CAP Talk

I recently read about a local fire department that banned its employees from smoking while in uniform and I think this is something that we should consider.  I see it primarily as an image issue though a case could be made that it is a minor safety issue in regards to smoking in CAP buildings and vehicles and to an even lesser extent in regards to health issues that could impact our members during strenuous activities.   

These seem to be the applicable current CAP regulations regarding smoking (at least that I'm aware of)

CAPR 52-16 Cadet Program Mgt

Quoteh. Tobacco Products, Alcoholic Beverages & Illegal Drugs.

(1) CAP cadets, regardless of age, will not possess, chew, or consume tobacco products, nor will they possess or consume alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs, in any form, while participating in any CAP activity.

(2) Senior members should exercise discretion when drinking alcoholic beverages or using tobacco products at CAP activities when cadets are present. Seniors should avoid drinking alcohol or using tobacco at all times when they are directly working with cadets or when they are in a confined space with cadets. Additionally, seniors who are not working with cadets should avoid excessive alcohol consumption when they can reasonably expect to encounter cadets thereafter.

(3) Commanders may augment these rules as appropriate for specific situations, including, but not limited to, establishing designated smoking and non-smoking areas, or designating areas as "off-limits" to cadets.

CAPR 60-1 (Flying)

Quote2-1. Basic Rules.
b. Smoking, aerobatic flight, spins (except instruction for a flight instructor certificate), parachuting and dropping of objects (except to save a life) from CAP aircraft are prohibited.

CAPR 60-3 Emergency Services (some stuff removed)

Quote1-23. Prevention of Fatigue. CAP flight crews and ground teams will make a conscientious effort to avoid or reduce fatigue by
c. avoidance of excessive smoking;

I'm very surprised to find that we don't prohibit smoking in corporate-owned vehicles (from what I could tell from 77-1).  Is there a regulation somewhere prohibiting smoking in CAP-owned and/or managed buildings/hangers?  If not, I think there definetely should be. 

I think 52-16, while maybe not the "Smoking Regulation," spells it out fairly clear. In dealing with Cadets, Seniors should be conservative in their use of tobacco. Obviously it's not a habit we want our cadets to pick up. But the fact that the regulation empowers commanders to establish smoking and non-smoking areas makes it clear to me; it's a Commander's discretion call.

I think 60-1 is referring to aerobatic smoke, not tobacco smoke.

To my knowledge, there is no regulation prohibiting smoking in CAP owned vehicles or buildings.

As much as I am not a fan of smoking, I don't think we should really be focused on this issue. We have bigger fish to fry.

WIWA squadron CC, officers were not allowed to smoke in sight of cadets.  There was a separate smoking area outside the hanger - that part was mandated by the AF. 

WIWAC, we had an SM NCO who was a former TI at Lackland AFB.  He was emulated by all of the cadets and everything he did was considered cool.  He kept his cigarette pack in his sock - we thought that if we were going to be like him, we'd better do the same.  Some started smoking and keeping them in the same place.  I'm not convinced that we can show and example to cadets and not have them emulate it.

AF officers, while not proscribed from smoking, are not thought of well when they do.  It probably would have a bearing on an OER, while not overt, just enough to not put an officer at the top of his group.

Many private corporations (mostly retail or food service) prohibit their employees from smoking on the premises.  Many times this is because of health code laws, but for many it is just for public perception and image.

My company permits smoking on the premises, but must comply with state law, which restricts smoking within 50 feet of any building entrance.

In my CAP unit, there isn't a single senior (or cadet for that matter) that smokes.  In all honesty, I think it's something that will eventually just fade out, especially with the increased taxes and restrictions being placed on smokers.

On another note, I saw this today which talks of a report which makes a recommendation to prohibit tobacco use on military bases.

http://www.fayobserver.com/Articles/2009/07/14/916969

For a lot of people, I think this falls under the common sense category. Most smokers understand that some people don't like being around the smoke or have some health issues that prevent them from being around smoke. Most people would not smoke in other people's cars or houses without permission. If anything, they are most likely to go outside to smoke. They usually, very graciously I might add, go out of their way to make sure no one can easily be offended by them smoking.

It's kinda like Seniors cussing, b.s.ing, and calling each other by their first names. There's a time and a place for it...not in front of cadets and not in front of the general public.

In my four years in CAP, I've only seen three people smoke while in a CAP uniform. All three people were in stressful situations and they made sure they were well away from cadets and other seniors.

Do I think it should be banned while in uniform? Yes. Should we be focusing on it? No. As Brandon said, we have bigger fish to fry.

Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too. Where and when is another story.  If you are going to change the regulations to band smoking, where will it end?. I know, let band farting while in uniform. Now that could be a major problem, its offensive, and it stinks, and with the amount of members that are full of hot air, that is one issue I could stand in front of, because I certainly wouldn't want to stand behind that issue.

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too. Where and when is another story.  If you are going to change the regulations to band smoking, where will it end?. I know, let band farting while in uniform. Now that could be a major problem, its offensive, and it stinks, and with the amount of members that are full of hot air, that is one issue I could stand in front of, because I certainly wouldn't want to stand behind that issue.

Now I know this passes spell check, but the correct word is in the title.

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too. Where and when is another story.  If you are going to change the regulations to band smoking, where will it end?. I know, let band farting while in uniform. Now that could be a major problem, its offensive, and it stinks, and with the amount of members that are full of hot air, that is one issue I could stand in front of, because I certainly wouldn't want to stand behind that issue.

There's not a real correlation here between flatulence and smoking. One is a choice, the other is a bodily function. Also, there's nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to smoke.

Thanks for the spell check professor.

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too.

Please, if you would, show me where in the Constitution smoking is specifically mentioned as a protected freedom.

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn’t Nazi Germany, It is everyone’s constitutional right to smoke if they choose too. Where and when is another story.  If you are going to change the regulations to band smoking, where will it end?. I know, let band farting while in uniform. Now that could be a major problem, its offensive, and it stinks, and with the amount of members that are full of hot air, that is one issue I could stand in front of, because I certainly wouldn't want to stand behind that issue.

As you said, "Where and when is another story." I have no problem with smoking or with those who smoke. I've been known to smoke a cigar or two and if I could get my grand-dad's pipe, I'd smoke that on occasion.

As someone else has already stated in this thread, several employers and businesses prohibit smoking on their premises. That rule often includes customers, not just employees. Most schools also prohibit smoking by teachers and students on school grounds, regardless if it is outside or if students are around. It's a matter of setting a good example. Why should we be any different?

For example, I have no problems with using curse words, by me or anyone else. In fact, I often overuse them. When I'm at a CAP activity (especially if there are cadets or the general public around) or around people that I know that don't like curse words, I resist the urge to cuss. Smoking is no different my mind. It's not a bodily function or a right set forth by the constitution, it's a bad habit when done in excess.

ETA: I take that back, cussing is a right set forth by the constitution...freedom of speech...go figure ;D

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too. Where and when is another story.  If you are going to change the regulations to band smoking, where will it end?. I know, let band farting while in uniform. Now that could be a major problem, its offensive, and it stinks, and with the amount of members that are full of hot air, that is one issue I could stand in front of, because I certainly wouldn't want to stand behind that issue.

What about my right breathe clean air?  Why should I go out of my way to have that right?

Where I work, it is a writable offense (to the point of terminated) to be caught smoking at work.  (I work at a hospital)

We're getting off topic here.... :-\

Sorry...

Yes I think smoking should not be allowed in any CAP activity

CTWG has a policy which prohibits smoking in CAP vehicles, which I agree with.

I don't smoke, and never have. I do, however, have a problem with the political correctness that has invaded our society. If someone wants to enjoy a cigarette in uniform, why should I care?

Quote from: EMT-83 on July 15, 2009, 11:58:54 AMIf someone wants to enjoy a cigarette in uniform, why should I care?

That's a fair question.

Why should you care?

Let's suppose a member has been asked to pick up a visiting CAP VIP at the airport in a CAP van - so the member is in uniform -  but the flight has been delayed a few hours, so the member has some time to kill.

Should you care if the member:

smokes in uniform?

