prohibits smoking within 5m of live ammunition during training.


----------



## beands (28 Jun 2007)

Benny said:
			
		

> I don't think you can compare the two like that. A non smoker has to breath in a smokers smoke, but a non drinker does not have to drink a drinkers drink.



As I heard it about the pot issue, I feel the same way about the drinkers.
"I don't want some pot-head who smoked up last weekend in the trench next to me as bullets rip by, even if it's been 3 weeks since he smoked it. If his reaction time is delayed by a fraction of a second that could be the difference between me making it out of the trench alive."

I, personally, don't want some drunk in the trench next to me. Granted I do drink myself, I gave up the pot and am waiting my 6 months to join AND I'm working (as I type this) to kick the habit of cig's. 
No matter what, however, I would accept a smoker in the trench next to me. His nerves are calm, and as long as he's not lighting one up in the trench (allowing "snipers to zero in on his burning cherry") I see no issue. 
The pack he puffed last night won't make the difference. The mickey he slugged back, or the joint he lit up the night before WILL make a difference today in that trench. 

Point number 2, one little smoker who goes (when permitted) to the smoker's corner, even if you SMELL his smoke, won't make a difference either. You have gases and carbons you inhale from your rifle. Your wife uses perfume/hairspray, your tank/LAVIII or car/truck/motorbike/etc emits all kinds of crap, hell the factory in China has more effect on you than his one little cigarette he's puffing on. Ask any certified diver out there (perhaps one could validate me here) that breathing the rich oxygen in a tank isn't good for you either, and they cannot professionally dive for (I believe) 5 or 10 years. Get off the smoker's ass already. Get an effing hobby like model cars.

On second thought, the glue you would need is worse for you than my second hand smoke you are smelling from 100 feet away.
Perhaps a 10 foot rope and a wobbly stool would be in order for some of these anti-smoke radicals?
Just a thought.

PS
(All the 'he' 's and 'him' 's, sorry ladies, I also meant the feminine as well)


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2007)

Benny said:
			
		

> I don't think you can compare the two like that. A non smoker has to breath in a smokers smoke, but a non drinker does not have to drink a drinkers drink.
> 
> Drinking does affect a soldiers taskworthiness, as does smoking. Being enemy party when the 'friendlies' have smokers. They show up brilliantly in NVGs. It also means they are holding something that is not a firearm, and the Australian Army prohibits smoking within 5m of live ammunition during training.



And non-drinkers get hit by drunk drivers. Drunk driving also happens to be illegal, there are a whole lot of families out there in Canada that would argue that someone having a drink does indeed have the ability to effect someone who doesn't. And _that_ was the comparison. Smoking areas are legal here. Don't want to inhale my second hand smoke ... then stay OUT of the smoking area. It's clearly signed in both official languages and is located 20 metres from any entrance or air intake (despite the rules setting the minimum at 15). This country has some excellent anti-smoking initiatives, including bans on public property.

Smoking affects my task-worthiness? I'm NOT smoking while I'm working (we are not allowed to!!); I'm smoking while the nonsmokers are sitting in the canteen drinking coffee.  Enemy party in the field?? NVGs?? Yes absolutely. And as was already discussed, the NVGs are just the latest on this ... read the prior posts on the sniper-checks while lighting smokes from many many years ago. This is not new. If that tell-tale glow showed up to the naked eye at night, the logical assumption is that it would therefore show up really good to eyes being aided by NVGs. Oh, our enemies have smokers too, so we can use this tool on them as well. As I recall from most of the Muslim countries I've been to, wow the overwhelming majority of the men smoked. 

I'm quite glad about the Australian Army regulations regarding smoking around ammunition....that's just smart.

We also have rules like that here in Canada. And, BTW, our troops (also as stated in other posts) are fully aware of what a lit cigarette at the wrong time can do to them and their buddies tactically. Our troops are not stupid, they know whether or not it's a good time to have a smoke when they are conducting operations. And the ones who don't and put their buddies at risk, learn really quick ... usually while on exercise ... which goes a long way to ensuring that it doesn't happen again in a live situation. I'd even be willing to wager that it would be a fellow smoker that would be the first one on the offender ... and that it would not be a nice situation.


