Now the Military?

[seminolewind]

Now the FDA wants to ban analogs from the military. I know analogs are not healthy, but all I can think of is all those soldiers in the mid-east fighting for our country, and having one of the small pleasures taken away from them.
It's cruel and inhumane. Another example of the FDA targeting groups in a really crummy way.
This was on Fox News this morning.

 

[Surf Monkey]

FOX likes shock journalism. I wouldn't put too much stock in it until you see a better source reporting it.

 

[Skad]

The story is likely bogus.

I certainly wouldn't want the job of taking cigs away from people who are heavily armed.

 

[scintar]

Opps, Double topic on this one.. Still say what a crock.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/26042-cnbc-no-smoking-military.html

 

[grimmer255]

I know that the Army will not let you smoke during basic training. But the fact is the FDA can not ban cigarettes to the arm forces they do not have the power. They can rugulate minors form using it, but they cant force adults to quit. Now the military can regulate where you can smoke. For example when I was in they said as long as in uniform you can smoke while walking. must be at least 50 ft from any building and can not smoke in barracks or any building on base. If the FDA has the power to ban adults from using cigarettes than this country is in big trouble....whats next have wipe your .... with poison ivy.

 

[grimmer255]

sorry..... cant smoke while walking

 

[sattec]

FOX likes shock journalism. I wouldn't put too much stock in it until you see a better source reporting it.

LOL....you really believe that, don't you?

 

[Mac]

Ban on tobacco urged in military - USATODAY.com

 

[Surf Monkey]

LOL....you really believe that, don't you?

I believe that practically every TV news source deals almost exclusively in shock journalism. What's you point?

 

[Raven_Blackblade]

I literally just ordered earlier this week a DSE-901, and a bottle of flue cured juice for a soldier. He is currently vaping away happy as a clam.

I knew that this would be coming again.

 

[Bones]

I believe that practically every TV news source deals almost exclusively in shock journalism. What's you point?

The news tonight - BOO! - and Oogie Boogie!

Next up - Did you find joy in life today? - Well we'll just see about that - ARGHHHH LOOK AT THIS! -

Now please sit back in fear and shock and enjoy American Idol -


And BTW - Did you hear MJ is dead???

 

[Surf Monkey]

Now please sit back in fear and shock and enjoy American Idol -


And BTW - did you hear MJ is dead???

Exactly my point. If it bleeds, it leads. In the case of this story, the TV news hypes it because they know people will react exactly as they have in these threads: "OH MY GOD! THEY'RE TAKING AWAY THE RIGHTS OF OUR GLORIOUS FIGHTING MEN!! WHAT'S NEXT?" But anyone giving this report even glancing consideration can see that it's just hot air. The military isn't going to ban smoking outright, and even if they try, they're saying that it would be phased in over TWENTY YEARS. That's a generation. A political and policy eternity. It's like saying "I'm going to quit smoking... sometime in the next 20 years." Meaningless on the very face of it.

 

[ladyraj]

The news made the Military times for active duty personnel too. At one point cigarette purchases were exempt from all taxation if purchased on base. The AAFES were mandated to make an exception for tobacco products and must collect the equivalent of the taxes in their tax free stores. The taxes are not paid to the State nor Federal government...they go into a health and welfare fund and have become a very profitable endeavor for AAFES. So the anti-smoking busybodies have managed to pull off forced taxation in a tax free store. They have gone after duty free stores as well. New York is raising the fees for stores that sell tobacco in a bid to decrease the amount of retail sellers. This is a war on all fronts and I suspect the same intrusion will be applied to e-cigs.8-o

 

[sattec]

I believe that practically every TV news source deals almost exclusively in shock journalism. What's you point?

my point is, NOW you say " practically every news source", earlier you pointed only at FOX....
FOX likes shock journalism. I wouldn't put too much stock in it until you see a better source reporting it.

so which is it? FOX or practically every news source and how much time does it take for you to form a statement that you stand behind....use of a "better source" is also a clue

 

[Rexa]

I agree with Surf Monkey, it's shock journalism indeed. I wouldn't buy it.

 

[Surf Monkey]

my point is, NOW you say " practically every news source", earlier you pointed only at FOX....
FOX likes shock journalism. I wouldn't put too much stock in it until you see a better source reporting it.

so which is it? FOX or practically every news source and how much time does it take for you to form a statement that you stand behind....use of a "better source" is also a clue

I referred to FOX specifically because that's where the report was coming from. I'm sorry I attacked your beloved FOX news. Had I known that you'd get your partisan ire up over it, I would have qualified the statement from the get go. But your attempt to trap me in a "gotcha moment" isn't going to fly. I've been very clear on where I come down on this issue.

 

[Kate51]

FOX likes shock journalism. I wouldn't put too much stock in it until you see a better source reporting it.

So, you a reporter for MSNBC?

 

[tikva]

I certainly wouldn't want the job of taking cigs away from people who are heavily armed.

 

[Surf Monkey]

So, you a reporter for MSNBC?

Did I say I thought MSNBC was any better?

 

[sattec]

So, you a reporter for MSNBC?

bingo.......