Has a couple of shots of Jack in the airport bar in uniform ?

Plays the slots / video lottery in uniform?

Looks at porn while in uniform?

smokes marijuana in uniform (legal for over 20% of the population)?

Assume all of the above are lawful for the purposes of the discussion.

So when ARE you "your brothe's keeper?"

And when -  to avoid the dreaded "political correctness" - do you simply blow it off?

Great question.

What do you think?

In NJ it is illegal to smoke in public buildings, which covers all the unit buildings, and we have a wing, if not region, policy of no smoking in vehicles.

Until CAP offers smoking cessation programs, which most employers who ban smoking offer their employees, we should not ban it.  Regulate it to minimize exposure to cadets and public, as we can, but not ban it.

BTW, I do not smoke, but I have several friends in CAP who do.

CAP has every right to protect and shape its public image.  IF CAP chose to ban smoking in uniform, in CAP vehicles or offices, etc members would have every right to vote with their feet.  It's not Nazi Germany because you have a choice.  People like to toss around the volunteer word as justification to blow off some rules, but in actuality we volunteered to follow them.

So should CAP ban all visible smoking?  The answer depends on the public image our leadership wishes to cultivate.  I'm not a fan of outright bans.  If someone chooses to smoke outside, leave them alone but go ahead and teach your cadets about the dangers of smoking.  Should CAP ban smoking indoors at CAP activities or in CAP vehicles?  I vote yes because lighting up in enclosed spaces forces smoker's choices on others.  VERY uncool.

As an ex-smoker (smoke-free for 2-1/2 years and counting) I personally think that it's your choice whether you smoke or not, as long as you don't light up in a no smoking area. If you work with cadinks, don't light up around them. And if you're in uniform, keep Ma Blue happy and don't walk and smoke at the same time!  ;D

Quote from: wuzafuzz on July 15, 2009, 12:43:43 PM
CAP has every right to protect and shape its public image.  IF CAP chose to ban smoking in uniform, in CAP vehicles or offices, etc members would have every right to vote with their feet.  It's not Nazi Germany because you have a choice.  People like to toss around the volunteer word as justification to blow off some rules, but in actuality we volunteered to follow them.

So should CAP ban all visible smoking?  The answer depends on the public image our leadership wishes to cultivate.  I'm not a fan of outright bans.  If someone chooses to smoke outside, leave them alone but go ahead and teach your cadets about the dangers of smoking.  Should CAP ban smoking indoors at CAP activities or in CAP vehicles?  I vote yes because lighting up in enclosed spaces forces smoker's choices on others.  VERY uncool.

Bingo.

Should there be a ban on smoking in vehicles and enclosed spaces with others around, probably.

The question, however, is should smoking be banned while in uniform.

I'll play Devil's Advocate for a second here, why is it ok that we prohibit cadets from tobacco usage when it may be perfectly legal, but Senior Members may do use it as they want?

Quote from: BrandonKea on July 15, 2009, 01:17:19 PM
I'll play Devil's Advocate for a second here, why is it ok that we prohibit cadets from tobacco usage when it may be perfectly legal, but Senior Members may do use it as they want?

No retailer may sell cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to any person younger than 18 years of age. It is also illegal to attempt to purchase tobacco (even if unsuccessful) under the age of 18, but, depending on state law, it may or may not be illegal for a person under 18 to use tobacco products.   Most of the laws state " to sell or distribute".  That means if you give a underage person a cigarette, you are distributing it.   If CAP says it is ok for Cadets to use tobacco, then CAP is supporting Cadets acquiring tobacco illegally.

Quote from: Short Field on July 15, 2009, 06:21:56 PMIf CAP says it is ok for Cadets to use tobacco, then CAP is supporting Cadets acquiring tobacco illegally.

Those darn 18-20 year old cadets...

If they want to smoke, just have them go to the dark side....

If responsible adults want to poison themselves, then I don't think CAP has the right to tell them they can't. I do however, think that there should be restrictions around cadets, CAP facilities, and CAP vehicles.

The 18 - 20 year old cadet issue is a tough one, I don't think it should be permissible for cadets to smoke, especially not around other cadets, but then again, they are still adults with a legal right to do so. Should it come to pass, I would not argue with a ban on smoking while in uniform for cadets, but I don't think SMs should be prohibited from smoking in uniform. Like I said, if they want to ingest tar and whatever other life-shortening, brain-cell killing, cancer generating chemicals that are in cigarettes, then that's their choice.

Quote from: DC on July 15, 2009, 07:41:26 PM
If responsible adults want to poison themselves, then I don't think CAP has the right to tell them they can't. I do however, think that there should be restrictions around cadets, CAP facilities, and CAP vehicles.

The 18 - 20 year old cadet issue is a tough one, I don't think it should be permissible for cadets to smoke, especially not around other cadets, but then again, they are still adults with a legal right to do so. Should it come to pass, I would not argue with a ban on smoking while in uniform for cadets, but I don't think SMs should be prohibited from smoking in uniform. Like I said, if they want to ingest tar and whatever other life-shortening, brain-cell killing, cancer generating chemicals that are in cigarettes, then that's their choice.

There already is a tobacco usage ban in effect for Cadets, ref the OP.

Quote from: BrandonKea on July 15, 2009, 07:49:33 PM

Quote from: DC on July 15, 2009, 07:41:26 PM
If responsible adults want to poison themselves, then I don't think CAP has the right to tell them they can't. I do however, think that there should be restrictions around cadets, CAP facilities, and CAP vehicles.

The 18 - 20 year old cadet issue is a tough one, I don't think it should be permissible for cadets to smoke, especially not around other cadets, but then again, they are still adults with a legal right to do so. Should it come to pass, I would not argue with a ban on smoking while in uniform for cadets, but I don't think SMs should be prohibited from smoking in uniform. Like I said, if they want to ingest tar and whatever other life-shortening, brain-cell killing, cancer generating chemicals that are in cigarettes, then that's their choice.

There already is a tobacco usage ban in effect for Cadets, ref the OP.

So there is. Good.

Just today I learned that the US Military had been considering a "tobacco free" military based on some studies that were done.  However, they have made the decision to refrain from banning smoking in combat areas and the like.

http://www.news14.com/content/local_news/charlotte/611894/pentagon-recommends-tobacco-ban-for-u-s--troops/Default.aspx

The latter info I heard on ABC Radio Network News.

Quote from: Major Carrales on July 15, 2009, 08:36:43 PM
Just today I learned that the US Military had been considering a "tobacco free" military based on some studies that were done.  However, they have made the decision to refrain from banning smoking in combat areas and the like.

http://www.news14.com/content/local_news/charlotte/611894/pentagon-recommends-tobacco-ban-for-u-s--troops/Default.aspx

The latter info I heard on ABC Radio Network News.

A few years ago they tossed around the idea of not selling tobacco products on military bases at all...

Quote from: BrandonKea on July 15, 2009, 10:06:17 PM

Quote from: Major Carrales on July 15, 2009, 08:36:43 PM
Just today I learned that the US Military had been considering a "tobacco free" military based on some studies that were done.  However, they have made the decision to refrain from banning smoking in combat areas and the like.

http://www.news14.com/content/local_news/charlotte/611894/pentagon-recommends-tobacco-ban-for-u-s--troops/Default.aspx

The latter info I heard on ABC Radio Network News.

A few years ago they tossed around the idea of not selling tobacco products on military bases at all...

And the complaints, mostly from the Retirees, was deafening! Not to mention that AAFES/NEX/MCES would take a major hit from the loss of revenue.

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 15, 2009, 01:11:57 AM

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too.

Please, if you would, show me where in the Constitution smoking is specifically mentioned as a protected freedom.

9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 16, 2009, 12:58:41 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 15, 2009, 01:11:57 AM

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too.

Please, if you would, show me where in the Constitution smoking is specifically mentioned as a protected freedom.

9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nice try, but by that interpretation, prohibiting anything would be unconstitutional.

Besides, that's not what it means. The 9th amendment provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named.

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 16, 2009, 01:30:10 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 16, 2009, 12:58:41 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 15, 2009, 01:11:57 AM

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too.

