Author Topic: Whos next? "overweight?" revisited (Read 1237 times)

Tumor · « **Reply #45 on:** January 29, 2005, 03:46:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler

smoking is for the weak

Non-smokers are all bible-thumping zealots unable to survive without leaning on some mythical omnipotent being.

Weak? Slightly stereotypical?

Vulcan · « **Reply #46 on:** January 29, 2005, 03:52:08 PM »

Hey Lazs, you own guns right? Hmmm, thats risky, sorry you're fired.

Next step gene testing

and hullo Gattaca!

Gunslinger · « **Reply #47 on:** January 29, 2005, 04:57:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus
Really? can you give me a MOS that precludes smoking off duty?

shamus

nope....not an MOS

I can however, give you an example of a duty assignment.

Any AETC technical school student, no matter the length of the school are not allowed to use tobacco on or off duty while in student status.

Basic training would be another example.

I've also heard that several ships as well as submarines may be going tobacco free

Out in the field we were not allowed to smoke unless the perverbial "smoking lamp" was lit.

In either incidence if you are caught you can get article 15 non-judicial punishment. Depending on the service and carreer field that could mean involuntary seperation in less than 6 months.

Cobra412 · « **Reply #48 on:** January 30, 2005, 01:03:18 AM »

Gunslinger when I was at school for my 7 level you couldn't smoke during duty hours and that was it. I was technically an AETC student at the time. Now I'm not sure how the rules have changed for first time students. When I was there for my first time you couldn't smoke during duty hours or while in uniform. You could however smoke off duty in designated areas. Even as a phase 4 student or permissive TDY student you could still drink and smoke if you were of age and off duty hours.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #49 on:** January 30, 2005, 01:09:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Cobra412
Gunslinger when I was at school for my 7 level you couldn't smoke during duty hours and that was it. I was technically an AETC student at the time. Now I'm not sure how the rules have changed for first time students. When I was there for my first time you couldn't smoke during duty hours or while in uniform. You could however smoke off duty in designated areas. Even as a phase 4 student or permissive TDY student you could still drink and smoke if you were of age and off duty hours.

The trick with that is they just dont allow you to wear civilian atire.....

when I was at shepard even as a TDY student they told me I wasnt allowed to smoke at all. Either way I did it anyways. The point I was trying to make is that you can be ordered not to smoke while in the military or face disciplinary actions. I've seen it happen.

Also, I'm goin to 7 level school in 2 weeks. I know my instructer and the guy I'm goin with is bringing his truck so we'll be spending break time out there!

Pretty stupid if you ask me though. I'd like to see them tell a chief he can't smoke.

Cobra412 · « **Reply #50 on:** January 30, 2005, 01:36:28 AM »

Well if I remember correctly 3rd and 4th phase students are authorized to wear civilian attire. Also people who go through schools as long as mine was end up through phase cycles fairly quickly. I was given 4th phase upon arriving at Sheppard and then after I completed my basic course and went to another specialty class I was given permissive TDY status.

This came with a nice letter from my commander at the time. It was very nice to to pull that letter out and rub it in MTLs faces. We had no curfew, no restrictions on drinking or smoking other than doing it in designated areas and no marching or pc. To top it off we just had to be sure to show up to class everyday(sober ofcourse). I stayed off base the majority of that time. I even came back in one night with enough time to shower and get ready for school. By that time I had been in school for almost 7 months and that's not including basic training.

wombatt · « **Reply #51 on:** January 30, 2005, 02:13:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pongo
I could only think of the bravo 4s. Cause the cigerette butts could light the bull cheese on fire and kill everyone.

Just North of the border:aok

Gunslinger · « **Reply #52 on:** January 30, 2005, 03:06:57 AM »

either way you can be ORDERED not to smoke while in the military. I think I've proven my point.

Shamus · « **Reply #53 on:** January 30, 2005, 07:42:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
either way you can be ORDERED not to smoke while in the military. I think I've proven my point.

You can be ordered to do many things in the military.

To compare like situations though, would you feel it would be fair for the military to state, "as of such and such a date smoking is not allowed" , fail the test or refuse to take it your out?

shamus

Lazerus · « **Reply #54 on:** January 30, 2005, 08:38:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
Military??

[/B]

OK, we got that straight, but this aint about the military.

Quote

On the job, no smoking rules are fine. Off the clock? The time is theirs. Smoking is not yet illegal.

What allows them to dictate your activity while you are not on their time?

Insurance?

I've never seen a company that offered insurance that you couldn't decline.

I have yet to see one position proposed that would legaly allow them to do this.

lazs2 · « **Reply #55 on:** January 30, 2005, 10:34:54 AM »

vulcan.... about the gtuns thing... they are trying to fire people for owning guns. In several states and in my city they are trying to fire people for having guns legally stored in their vehicles. My city for instance, wants to make it illegal even tho you are parked on a public street.

There is a huge court case going on over this in Oklahoma. It is about as important as the cases over suing gun manufacturers for making a safe reliable product but then being sued when people missuse it.

In my opinion... if ciggarette manufacturers claim that their product is healthy and is not they should be sued. If mcdonalds knowingly claims less calories or fat or whatever than is really the case then they could be sued.

lazs

Gunslinger · « **Reply #56 on:** January 30, 2005, 10:51:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
vulcan.... about the gtuns thing... they are trying to fire people for owning guns. In several states and in my city they are trying to fire people for having guns legally stored in their vehicles. My city for instance, wants to make it illegal even tho you are parked on a public street.

There is a huge court case going on over this in Oklahoma. It is about as important as the cases over suing gun manufacturers for making a safe reliable product but then being sued when people missuse it.

In my opinion... if ciggarette manufacturers claim that their product is healthy and is not they should be sued. If mcdonalds knowingly claims less calories or fat or whatever than is really the case then they could be sued.

lazs

but laz now you are referring to property rights. If a company owns the property they have every right not to allow employees not to bring/store firearms on the premisis. BUT, unless you agree to it they can't search your car.

Shamus/Lazerus if you would have read the thread it was about physical fitness as well.

lazs2 · « **Reply #57 on:** January 30, 2005, 10:56:37 AM »

gunslinger.... no.. in the case of my city and several others, they are saying that you can't have em in the car even on public streets. If they are locked up according to the law then It shouldn't matter about the parking lot. You still have to obey state motor vehicle laws in private parking lots.... You can get a ticket for reckless driving for instance in a parkling lot.

lazs

Shamus · « **Reply #58 on:** January 30, 2005, 12:23:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger

Shamus/Lazerus if you would have read the thread it was about physical fitness as well.

Gunslinger, I thought you were using the physical fitness requirements in the military to justify canning someone for smoking on thier off time in the private sector.

If you were just pointing out that a certain fitness level was required to perform one's duties..you and I are in agreement..that applies in many private sector jobs ase well.

I was addressing the smoking off duty only.

shamus

Gunslinger · « **Reply #59 on:** January 30, 2005, 01:18:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shamus
Gunslinger, I thought you were using the physical fitness requirements in the military to justify canning someone for smoking on thier off time in the private sector.

If you were just pointing out that a certain fitness level was required to perform one's duties..you and I are in agreement..that applies in many private sector jobs ase well.

I was addressing the smoking off duty only.

shamus

I'm not saying I agree with an employer having that much control of your life but I made the point that as well as the fitness requirements the military can order you not to smoke as well....someone wanted me to prove my point....that's all that was.

I still think that in 5 years the employers market will be over. There will be a national labor shortage and employers would not be able to get away with this crap if they want quality workers.