----------



## cameron (28 Jun 2007)

I'm not a heavy smoker, just an occasional pipe and cigar puffer (yes i'm an old man in a young man's body), but it doesn't seem to me like smoking has stopped the Canadian Army from kicking Taliban a@* in Kandahar ;D


----------



## Armymedic (28 Jun 2007)

Vern, 
My white to your black. Or would that be my pink lungs, to your black lungs?  But my response is not just to you, but to all....

By all means, prohibit drinking as well on DND establishments, and during DND functions. Again, another vice that is past its due. Are we so immature as a society to need a chemical in order to be able to enjoy ourselves? But at least we can find a few published reports that say small amounts of alcohol (i.e. 1 glass red wine) daily has a benefit to health. There is no such report for any tobacco product in common use.

Give me one good positive reason why that anyone should be allowed to smoke while in the employment of the CF.

And other then the powerful tobacco lobby and the tax revenue, why does gov'ts allow people to continue to smoke despite all the medical science that says it is bad for the health of everyone?


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Give me one good positive reason why that anyone should be allowed to smoke while in the employment of the CF.



See my last para in this post. It's legal. I'm  a volunteer ... and ...

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63672/post-583609.html#msg583609

Add double/doubles to your list too... they sure can't be doing any good for anyone with that cream & sugar in them ... I'll take an extra-large black for me.

How about salads and fish only in all Mess Halls from now on too? 

Many things are bad for us. I hate to see the CF becoming the soup nazis.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Give me one good positive reason why that anyone should be allowed to smoke while in the employment of the CF.





			
				St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> And other then the powerful tobacco lobby and the tax revenue, why does gov'ts allow people to continue to smoke despite all the medical science that says it is bad for the health of everyone?



_Give me one good positive reason why that anyone should be allowed to leave the confines of the base while in the employment of the CF. 

And other then the powerful car industry and the tax revenue, why does gov'ts allow people to continue to drive despite all the facts that says it is bad for the health of everyone?_

 SMMT............criminy, I'm waiting for the Monty Python guy to show up and tell us we must stop this thread because its getting too silly.

I hate tobacco but, wow........


----------



## 2 Cdo (28 Jun 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> _Give me one good positive reason why that anyone should be allowed to leave the confines of the base while in the employment of the CF.
> 
> And other then the powerful car industry and the tax revenue, why does gov'ts allow people to continue to drive despite all the facts that says it is bad for the health of everyone?_
> 
> ...



Exactly Bruce. Where do we stop this? Ban tobacco, ban alcohol, ban fast food, ban vehicles, ban air conditioners. : SMMT when you start wanting things banned because you don't like them (even if they are still legal) don't piss and moan when they start to ban something you enjoy!

I smoke and I know it's bad for me. I also don't recommend anyone start this habit, but it is still a legal product. I don't drink anymore and I have seen the damage drinking does and I would have no problem with making it illegal for anyone in the CF to consume alcohol. Lets see the uproar over that!  

By the way I'm not really for banning alcohol, just making a point about the silliness of banning legal products in the CF.


----------



## Armymedic (28 Jun 2007)

Bruce, got to love an emotional debate...well, more emotional for some then others. 

Why are people permitted to smoke? It is legal, there for it is permitted. Yes I agree. 

But now let say movement begins to ban smoking in the CF, while on duty, on CF establishments, in barracks, on overseas missions, in the field and on HCM ships, just like has happened in the public places, restuarants, businesses, universities, etc, etc....

What arguement would smokers in uniform have to continue the status quo?

edit- And I won't even start into how many people a yr die as a direct result of a history of smoking, vs firearms, vs veh accidents - things you can not possess without a license. And if any of you think smoking is ok...why do we not allow our kids do it?


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2007)

Hay everybody ... I've had cancer!!

*If you don't smoke now ... don't start!! It's not good for you!!*

That being said,

It's my choice to smoke, it's legal. I do so in the properly designated areas during authorized breaks. 

If you want the CF to enforce my health, enforce it for everyone. That includes non-vegans.  What gives you the right to determine which health issues should be enforced upon whom while they serve in the CF?? I'm in shape, I smoke. I know a lot of unhealthy eating non-smokers though who aren't in shape. 