Please, if you would, show me where in the Constitution smoking is specifically mentioned as a protected freedom.

9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nice try, but by that interpretation, prohibiting anything would be unconstitutional.

Besides, that's not what it means. The 9th amendment provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named.

Such as the right to kill yourself with cancer sticks? Although I hate smoking and really hate when smokers light up around me without giving me any thought I'm gonna have to go with Maj. Kachenmeister on this one.

Quote from: davidsinn on July 16, 2009, 02:31:06 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 16, 2009, 01:30:10 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 16, 2009, 12:58:41 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 15, 2009, 01:11:57 AM

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too.

Please, if you would, show me where in the Constitution smoking is specifically mentioned as a protected freedom.

9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nice try, but by that interpretation, prohibiting anything would be unconstitutional.

Besides, that's not what it means. The 9th amendment provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named.

Such as the right to kill yourself with cancer sticks? Although I hate smoking and really hate when smokers light up around me without giving me any thought I'm gonna have to go with Maj. Kachenmeister on this one.

You guys are missing the point.

This particular amendment does not give anyone the right to smoke...or do anything else.

It just says that you can't argue that something is prohibited just because it is not among the things specifically listed in the Constitution.

No one here is saying that, so it has nothing to do with the argument.

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 16, 2009, 02:51:48 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on July 16, 2009, 02:31:06 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 16, 2009, 01:30:10 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 16, 2009, 12:58:41 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 15, 2009, 01:11:57 AM

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too.

Please, if you would, show me where in the Constitution smoking is specifically mentioned as a protected freedom.

9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nice try, but by that interpretation, prohibiting anything would be unconstitutional.

Besides, that's not what it means. The 9th amendment provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named.

Such as the right to kill yourself with cancer sticks? Although I hate smoking and really hate when smokers light up around me without giving me any thought I'm gonna have to go with Maj. Kachenmeister on this one.

You guys are missing the point.

This particular amendment does not give anyone the right to smoke...or do anything else.

It just says that you can't argue that something is prohibited just because it is not among the things specifically listed in the Constitution.

No one here is saying that, so it has nothing to do with the argument.

Careful, I once posted some Constitutional questions at one of these CAP forums as was told it was "not a relevant" CAP discussion and had the topic locked.

Quote from: Ned on July 15, 2009, 12:22:14 PM

Quote from: EMT-83 on July 15, 2009, 11:58:54 AMIf someone wants to enjoy a cigarette in uniform, why should I care?

That's a fair question.

Why should you care?

Let's suppose a member has been asked to pick up a visiting CAP VIP at the airport in a CAP van - so the member is in uniform -  but the flight has been delayed a few hours, so the member has some time to kill.

Should you care if the member:

smokes in uniform?

Has a couple of shots of Jack in the airport bar in uniform ?

Plays the slots / video lottery in uniform?

Looks at porn while in uniform?

smokes marijuana in uniform (legal for over 20% of the population)?

Assume all of the above are lawful for the purposes of the discussion.

So when ARE you "your brothe's keeper?"

And when -  to avoid the dreaded "political correctness" - do you simply blow it off?

Great question.

What do you think?

Having a smoke isn't going to impair your driving like drinking and smoking marijuana, BTW your assertion that weed is legal for 20 percent of the population is a falsehood.

If CAP was so concerned with members gambling, why have we had our National Boards in places like Reno, Vegas, etc?

Porn? Okay, tacky.

As an asthmatic nonsmoker myself, we really as an organization have better things to worry about than members smoking.

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 16, 2009, 02:51:48 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on July 16, 2009, 02:31:06 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 16, 2009, 01:30:10 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 16, 2009, 12:58:41 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 15, 2009, 01:11:57 AM

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too.

Please, if you would, show me where in the Constitution smoking is specifically mentioned as a protected freedom.

9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nice try, but by that interpretation, prohibiting anything would be unconstitutional.

Besides, that's not what it means. The 9th amendment provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named.

Such as the right to kill yourself with cancer sticks? Although I hate smoking and really hate when smokers light up around me without giving me any thought I'm gonna have to go with Maj. Kachenmeister on this one.

You guys are missing the point.

This particular amendment does not give anyone the right to smoke...or do anything else.

It just says that you can't argue that something is prohibited just because it is not among the things specifically listed in the Constitution.

No one here is saying that, so it has nothing to do with the argument.

If it doesn't guarantee "Anything," why is it in there?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 16, 2009, 03:32:25 PM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 16, 2009, 02:51:48 AM

Quote from: davidsinn on July 16, 2009, 02:31:06 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 16, 2009, 01:30:10 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 16, 2009, 12:58:41 AM

Quote from: Rotorhead on July 15, 2009, 01:11:57 AM

Quote from: oak2007 on July 15, 2009, 12:10:46 AM
Boys, this isn't Nazi Germany, It is everyone's constitutional right to smoke if they choose too.

Please, if you would, show me where in the Constitution smoking is specifically mentioned as a protected freedom.

9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nice try, but by that interpretation, prohibiting anything would be unconstitutional.

Besides, that's not what it means. The 9th amendment provides that the naming of certain rights in the Constitution does not take away from the people rights that are not named.

Such as the right to kill yourself with cancer sticks? Although I hate smoking and really hate when smokers light up around me without giving me any thought I'm gonna have to go with Maj. Kachenmeister on this one.

You guys are missing the point.

This particular amendment does not give anyone the right to smoke...or do anything else.

It just says that you can't argue that something is prohibited just because it is not among the things specifically listed in the Constitution.

No one here is saying that, so it has nothing to do with the argument.

If it doesn't guarantee "Anything," why is it in there?

Because, John, there was a concern  that the document would be seen as a list of the rights people have, and that anything not included was, therefore, not a right held by the people.

However, you can't use it to support the argument that a specific act is Constitutionally guaranteed (which was the claim, remember?), because if you believe that, then every single act not specifically listed would also be protected.

Scott:

Your point makes no sense. ???

Every act IS protected.  You are "Free," remember?

In order to prohibit an act, a compelling state interest must be shown, or the act must be mala-in-se, or an evil in and of itself.

Some people, like me, just hate smoking.  It wouldn't be fair to vote because I'd vote yes (ban smoking in CAP uniforms) because I can't stand it.

My CC smokes in front of and around cadets all the time.  Heck, I was speaking to a potential new cadet with his parents one night and he walked up smoking.  They never came back (not sure if it was the smoking, but they never came back).

See, in my opinion, 99% of smokers have no clue how much cigarette smoking pisses others off.

I've never been a fan of cigarette smoke, but having grown up in bowling alleys and bars, I've become pretty used to it. And now, having worked in a casino for over 3 years, I'm even more used to it. I'm not a fan, but it's amazing what you get used to after being around it nonstop.

The issue here, getting back on point, is again, should there be an outright ban on smoking in uniform.

Smokers should be aware that their smoking may not be A. a good example to set for cadets, and B. offensive to others in general, as Stonewall pointed out. But, if you can smoke away from others in a designated smoking area, let the smokers be.

How 'bout this: DoD Won't Ban War-zone Smoking (http://www.military.com/news/article/dod-wont-ban-war-zone-smoking.html)

Quote"He knows that the situation they are confronting is stressful enough as it is," Morrell said, noting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I don't think he is interested in adding to the stress levels by taking away one of the few outlets they may have to relieve stress."

Taking them cadets on o-rides sure can be stressful...

That wasn't the point of my posting it, read the whole thing.

As Patton said:  "An officer is always on parade."

We should exhibit those qualities which we want our cadets and junior officers to follow.

Banning ALL smoking in uniform?  No.  Smoking only in clearly appropriate situations among other officers?  OK.

About the same rules we apply to alcohol use should be applied to smoking. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 17, 2009, 10:22:54 AM
As Patton said:  "An officer is always on parade."

We should exhibit those qualities which we want our cadets and junior officers to follow.

Banning ALL smoking in uniform?  No.  Smoking only in clearly appropriate situations among other officers?  OK.

About the same rules we apply to alcohol use should be applied to smoking.

