Printable View
I thought that smoking in the military was still the topic ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobdrj
In reality, if women are capable of fulfilling the same mental and physical requirements as men, then they should be permitted to serve in the same conditions. As it is, the Marine Corps basic training is different for men and women, and they do have different physical requirements, so I'm ok with women not being able to serve in combat situations.
It was an 'extreme' logical analogy used for the purpose of pushing the boundaries of the same line of reasoning. It is about smoking. You opened it up with the meritocracy comments, of which I agree with.
AAAaaahhhnould in a movie... If he smoked that stogy anywhere near me, I'd shoot him...
Some perspective from the AirForce Times
Oh, and the percentages of smokers in the military:Quote:
The main reason is economic. The Veterans AFfairs Department spent $5 billion to treat smoking-related emphysema in 2008, and the Military Health System spent about $564 million on tobacco-related costs in 2006-- almost as much as the $611 million in tobacco sales in military stores in 2005.
Any Smoking:
Army - 38.2%
Navy - 32.4%
Marine Corps - 36.3%
Air Force - 23.3%
Any smokeless tobacco:
Army - 18.8%
Navy - 11.1%
Marine Corps - 22.3%
Air Force - 9.2%
Combined cigarette/smokeless tobacco initiation in military (meaning, they started once they got in)
Army - 55.2 %
Navy - 46.5%
Marine Corps - 49%
Air Force - 52.7%
Other detriments the article cites (but doesn't provide numbers for):
Smokers are more likely to drop out of service before fulfilling their enlistment commitments, worse day and night vision, miss more work, bleed more heavily after surgery, heal slower after injury and are at higher risk for infection.