Why do you advocate looking after my health for me, but not advocate pulling the donuts and Timmies away too, along with all the crappy deepfried foods served in the Mess Halls across the CF?? Do you know how many people a year die of heart disease?? 

Yep, no more leaving the base during working hours to go on those Timmies heart-disease-in-a-cup coffee runs folks ... unless of course, you're only in it for the 8-4 paycheck and are willing to not deploy etc. It's only fair.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> And if any of you think smoking is ok...why do we not allow our kids do it?



None of us has said it's okay, as a matter of fact we've agreed it's bad for you and no one who isn't a smoker should start. If drinking is okay, why don't we let our kids do that?  Oh, right, it's *illegal* if they're under age.

Smoking has been pretty much banned in all areas, certainly indoors (including tents and vehicles). Our smoking area is out behind the garbage dumpsters (how's that for a stigma??). Pretty soon, you won't be able to smoke anywhere.  But forcing people to quit?  Can't see it.

I really like this from dataperson:


> Though there is the valid question:  if DND/CF opposes smoking why do we (a) provide smoking areas and (b) let people take smoke breaks?  We don't provide ongoing support to other addicts during the day - no heroin breaks, or booze breaks, so why to we enable and encourage nicotine addicts in their day-to-day self-abuse?



Illegal drugs and drinking on the job are both prohibited in the CF.  Last time I looked, smoking wasn't.
Let's take away coffee next, because that's bad for you too!!  Can you imagine the caffeine withdrawals??  :

That being said (facetiously or not, take it as you will).  This argument can go on forever.  We'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Armymedic (28 Jun 2007)

But its a quiet day, and I am bored...Because I do not smoke, I got nothing better to do right now than to argue.  :'(

Let us meet in the middle and say we should not encourage recruits to take up smoking by giving them "smoke" breaks and make them run all the way to the main entrance(via stairs only) of St Jean Mega to have a butt. We continue to have programs for the assistance of people who do smoke to quit. An outright ban is counterproductive, and probably unconstitutional. 

As for that deep fried food issue in our Mess halls..... Nothing is too good for the worlds fattest professional military.

BTW- In a Lg DD - the coffee is not what is bad for you (1-2 cups daily, good for a few things, more then that....bad), but the 2 globs of 18% cream...


----------



## geo (28 Jun 2007)

Benny said:
			
		

> Drinking does affect a soldiers taskworthiness, as does smoking. Being enemy party when the 'friendlies' have smokers. They show up brilliantly in NVGs. It also means they are holding something that is not a firearm, and the Australian Army prohibits smoking within 5m of live ammunition during training.


Based on Wes' comments, Aussie rules and regs on smoking *in operations *  are somewhat looser than what you declare.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> BTW- In a Lg DD - the coffee is not what is bad for you (1-2 cups daily, good for a few things, more then that....bad), but the 2 globs of 18% cream...



I'm well aware of that as I mentioned in earlier posts when I first brought up the issue of the troops and Timmies... and made mention of my preference for "black"  ;D

Now, about the round of fisti-cuffs....


----------



## Armymedic (28 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> and made mention of my preference for "black"  ;D
> 
> Now, about the round of fisti-cuffs....



Once you go black.....

Fisti-cuffs. Nah, not my style. Although, you, me and a couple pair of Flexi cuffs..... 

ps-so much for the sites PG rating.


----------



## Yrys (28 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Although, you, me and a couple pair of Flexi cuffs.....



PICTURES !!!

Add: I'm feeling a bit young, as I never though something like Flexi cuffs existed...


----------



## Sig_Des (28 Jun 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Add: I'm feeling a bit young, as I never though something like Flexi cuffs existed...



Not as comfortable as they may sound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicuffs



> Plasticuffs are more uncomfortable than handcuffs for the person being restrained


----------



## Armymedic (28 Jun 2007)

sure....


----------



## Kiwi99 (28 Jun 2007)

To all people who want to ban smoking in all CF areas and bases and exercise and operations.  Fine, go and tell that young Private who has just been in his first firefight that he cannot have a cigarette.  There are bigger things to worry about in the CF than who smokes where and around who.  We are in a war, but all these self righteous people can do is complain about smoking.  Get a grip.  It is people like the anti-smoking dude and some posters on here that are the reason the CF is as touchy feely as it is now.  Back to a shot of rum a day, smokes in the rations, and looking at porn whenever we want to.  God forbid that I be human.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (28 Jun 2007)

What will these idiots think up next, can't have cofee now because it makes you hyper. Give me a break.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Jun 2007)

..and in a related story, I just heard on the news that the Supreme Court just upheld the ban on tobacco advertising.