As always John - the voice of reason.  :clap:

why shouldn't we? drinking pop in my squadron is

Quote from: Daniel L on July 17, 2009, 09:49:23 PM
why shouldn't we? drinking pop in my squadron is

There's a difference between stopping adults from doing something that is personally harmful and nasty, and keeping a bunch of teenagers from getting hyper on sugar and caffeine. Does you squadron prohibit SMs from drinking coffee?

There would probably be a mutiny if they did...  8)

Npthin' but water - my squadrons unoffical motto

BUT anywho i'm around smokers all day at my house so I'm due for lung cancer anyway no matter who smokes what in uniform

Kach;
Your Patton quote "an officer is always on parade." Was made by a man who smoked cigarettes and cigars, chewed tobacco, drank pretty heavy, peed in public, was abusive and officially reprimanded for it on 3 occasions, dipped snuff, and cursed profusely. So I guess he was right but politically incorrect, a hypocrite, or at least an intemperate model.

I smoke a pipe. I try to do this out of sight of cadets. I don't curse much and never pee in public. Good quote. Bad choice of archetype.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 17, 2009, 11:00:06 PM
Kach;
Your Patton quote "an officer is always on parade." Was made by a man who smoked cigarettes and cigars, chewed tobacco, drank pretty heavy, peed in public, was abusive and officially reprimanded for it on 3 occasions, dipped snuff, and cursed profusely. So I guess he was right but politically incorrect, a hypocrite, or at least an intemperate model.

I smoke a pipe. I try to do this out of sight of cadets. I don't curse much and never pee in public. Good quote. Bad choice of archetype.

I know about Patton.  That's exactly why I like him.

"Only a pimp from a cheap New Orleans whorehouse would carry a pearl-handled pistol."

Kach;
Obviously we both like Patton. BUT, he couldn't make it in CAP with cadets present. Eisenhower, King, Halsey, LeMay, MacArthur would all have to curb personal habits to make it as a CAP Commander now. So the real questions are: are they lesser men for it? Or are we lesser men and women for being intolerant of their habits.

I think it is the latter, and unfortunately so. As I said - I smoke a pipe. But then I am Irish, a writer, have white hair, and therefore an Jurassic cliche'.

QuoteObviously we both like Patton. BUT, he couldn't make it in CAP with cadets present. Eisenhower, King, Halsey, LeMay, MacArthur would all have to curb personal habits to make it as a CAP Commander now. So the real questions are: are they lesser men for it? Or are we lesser men and women for being intolerant of their habits.

As I recall they were leading adults, not 13 year olds. 

RiverAux; Funny you should point that out. Maj. Gen. John Curry was Director of the Denver Council of the Boy Scouts after the War. So some of these guys did both.

Cadets (and their Parents) have much to say about how their children are treated. I don't usually deal with cadets - I am in a Senior Squadron. That said, a tough IC on a long mission with a testy attitude will turn the crews of Seniors into 13 year olds.

I was in a SAREX last weekend and I got plenty of calls from little boys after it was over about this and that disrespectful thing. SO, while we want to think we could handle Patton. Maybe we can't handle the truth.

Me? I got yelled at too, and it was corrective not belittling. So it's no big deal what so ever.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on July 17, 2009, 11:17:54 PM

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 17, 2009, 11:00:06 PM
Kach;
Your Patton quote "an officer is always on parade." Was made by a man who smoked cigarettes and cigars, chewed tobacco, drank pretty heavy, peed in public, was abusive and officially reprimanded for it on 3 occasions, dipped snuff, and cursed profusely. So I guess he was right but politically incorrect, a hypocrite, or at least an intemperate model.

I smoke a pipe. I try to do this out of sight of cadets. I don't curse much and never pee in public. Good quote. Bad choice of archetype.

I know about Patton.  That's exactly why I like him.

"Only a pimp from a cheap New Orleans whorehouse would carry a pearl-handled pistol."

His actual quote, not the one from the movie, is, ""Only a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse or a tin-horn gambler would carry a pearl-handled pistol."

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 18, 2009, 12:38:37 AM
Kach;
Obviously we both like Patton. BUT, he couldn't make it in CAP with cadets present. Eisenhower, King, Halsey, LeMay, MacArthur would all have to curb personal habits to make it as a CAP Commander now. So the real questions are: are they lesser men for it? Or are we lesser men and women for being intolerant of their habits.

I think it is the latter, and unfortunately so. As I said - I smoke a pipe. But then I am Irish, a writer, have white hair, and therefore an Jurassic cliche'.

All of them would need to change even to be a military officer - swearing, smoking, drinking to excess, etc are now career killers for officers.  Curt LeMay would have to change all of these, plus loose about 100 pounds or he'd be forced out.

Times change as do societal norms.  Smoking is no longer a societal norm and an officer needs to conform to them - yes an officer is always on parade . . . the parade changes with the times (for the better IMO).

CAP Officers of the 60s and 70s would have to change their habits to make it in CAP today.  Heck, CAP officers of the pre-CPPT kind would have to make some changes as well.  In fact, many DID have to curb their habits when CPPT showed it's face in what, 1989, 1990?

You guys are talking MacAuthur and Eisenhower.  I'm thinking the officers of the Vietnam era would have to make some dramatic changes to cut it in today's military.  I look back to when I joined the Army in 1991 and had platoon and first sergeants with BSM(V) from Vietnam.  Those guys didn't care what officer was around, especially a brand new 2LT.

No different than civil society, the military (and CAP) changes.  Habits that were once the norm become frowned upon.

Some compare chewing gum in uniform to smoking in uniform.  I've been told it looks unprofessional to chew gum in uniform, military and CAP.  I agree, it does sort of look bad.  The difference is, I think, is that chewing gum is a lot more discreet than smoking.

Stonewall;
I think Cadet Protection is good. Pedophilia has long been outlawed. Pedophilia has not changed as a taboo. Instituting training for the purpose of explanation and clarification
of this issue is not an attempt to change a personal habit. It was designed to breakdown what was otherwise a "don't ask don't tell" kind of social acceptance among CAP members who thought they could avoid the issue through disinterest. As in... that is none of my business.

Linking Cadet Protection to smoking is the same as the other side of this issue declaring you guys "smoking Nazis." It is a mistreatment of the issue for the purposes rhetorical splendor.

I like to take long hot showers. Of course while in the military there was a prohibition because of the water waste. So I curbed that habit for reason. The military had standing.
Now... I take long hot showers. I pay the water bill. I own the water heater.

I am a grown man. I know the elements of decorum. I am responsible for my own health, health insurance, well being, and decorum. When CAP begins to pay for my health insurance, treat me at military hospitals, and give me free medications... then CAP should have something to say about this personal habit.

So what is prohibited by the military for the purpose of savings should not be transferred to CAP when the interest in cost savings has no standing.

The lack of standing should not be confused by the opinion of others. If so then I'll need to check how close you shave, how clean is your uniform, how sweet is your breath, etc.
For those items can create a personal offense to me by you. 

What works in the military doesn't necessarily link to society at large. The reason the military is instituting the policy is for health care cost savings. The reason you are asking CAP to institute the policy is because of your personal disinterest (or disgust). As such, you have no standing other than as a subjective reaction.

Those who will raise the second hand smoke issue would be well to consider that this issue is not part of this discussion. Certainly we are not speaking of sharing my pipe smoke with you. If I was blowing smoke then you would have standing. CAP doesn't have standing.

I would fully support a smoking ban while in uniform

......as soon as the AF institutes the same for Active Duty and Reservists.

We are straying a bit into whether a person has a right to smoke.  There are lots of rights.  However, when you represent a group or organization, they get to choose what public image they want.  So you can be keen on Jesus, but when you are in a uniform for Uncle Sam out at sea, in the battlefield or in the skies, you have to keep it "non-denominational."

As for "where in the Constitution it says you have the right to smoke" I will ask you to show me where the law tells a person they cannot utilize a legally purchased, government regulated consumable product.

No one is saying you can't smoke.  We aren't even discussing whether the government should be able to big brother such a law on us as a whole.  What we're talking about is this, and to me it is clear and simple.

Should you be able to smoke in a CAP Uniform?