----------



## Munxcub (28 Jun 2007)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> BTW- In a Lg DD - the coffee is not what is bad for you (1-2 cups daily, good for a few things, more then that....bad), but the 2 globs of 18% cream...



Actually there's nothing wrong with the 18% cream, it's all the refined sugar that gets you in trouble. Plus, milk is nice and balanced for carbs and protein, but the 18% just adds in a nice dose of fat (which, despite what people think is crucial to not being fat...) That's why I get my Tim's with 3 cream, no sugar  (let me live in my world of creamy denial if you don't see it my way)

my $0.02


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Jun 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and in a related story, I just heard on the news that the Supreme Court just upheld the ban on tobacco advertising.



And what about that anti-smoking group that wants to ban _movies_ that have smoking?  They say it portrays smoking as "glamorous".   :  I wonder what they think about rampant drug use and promiscuous sex in movies?  I guess these people will be watching a lot of Disney cartoons.....   Can you imagine a whole generation missing out on old (and newer) war movies or westerns?


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Jun 2007)

beands said:
			
		

> I, personally, don't want some drunk in the trench next to me.



Drinking and soldiers. There is a time and a place for it. Gone are the days of 'piss' in the field, and if any of my soldats had 'piss' in the field, or drinking on duty, they'd be doing the hatless dance, and if in theatre, they'd be well on their way back to Kuwait, and sent home embarrassed to love ones and those back at the unit. When on my tour in Iraq, we had an sactioned period of two beers per man perhaps on specific days of national siginficance, of which you could count on one hand, plus only 1/3 of the troops were allowed at a time, as not to quash our tactical advantage over the Enemy, who were always active, and near by.

As for smoking and soldiers, now a days we have two things, one is policy, and the other something called 'duty of care', and this is enforced both at home and abroad, although on Ops it may be relaxed somewhat, the the overall guidelines must be adhered to. Policy is simply that. Failure to do so causes nothing but problems not only with the pers who don't smoke, but overall, as its policy, anda like it or not, thats just how it is.

Smoking in the field, depending on whats going on, I don't have an issue, regardless of your 'smokers rights' its whatever the tactical scenerio and your leadership dictate, and I guarantee ther would be no smoking at night on a tactical ex period! As for the same on Ops, you would simplly be eating that cicarette, and your crediibility with others would expire. 

Australian soldiers have known the rules, and have accepted them, liking it or not.

We have something also called commonsense, so use it.


Wes

And no, I don't smoke.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2007)

Gee Wes,

We have almost the same rules and common sense here too. What's the issue?

"Duty of Care" applies to overall health no?? So that's my issue. Why just the smokers and the drinkers?? "Duty of Care" not extend to walking heart attacks waiting to happen that we advocate by serving greasy food in the Mess' and allowing the troops to consume  4 or 5 Timmies loaded with fat and sugar a day?

That's the point. If they want to clean me up for the benefit of my health ... then clean up everyone's health. Put it all in the rules. No more unhealthy vices for anyone. Seems fair to me.


----------



## KevinB (28 Jun 2007)

Unless your in a covert OP -the fact of the matter (and I am a NON smoker -- but I'm also a realist) smoking is not going to do sweet fuck all.  Please... discussing looking at smoker under NV  ??? - dude if the Enemy has NV they dont need to see smokes - they can count pixels on the uniform.
Driving in a LAV or Coyote - whats the big deal -- if the family hatches are open.

The real thing that pissed me off -- is a lot of smokers are going around and ensuring that its "tobacco free" areas now -- not just smoke free -- so chewers are getting boned too -- some claim "its disgusting" well I happen to think a lot of the fat asses in uniform are disgusting -- but I cant outlaw fat people from the CF...