I say "Yes."  Because you can smoke in an AF, Navy, Army or Marine uniform (provided you aren't walking while you do it). 

If the AF wants to change its rule, then we should follow. 

The ONLY smoking ban I would ever even come close to supporting, would be smoking in front of cadets.  This is due to personal experience more than anything.

Back when I was a Boy Scout, I spent my formative years learning how to bait a hook from a guy who spilled out of his khaki shirt and had to find a place to set down his beer and cigarette before he could handle the worm.

Don't smoke in front of other people's kids should be common sense.

But don't expect volunteers to surpass military standards.

QuoteBut don't expect volunteers to surpass military standards.

I rarely find myself on the side of the "CAP is different from the AF so we don't necessarily need to do things just like the AF" crowd, but this is one of them. 

Since image is one of the reasons that this should be considered, thought I'd put out some facts. 

According to Gallup, 40% of Americans say that smoking makes them view a person more negatively.  48% of non-smokers would say this as well. 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108925/Impact-Smoking-Being-Overweight-Persons-Image.aspx

Does this negatively towards the individual smoker rub off onto the organization they represent while in uniform?  No data and might be a bit of a stretch, however that CAP smoker may not be who you want lighting up anywhere near your recruiting display as he might not be the best ambassador at that time. 

Quote from: Ollie on July 19, 2009, 11:32:50 PM

As for "where in the Constitution it says you have the right to smoke" I will ask you to show me where the law tells a person they cannot utilize a legally purchased, government regulated consumable product.

Okay, but we're not talking about a law. We're talking about an organization which has the right to mandate what its members may or may not do.

Scotty/Rotorhead;
So you are saying that CAP can mandate anything that it wants? Not hardly.

The Constitution does not have the right to smoke. What it does have is both the right to privacy - which is the construct upon which abortion is built and a thousand other things like a husband can not be compelled to testify against his wife, doctor patient privilege, rabbi, priest, minister, divulging confessions, etc.

AND all "rights" and laws tested and therefore held as constitutional are otherwise YOUR right. The Supreme Court is called upon to define this line of state versus individual rights. So, and this is basic American civics, you can not outlaw what is NOT impermissible. All rights are not expressed in the constitution. The limits of the State is.

CAP cannot tell you - for instance, that you can't drink alcohol in uniform either. The reason is because it has no standing in this act. Should however, you break the law in a drunken stupor, draw disgrace to the Patrol, or kill someone in a DUI accident - then there are other laws and regulations covering those items. SO, and since I seldom drink, although I like to have one beer after meeting with my Squadron mates... drinking in uniform carries an advisory and not an outright specific prohibition.

I find it interesting that several of the preceding writers, including my good friend Rotorhead do not seem to understand that the default position of the United States Constitution is not prohibition but privilege. Meaning if there is no law against it... then simply put, it is not illegal. It is an act for which you can not legally be prohibited.

So here's your test of authority, rights, and law.

1. I am uniform and in my home, waiting to go to meeting in 30 minutes.. Which police authority do you call if I light up my pipe?

2. I am now alone and in my car and on the way to a meeting. Again, which authority will ensue on your behalf. 

3. And now, I light up at the Squadron meeting? Well that gets us back to the second hand smoke issue. And since my rights end at your nose, I do not make an issue here.

Unless you can come up with a construct in which this private act is "outlawed" unless you can establish standing, unless you can assign a personal, institutional, or civic standing and authority, then you are expressing a personal opinion which has no principal in the law. While your privilege to express an opinion is protected, and I will defend that right to the death, it is ultimately not your business, not the business of the state, and not the business of CAP.

So are we just fighting for the freedoms that each individual prefers? Then you have not been defending the US Constition, you have been inviting tyranny. That's not why the Constitution was written and that is not why we are sworn to protect and defend it.

Now you can discuss: What is the difference between a right, privilege, and liberty?

http://www.kentucky.com/142/story/621329.html

Since we're talking about Cadets and our "image".   The Univ of Kentucky campus will be smoke free starting this fall semester...  They're not telling their staff they can't smoke, just that you can't smoke on our property. 

KyCAP;
That is the U of K's privilege to prohibit smoking on their property - You can do the same on your property too. CAP owns no (or very little) property. So your point is?
They borrow a bunch of property and those they borrow from, likely prohibit smoking already.

The other issue that you have raised is smoking in the presence of cadets. However, that is not the specific topic of this thread. The topic is SHOULD SMOKING BE BANNED WHILE IN CAP UNIFORM.

QuoteCAP cannot tell you - for instance, that you can't drink alcohol in uniform either.

Sure it can.  CAP won't be able to throw you in jail if you drink in uniform or smoke in uniform, but if those were the regulations it certainly can kick you out for breaking that regulation and there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it. 

I have the constitutional right to go on tv and give a major rant about CAP and its leaders and how disgraceful they are (I don't believe that, by the way) and CAP could certainly 2b me for exercising my right to free speech.

RiverAux;
These things have come up from time to time in many institutions. Advisory versus Prohibition usually means that neither side wants to make a FEDERAL CASE of the issue.

LA said police can't drink in uniform... they showed standing, as they pay for services as an employer. It was struck down by the Court of Appeals. SO, that is when the LA police dept. built locker rooms so Policemen have some place to take off their uniform and therefore comply. Without the accommodation the City of LA couldn't sustain the prohibition. I think the year was 1935 or '36. I can site the case after a little more study.

Once again, since no one has come up with a good CAP "standing" argument... then you guys are just burning up ones and zeroes.

PS Since no one bit on my question above, let me be of service.
1. Rights - Specifically expressed by the Constitution and a limit to the authority of the state. Freedom of Speech - Assembly - Religion
2. Privilege - Actually a right held by the state to control and "loaned" to individuals. Pilots license, driving, etc.
3. Liberty - Everything that is not specifically prohibited or against the law. Liberty is the default position of all laws and the Constitution. Meaning, it is for all practical purposes a right, unless otherwise specifically prohibited it is a constitutionally protected act.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:41:58 AM

So you are saying that CAP can mandate anything that it wants? Not hardly.

Within the limits of existing law, it certainly can.

The penalty for failure to comply would be dismissal.

Scotty you have made my point. Although, I thought I was doing OK on my own. 

But your "Within limits of existing laws" doesn't establish either the law of which you speak or the standing that CAP has in the matter. How would you craft that prohibition? To assume that CAP has the same standing as the military is probably going to be an argument without merit. Mostly because it wasn't an original condition of my membership. Additionally, we are not employed by CAP. We have no health insurance, so they get nothing in insurance savings, etc. See my earlier postings. 

CAP isn't going to prohibit working on your car in a uniform, thumbing a ride in uniform, spitting on the sidewalk in uniform, sneezing in uniform, swearing in uniform, drinking coffee in uniform, doing your laundry in uniform, getting a hair cut in uniform... because there are reasons why a blanket prohibition would cause more problems than are solved in those and 10 thousand other cases.. AND, CAP has no dogs in these fights either.

That doesn't mean you couldn't petition command. Try that. Then they'll explain to you their standing and interest. I'm really good at drawing up petitions although I won't sign it of course.

You guys need to hone your arguments if you want to get this done. Repeating your personal preferences will get you nowhere. I am not arguing FOR smoking. I arguing AGAINST lame, pointless, and idle thinking. Bolster your arguments. Do the research. Make a fact fortress that makes your points impregnable. Get compelling well thought arguments together.

Change the world. Right now you are not there. Repeating the narcissistic, "that's the way I want it." Followed by "CAP can make do whatever thing they like." Is not true nor a supported fact based argument.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:41:58 AM
1. I am uniform and in my home, waiting to go to meeting in 30 minutes.. Which police authority do you call if I light up my pipe?

2. I am now alone and in my car and on the way to a meeting. Again, which authority will ensue on your behalf. 

3. And now, I light up at the Squadron meeting? Well that gets us back to the second hand smoke issue. And since my rights end at your nose, I do not make an issue here.

1. CAP has no standing in your home, so this is no problem.

2. CAP already restricts what you can do in uniform when traveling to and from CAP activities.  Although I think that adding smoking to this list might be unwise, it is inarguable that CAP has already demonstrated standing to restrict your activity in this instance.

3. You are at a CAP function, so CAP definitely has standing to enact any restrictions it wishes.

For the record, I would welcome a ban on smoking in CAP but I'm not going to push for it, although I DO believe that it should be done out of sight as much as possible.

Yes I'm late to the discussion but no, CAP should not prohibit smoking in uniform since the military and more specifically the AF, has not banned it.

Quote from: NC Hokie on July 20, 2009, 04:35:37 AM
For the record, I would welcome a ban on smoking in CAP but I'm not going to push for it, although I DO believe that it should be done out of sight as much as possible.

Why, exactly, should it be done out of sight?

Quote from: BrandonKea on July 20, 2009, 04:39:40 AM

Quote from: NC Hokie on July 20, 2009, 04:35:37 AM
For the record, I would welcome a ban on smoking in CAP but I'm not going to push for it, although I DO believe that it should be done out of sight as much as possible.

Why, exactly, should it be done out of sight?

Because of the potential conflict with the DDR message and because of the statistics quoted by RiverAux at the end of page three.

But it looks so cool...

Quote from: NC Hokie on July 20, 2009, 04:44:33 AM

Quote from: BrandonKea on July 20, 2009, 04:39:40 AM

Quote from: NC Hokie on July 20, 2009, 04:35:37 AM
For the record, I would welcome a ban on smoking in CAP but I'm not going to push for it, although I DO believe that it should be done out of sight as much as possible.

Why, exactly, should it be done out of sight?

Because of the potential conflict with the DDR message and because of the statistics quoted by RiverAux at the end of page three.

Sorry I thought you meant a ban should be done out of sight, as in they do it quietly and slip it in some new regulation, lol

NC Hokie;
I believe you just recounted my points, and conclusions pretty much word for word.
Repetition is discounted as discourse.
RiverAux
Walter Cronkite smoked a pipe his whole life and died at 92... how dumb/bad/awful did we think he was? Kurt Vonnegut, Gene Roddenberry, Albert Einstein, Henry Kissenger, Albert Schweitzer, and Norman Mailer did too. Of course that doesn't mean any more than every human enterprise and habit has its own representatives. But these men were somehow able to retain a reputation without giving up smoking. Maybe because they actually did something useful, productive, and brilliant.   

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 05:00:22 AM
Walter Cronkite smoked a pipe his whole life and died at 92... how dumb did we think he was? Kurt Vonnegut and Norman Mailer did too.

And my Dad died at age 50 from the combined effects of Emphysema and the Hong Kong flu.
The doctors at the City of Hope said the Emphysema was a direct result of smoking 2 packs a day.

Dumb luck and genetics allow some people to smoke for years with no ill effects while others who were not so blessed die before their time.

Feeling guilty about your smoking? You're going to some great lengths defending it.

Quote from: BrandonKea on July 20, 2009, 04:51:31 AM

Quote from: NC Hokie on July 20, 2009, 04:44:33 AM

Quote from: BrandonKea on July 20, 2009, 04:39:40 AM

Quote from: NC Hokie on July 20, 2009, 04:35:37 AM
For the record, I would welcome a ban on smoking in CAP but I'm not going to push for it, although I DO believe that it should be done out of sight as much as possible.

Why, exactly, should it be done out of sight?

Because of the potential conflict with the DDR message and because of the statistics quoted by RiverAux at the end of page three.

Sorry I thought you meant a ban should be done out of sight, as in they do it quietly and slip it in some new regulation, lol

You've been reading 39-1 and the endless ICLs too much!  ;D

QuoteWalter Cronkite smoked a pipe his whole life and died at 92... how dumb/bad/awful did we think he was? Kurt Vonnegut, Gene Roddenberry, Albert Einstein, Henry Kissenger, Albert Schweitzer, and Norman Mailer did too. Of course that doesn't mean any more than every human enterprise and habit has its own representatives. But these men were somehow able to retain a reputation without giving up smoking. Maybe because they actually did something useful, productive, and brilliant.   

You might want to read what I wrote more carefully in that I only cited a statistic that it made 40% of adults look less favorably on a person.  The majority of folks said it made no difference to them.  In my opinion that is an unacceptably high unfavorable rating even if it doesn't represent a majority.  Others may differ. 

I do note that every one of the persons you cited above is dead or close to it and came to fame at a time when 2-3 times as many American smoke as they do today.  I can't think of a single person today who is widely admired for major  accomplishments of a stature similar to those you named who regularly smokes in public settings.   There probably are some, but they're the exceptions.  I note that even our current President who smoked regularly until quite recently wasn't seen smoking on the campaign trail even though it was widely known that he did it. 

QuoteCAP isn't going to prohibit working on your car in a uniform, thumbing a ride in uniform, spitting on the sidewalk in uniform, sneezing in uniform, swearing in uniform, drinking coffee in uniform, doing your laundry in uniform, getting a hair cut in uniform... because there are reasons why a blanket prohibition would cause more problems than are solved in those and 10 thousand other cases.. AND, CAP has no dogs in these fights either.

We already have a broad prohibition on wearing the CAP uniform when not participating in some sort of CAP-related activity.  Just because you own it doesn't mean you can wear it when you want.  Whats the penalty if you do?  You can get kicked out of CAP.  Pick any MARB results you want and you will find someone terminated for failure to follow regulations.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 05:00:22 AM
I believe you just recounted my points, and conclusions pretty much word for word.
Repetition is discounted as discourse.

Your dismissal is noted; I'll be sure to limit my comments to points that we disagree upon in the future.  That said, you asked for the authority to ban smoking while in your car traveling to a CAP meeting.  Since you appear to have missed my answer, I'll repeat it at the end of this post.  For now, though, what is your argument?  Your first definitive statement on the issue was this:

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 19, 2009, 03:25:50 PM
When CAP begins to pay for my health insurance, treat me at military hospitals, and give me free medications... then CAP should have something to say about this personal habit.

Your next post (Reply #61, in which we apparently agreed "word for word") delved in to the concept of CAP's standing to ban smoking in uniform.  It appeared that your position was that CAP has no standing to do any such thing.  In fact, you all but said so yourself here:

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:41:58 AM
CAP cannot tell you - for instance, that you can't drink alcohol in uniform either. The reason is because it has no standing in this act.

You then put out the three scenarios that I responded to, ending the second with the statement "which authority will ensue on your behalf."  My answer was that CAP already has precedent to restrict one's activities while traveling to and from CAP activities, giving it all of the standing it needs to add smoking to that list.  Is your assertion that we agree "word for word" an admission that CAP does have standing in this area?

This is written by a reformed smoker. I smoked for about 18 months, in my early 20s, and quit for economic and health reasons. Both my parents smoked, contributing to my father's cardio problems and death at 61, and my mother's death at 84 of COPD.

I was exposed to second hand smoke at home, and in the Navy until I was about 38, when the rules on where you could smoke got a lot tighter. Since I retired from the Navy in '89, I have actively structured my social life to avoid smoky areas. California law has aided me greatly in achieving this goal. My sweetie is seriously affected by smoke, which is also a factor.

So much for my "credentials". I do not see the need for an all-out ban on smoking in uniform, for a couple of reasons. First, many members who smoke choose to be self-limiting on smoking in front of cadets. Second, the numbers of smokers seems to be declining, and that, too, becomes self-limiting. Encouraging smokers to conform to the existing rules is probably sufficient as the number of smokers decline by attrition.

WIWAC, my squadron commander and his wife, the admin officer both smoked, but I NEVER saw them smoke at a local CAP meeting, or in front of cadets at other activities. I never even knew they smoked until I was invited to their house the first time.

As for the commentary on some famous people being poor examples, of the six listed, three were not often seen on TV, one died in 1965 before smoking became a social issue, and the other two ended their active appearances on TV in '77 and '81. The public attitude on smoking was far different back then, so the example is inadequate related to 2009. Were these folks in the public eye today, I'd guess that they would modify their behaviour to conform to prevailing social norms, at least in public view.