----------



## 1feral1 (28 Jun 2007)

Hey Vern, 

There was a time when our Messes were the hub of society and social life (full of smoke and stale beer which soaked into the carpets), now they are all but dead. I have been to the 6RAR Long Tan SGT's Mess once, and they have torn down our beloved ANZAC SGTs Mess.

At Mess Dinners, there are now options of water, orange juice or port for the 'kangaroo court'. My how times have changed.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Hey Vern,
> 
> There was a time when our Messes were the hub of society and social life (full of smoke and stale beer which soaked into the carpets), now they are all but dead. I have been to the 6RAR Long Tan SGT's Mess once, and they have torn down our beloved ANZAC SGTs Mess.
> 
> ...



Wes, I'm talking about the Mess Hall where the living in troops eat their meals each day. Wow, some of the stuff served in them. Let's get rid of the red meats, the ice cream, the many fatty deserts, the poutine, the french fry option at every meal ... etc etc and go with fish and salads only.

After all, it all comes down to promoting the health of the soldier, or so they'd say. I'm good with that, if it's done for one and all, not just the target group of the month decade ...again.

Funny thing about all that is I love my rare steak, my chocolate ice cream dripping in hot fudge sauce, and a side of poutine. It's got nothing to do with the fact that I'm a smoker; it's got to do with the myth that someone HAS to look after me and my smoking for the benfit of my health ...  but doesn't feel the need to HAVE to provide that duty of care to myself for my bad eating habits, or to a non-smoker for their bad eating habits or Timmies addiction habits; all of which are affecting our health.


----------



## Benny (28 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And non-drinkers get hit by drunk drivers. Drunk driving also happens to be illegal, there are a whole lot of families out there in Canada that would argue that someone having a drink does indeed have the ability to effect someone who doesn't.


Well, obviously. I'm not talking about things that are already illegal as there's nothing to discuss. It does raise the point that someone smoking in a car is at least partially distracted and cannot maintain both hands on the wheel. Does that make a more dangerous driver? Certainly not as bad as a drunk one, but I'd still say yes.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Smoking affects my task-worthiness? I'm NOT smoking while I'm working (we are not allowed to!!); I'm smoking while the nonsmokers are sitting in the canteen drinking coffee.


I'm not going to refer to you in person here, but in general, yes. The health damage is clear and known for decades. It WILL affect a soldiers effectiveness by simply reducing their fitness. 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Smoking affects my task-worthiness? I'm NOT smoking while I'm working (we are not allowed to!!); I'm smoking while the nonsmokers are sitting in the canteen drinking coffee.  Enemy party in the field?? NVGs?? Yes absolutely. And as was already discussed, the NVGs are just the latest on this ... read the prior posts on the sniper-checks while lighting smokes from many many years ago. This is not new. If that tell-tale glow showed up to the naked eye at night, the logical assumption is that it would therefore show up really good to eyes being aided by NVGs.


You don't have to be able to see it with the unaided eye for nvgs to show it. That's the issue. As soon as darkness falls it is impossible to know. The old trick of hiding the lit ciggie in a 50cal expended cartridge doesn't work anymore. It still shows up and you will never know, nor will your buddies who can't see it, but the enemy OP will be well aware...

FWIW, I'm not out to ban it in total, just keep it away from work, and discourage it in general. As much as I would not want someone drinking on duty (or showing the effects of previous drinking), I wouldn't want them smoking either.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2007)

Benny said:
			
		

> Well, obviously. I'm not talking about things that are already illegal as there's nothing to discuss. It does raise the point that someone smoking in a car is at least partially distracted and cannot maintain both hands on the wheel. Does that make a more dangerous driver? Certainly not as bad as a drunk one, but I'd still say yes.
> I'm not going to refer to you in person here, but in general, yes. The health damage is clear and known for decades. It WILL affect a soldiers effectiveness by simply reducing their fitness.
> You don't have to be able to see it with the unaided eye for nvgs to show it. That's the issue. As soon as darkness falls it is impossible to know. The old trick of hiding the lit ciggie in a 50cal expended cartridge doesn't work anymore. It still shows up and you will never know, nor will your buddies who can't see it, but the enemy OP will be well aware...
> 
> FWIW, I'm not out to ban it in total, just keep it away from work, and discourage it in general. As much as I would not want someone drinking on duty (or showing the effects of previous drinking), I wouldn't want them smoking either.