YMMV.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 03:40:46 AM
CAP isn't going to prohibit working on your car in a uniform, thumbing a ride in uniform, spitting on the sidewalk in uniform, sneezing in uniform, swearing in uniform, drinking coffee in uniform, doing your laundry in uniform, getting a hair cut in uniform... because there are reasons why a blanket prohibition would cause more problems than are solved in those and 10 thousand other cases.. AND, CAP has no dogs in these fights either.

But if CAP decided it wanted to enact these things, it certainly could.

Since your membership is entirely voluntary, the corporation can require or prohibit anything it wishes. If you disagree with anything it mandates (or doesn't allow), you may quit.

Similarly, if CAP wanted to prohibit smoking in uniform, it could do that.

Ladies and gentlemen;
I have been attempting to offer a civics lesson. We are speaking of both social behavior and administrative law. In this matter there is precedent, standing, authority, and outcome (also called purpose/conclusion).
To get what you think best, "a prohibition" of smoking in uniform... you'll need to address each item, in particular.

On this thread, I have seen precedent argued over and over. This is the "CAP can make you do anything they want when you wear the CAP uniform." That is simply not true.
SO to help you understand let us examine AF rules on fat and fuzzy wearing AF's uniform. Do you think the Air Force wants to weigh us all at every meeting to make sure
we are complying? Now in this example standing IS established because it is the Air Force Uniform and CAP is their auxillary. So lets make that an outright prohibition and not an advisory. I believe General Courter would have to be dismissed. I say this as a point of argument and not as a known fact. Let us do the same for having a drink in uniform. Advisory versus prohibition are for good reasons, mostly the reason for an advisory is to mold behavior in a social manner. Prohibitions have to have enforcement authority and standing.

I have asked for arguments on standing and authority - to date there have been none. I can't come up with a reasoned argument for these two items on your behalf.

So let me try to get you to outcome. How many officers would CAP lose? How much bad press would CAP suffer? How much upheaval and money and for what specific purpose would CAP suffer and endure this crusade? To what purpose, end, outcome, has the prohibition served?

So answer "standing" and "authority" (authority is not precedence so please don't continue to confuse it, it makes you look bad) standing is your (CAPs) right to prohibit outweighing my liberty to smoke. And authority - meaning if you can't enforce it - likely it is best not to try it. Are we going to have secret police in CAP. Are we going to have weekly reports or daily reports from the field on the private smoking habits of our members? Are we going to have blood tests for nicotine or just check for smokey breath? You know the old "alcohol prohibition amendment." However that is not the best example just the best known. The NBA and proBaseball have the same problem with the steroid issue and in that STANDING is not a problem.

Once again -- Laws and rules in which CAP has NO standing are rules which are capricious and arbitrary. CAP usually doesn't have rules about tax policy, water policy, foreign trade, international relations, prisoners rights at Gitmo, etc... because it has no institutional standing or interest. Smoking as a private act - would be tough to argue as to CAPs standing and enforcement. So we can go around for one more set of personal opinion statements but you guys aren't moving your ball. This discussion falls under the common law, constitutional law, and administrative law.

I seldom try to be a provocateur at this site... but I've got to say, you guys aren't studying much beyond your own navel.

And as soon as the USAF bans smoking in its uniforms, I would wholly support a ban on smoking in a CAP Uniform.  But not before.

Trying to exceed military standards is a great way to alienate a whole bunch of people.

As it turns out... cigarettes are banned for men already...

CAPM 39-1, 1-6a, Appearance of Men in Uniform: Articles such as wallets, pencils, pens, watch chains, fobs,
pins, jewelry, handkerchiefs, combs, cigars, cigarettes, pipes, and sunglass cases will not be exposed on the
uniform.  The wear of wristwatches and rings is permitted.  The wear of identification bracelets is likewise
permitted provided they present a neat and conservative appearance.  Conservative sunglasses may be worn,
except in military formation.  Ribbons, when worn, will be clean and not frayed.  Wear of earrings,
ornamentation on eyeglass lenses, or visible ornaments around the neck are prohibited while in uniform.

Ladies, smoke 'em if you got em. There's no such prohibition for women.

BrandonKea;
Cigarettes are NOT banned in 39-1. The object is to not be "exposed." MEANING, button the pocket not "don't smoke."  I am beginning to think this is turning into a remedial "read for meaning" class.

Quote from: BrandonKea on July 20, 2009, 01:55:57 PM
As it turns out... cigarettes are banned for men already...

CAPM 39-1, 1-6a, Appearance of Men in Uniform: Articles such as wallets, pencils, pens, watch chains, fobs,
pins, jewelry, handkerchiefs, combs, cigars, cigarettes, pipes, and sunglass cases will not be exposed on the
uniform.  The wear of wristwatches and rings is permitted.  The wear of identification bracelets is likewise
permitted provided they present a neat and conservative appearance.  Conservative sunglasses may be worn,
except in military formation.  Ribbons, when worn, will be clean and not frayed.  Wear of earrings,
ornamentation on eyeglass lenses, or visible ornaments around the neck are prohibited while in uniform.

Ladies, smoke 'em if you got em. There's no such prohibition for women.

That's not a prohibition on smoking, that's a prohibition on carrying cigarettes in a way that they are visible on the uniform.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:38:47 PM
This is the "CAP can make you do anything they want when you wear the CAP uniform." That is simply not true.

Smithsonia, you're right, CAP can't make you do anything they want. They can however legally say that you can't smoke in uniform because this is a private volunteer organization. That's the same reason that schools and private companies can say that there employees will not smoke at work. This is also the same reason that CAP can say you have to take safety quizzes and sit through EO briefings in order to do anything. To put it another way, if you want to play in CAP, you follow CAPs (sometimes idiotic) rules.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:38:47 PM
How many officers would CAP lose?

From where I stand, only a handful, and they'll be quickly replaced by people who are glad to see us taking a "positive position on social issues."

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:38:47 PM
How much bad press would CAP suffer?

None, in fact it would likely be positive press. See above.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:38:47 PM
How much upheaval and money and for what specific purpose would CAP suffer and endure this crusade?

Minimal upheaval, and I don't see how it costs any money.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:38:47 PM
To what purpose, end, outcome, has the prohibition served?

You'd have to ask whoever enacts it for that one.

To put it simply, should CAP ban smoking, not up to me. Will I leave if they do, nope.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 02:08:11 PM
BrandonKea;
Cigarettes are NOT banned in 39-1. The object is not be "exposed." MEANING, button the pocket not "don't smoke."  I am beginning to think this is turning into a remedial "read for meaning" class.

I think he's arguing "If you're smoking it, it's exposed."  I think you are correct that the intent is exposed while being stored in a uniform pocket.

Sorry to weigh in late on the legal side.  My day job involves invoking the Constitution daily as a prosecuting attorney.  ;)

The Constitution does not factor into this discussion at all since 99.9% of the time, CAP is NOT functioning as a state actor (i.e. governmental entity).  When the bills are being paid by USAF or DEA, you might have an argument that the Constitution applies to CAP.

That said, a private corporation (as has been referenced here many times) can pretty much require anything it wants so long as a state or federal law or regulation are not violated.

Many corporations are requiring their employees to quit smoking, even at home, or risk being fired.  The justification is that the corporation is trying to keep health care costs down.  You can debate the company's logic or not, but it has been upheld that the company has the right to fire you for engaging in a practice which is not yet illegal.

I quit smoking this March as part of my agreement with my wife to join Civil Air Patrol, and I won't weigh in one way or another since I feel it is a very personal decision for each person.  The senior members I know who do smoke go out of their way to do so where they will not be observed by cadets.  If I were still a smoker, I would do so myself.

But let's not make things more complicated by dragging the lawyers into this thread.  ::)  The debate remains, SHOULD CAP pass a regulation banning smoking while in uniform (or drinking, or gambling, or eating doughnuts)?

CAP restrictions on your first ammendment rights while in uniform:
-can't wear uniform

Quoteat any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by, any organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated as Totalitarian, Fascist, Communist, or subversive; or advocates or approves the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States; or seeks to alter the form of the United States Government by unconstitutional means.

or

Quotewhen participating in activities such as public speeches, interviews,
picket lines, marches, rallies, or in any public demonstration not approved by the Air Force. Wearing the uniform may imply sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted./quote]
The above restrictions have basically been in place forever in CAP and if CAP can restrict the practice of something specifically allowed in the Constitution, I think they can restrict smoking in uniform. 