Good lord, where to begin??

1) The jump made between illegal drunk driving is akin to the argument in this thread that suggested that smokers addiction to that legal substance led to addictions to illegal substances. Now, alcohol can be an addiction, therefore the leap to someone who consumes alcohol legally ... being susceptible to committing that next phase in the process which is drunk-driving.  Give it up. Most of us are smart enough to obey the law. A smoker is no more susceptible to move up to using illegal drugs than a drinker is to committing drunk driving. That's the comparison there.

2) Yes!! Two hands on the wheel at all times. Let's ban all those issued blackberries and cell phones while we're at it!! Just so we can ensure they never have a hand off the wheel.  :  Geez, better yet, let's just be smart about it and practise that defensive driving that the CF teaches us OK?? Oh, and BTW, last time I checked, one couldn't be driving a military vehicle while on duty and smoking at the same time ... that would be illegal wouldn't it? 

3) The health damage is clear and known for decades. When the heck did I ever say it wasn't?? But hell, so is cholesterol (which, I believe, is under no threat of ban for use by CF members ~Timmies would lose a friggin' fortune wouldn't they?) Red meat is available in a Mess Hall near you right now and it's known to be bad for you. As is sugar. As are calories. All available for soldiers consumption during duty hours. Do you get the point yet??

4) It will affect a soldiers effectiveness by simply reducing their fitness?? Is that your reasoning for the ban? Because if that's all you've got and you think that justifies it, I got a little tidbit of info for you here ... I am in shape. Much better shape than a heck of a lot of nonsmokers I know. So, I'm going to cut them off the Timmies and the cholesterol (because that must be the cause of it). But now I can't really be too sure about exactly what the cause of it is ... because they aren't overweight. Don't worry, I guarantee you'll never have to hump my ruck or parts of my kit for me, but this evil smoker has done just that for some others ... including a couple male nonsmokers. Want to talk cardio?? Ante up your end-time for a 5km swim (no breaks ... no touching the walls or the pool bottom) and we'll see who comes out on top. The assumptions you make about someones fitness level amaze me.  

5) Good gawd, the night vision thing again?? Have you actually read the posts?? Smokers know when to smoke and when not to, just because we smoke doesn't mean that we're going to risk your life to the enemy. Get a grip, we are more professional than that and, as I said before, it's a tired old argument. We decided many posts ago that this has been widely known by us CF members for years now and is really nothing new.

6) OK just keep it away from work ... that's a switch up, but guess what?? It still doesn't address the underlying issue of the Mess Halls serving up proven-to-be-unhealthy-items 3 times a day to the troops living in. It's the same damn thing. And, I hope you're not a Timmies S/S, D/D, or T/T (or whatever combo preferred) drinker either because by default, they should also be kept away from the workplace and discouraged.


----------



## beands (28 Jun 2007)

Smoking = bad, check
drinking = bad, check
drugs = bad, check
cursing = bad, check
fast food = bad, check
coffee = bad, check
over/under sleeping or eating, hyperactive, underproductive = all bad, check
porn = bad, check
masterbation = bad, check (do we really want blind troops now??)
"insert missing vices here" = bad, check!
I think I got the vices down pat. ALL BAD. Got it.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but, as long as I'm in shape, keep my vices to the confines of the law and designated times and places deemed acceptable by "society".....well am I not signing up to be shot at and (god forrbid) killed by some bullet?? Have most of you not signed up under the exact same pretense?

Slightly redundant, in my minds eye, that you are not supposed to do or have these things, but you are to lay your life on the line. I don't remember anywhere in the phamplet along the lines of "we live by the bullet and die by the bullet, nothing else".
Pretty sure most people would turn around if that were the case.


----------



## NL_engineer (29 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> 2) Yes!! Two hands on the wheel at all times. Let's ban all those issued blackberries and cell phones while we're at it!! Just so we can ensure they never have a hand off the wheel.  :  Geez, better yet, let's just be smart about it and practise that defensive driving that the CF teaches us OK?? Oh, and BTW, last time I checked, one couldn't be driving a military vehicle while on duty and smoking at the same time ... that would be illegal wouldn't it?



You must of missed the class on driving the ML with out spilling your coffee  ;D


----------