Quite frankly I'm alarmed that a CAP member doesn't understand the concept that if you want to wear a CAP uniform, you have to follow CAP regulations no matter how nutty. 

Quote from: RiverAux on July 20, 2009, 02:42:06 PM
CAP restrictions on your second ammendment rights while in uniform:
-can't wear uniform

Quoteat any meeting or demonstration that is a function of, or sponsored by, any organization, association, movement, group or combination of persons that the Attorney General of the United States has designated as Totalitarian, Fascist, Communist, or subversive; or advocates or approves the commission of acts of force or violence to deny others their rights under the Constitution of the United States; or seeks to alter the form of the United States Government by unconstitutional means.

or

Quotewhen participating in activities such as public speeches, interviews,
picket lines, marches, rallies, or in any public demonstration not approved by the Air Force. Wearing the uniform may imply sanction of the cause for which the demonstration or activity is conducted./quote]
The above restrictions have basically been in place forever in CAP and if CAP can restrict the practice of something specifically allowed in the Constitution, I think they can restrict smoking in uniform. 

Quite frankly I'm alarmed that a CAP member doesn't understand the concept that if you want to wear a CAP uniform, you have to follow CAP regulations no matter how nutty.

Actually, those examples would be first amendment rights, not second, although since we are unarmed, that would be second amendment. ;D

You're right and I've made the change.  Though CAP also limits a persons second ammendment rights regarding carrying firearms while in uniform as well.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:38:47 PM
On this thread, I have seen precedent argued over and over. This is the "CAP can make you do anything they want when you wear the CAP uniform." That is simply not true.

No, CAP can't make you do anything, but CAP can and does regularly put people out of the organization for failure to follow it's rules and regulations.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:38:47 PM
I have asked for arguments on standing and authority - to date there have been none. I can't come up with a reasoned argument for these two items on your behalf.

Where do you get the idea that CAP has no authority to enforce it's own rules and regulations?  Have you read the Oath of Membership on the revised CAPF-12?  One of it's clauses requires the applicant to "agree to abide by the decisions of those in authority of the Civil Air Patrol."  In short, applying for or renewing one's membership grants CAP the right to enforce any rules and regulations upon the member that it wishes.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:38:47 PM
So answer "standing" and "authority" (authority is not precedence so please don't continue to confuse it, it makes you look bad) standing is your (CAPs) right to prohibit outweighing my liberty to smoke. And authority - meaning if you can't enforce it - likely it is best not to try it. Are we going to have secret police in CAP. Are we going to have weekly reports or daily reports from the field on the private smoking habits of our members? Are we going to have blood tests for nicotine or just check for smokey breath?

Are you trying to be obtuse?  The question being debated is whether or not CAP should ban smoking while in CAP uniform.  Since you cannot, by regulation, wear your CAP uniform at anything other than approved activities, there's no suggestion at all to restrict what you do in the privacy of your own home or on non-CAP time.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 01:38:47 PM
Once again -- Laws and rules in which CAP has NO standing are rules which are capricious and arbitrary. CAP usually doesn't have rules about tax policy, water policy, foreign trade, international relations, prisoners rights at Gitmo, etc... because it has no institutional standing or interest.

Since your position is that CAP has no standing to restrict it's members activities while in uniform, I challenge you to post a photograph of yourself wearing a CAP uniform at your next local city council or school board meeting.

DaveDove and RiverAux.

I think the discussion is not about Constitutional Rights per se'. Smoking is not a specially protected right in the US Constitution. I've never argued that. Privacy is the issue. Once again in the examples that you've given... "standing"  while wearing the uniform during a PUBLIC act is not in question. FedEx and the Post Office I am sure have similar prohibitions. I am also rather sure that they DON'T have a specific prohibition as to kissing your wife and kids in the privacy of your home, or in your car, while in uniform.

Because in this case the Post Office and FedEx have neither standing or enforcement powers.

In this discussion, standing, privacy, and enforcement are very much, and I think, the central and only questions.

SO if you establish the Smoking while in uniform ban, then you must enforce it. Secret Police, smoking in partial uniform (gray slacks and black-t 30 seconds before I put on my golf shirt I quash my pipe) Standing and enforcement... Preference and precedence are the merry-go-round non answers. And around we go again.

NC Hokie or anyone else who misses this point. Let us say that for some purpose CAP wanted to make a rule that you could wear only black underwear (skivvies) with your uniform. After all the military has underwear (skivvies and tees) guidelines for their uniforms. When I was in it was all dull greens, underwear too. And the Air Force MSgt and StaffSgt.. checked, but then we all lived together and had no privacy.
Enforcement, standing, privacy, on this would be difficult. Obtuse? No! Specific? Yes!

CAP has plenty of enforcement powers in regards to its own regulations.  Yes, you would probably be able to get away for years with lighting your pipe up in uniform before getting into your car to drive to a meeting.  But, if we had a ban, you most certainly would get in trouble very quickly for lighting up at the CAP activity itself, even if you ran around to the back of the building and hid. 

Heres how enforcement in CAP works (for this or any other regulation violation):
1.  Smithsonia smokes in uniform
2.  CAP member sees him smoking in uniform.  Eventually reported to squadron commander
3.  Squadron commander probably counsels you and if you keep doing it, sends 2b to NHQ. 
4.  Smithsonia leaves CAP. 

Now, we all know that there would be squadron and wing commanders who probably would enforce this as strictly as they do uniform violations -- very little or not at all.  But that is a failure of leadership, not a failure of the regulation.

By the way, I find it interesting that the percentage of CAPTalk people voting for a total ban is exactly the same as the percentage of US adults who would think less of someone because they smoke. 

I'm really not too surprised that the total ban idea is losing the poll as this is a pretty extreme position.  But, I'm fairly sure that if the poll was whether or not to ban smoking in CAP vehicles or CAP buildings that it would be an overwhelming majority in favor and that there would have been almost no discussion at all about that. 

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 03:32:28 PM
NC Hokie or anyone else who misses this point. Let us say that for some purpose CAP wanted to make a rule that you could wear only black underwear with your uniform.
Enforcement, standing, privacy. Would be difficult. Obtuse? No! Specific? Yes!

Enforcement: CAP certainly could not enforce the rule without proof of violation, but if you show them your white boxers they would be well within their rights to punish the infraction.

Standing: You are a member of CAP and voluntarily agree to follow it's rules and regulations.

Privacy: If CAP never sees your white boxers then they won't have an issue with you, although you would still be in violation of the rule.

BTW, difficult does not equal impossible or prohibited.

RiverAux;
I have no quarrel with your last posting and agree.

However regarding privacy. I use my own name as I write, express, argue and defend. I do this as a matter of intellectual disclosure and propriety.

You guard your identity like Spiderman and for your own and I am certain good reasons. I don't question your reasons. Any reason is fine with me but...

Either you are for privacy or you are not. It is hypocrisy otherwise.

This is crazy. All the legalese, wrangling, sniping back and forth over a simple "yes", "no" or "I don't know/care" question.

No wonder we can't anything done.

I do have to agree with a couple people on one thing. Let's not bother making up another rule that we know isn't going to enforced, or inconsistently so.

Wow, this whole subject saddens me really. I personally detest cigarettes, I've never smoked a cig and never will. That said, who am I, who are we.. to say to another man "You can not smoke". Am I still living in the United States of America? Don't you guys remember Patrick Henry's famous "Give me liberty or give me death!" speech? If don't want to inhale second hand smoke a simple solution to this is to stand upwind of the smoker. Come on guys its like seat belt laws, I always wear my seat belt, it just ticks me off that my government tells me I have to wear it. Wake up people.. this is still the land of the free right?

NcHokie;
"Standing" and privacy - is not about my standing in CAP. It is about CAPs standing in what is currently my business. CAP has no standing in my briefs, or in my pipe puffing in my living room, porch, or writing office. Other than the standing I allow it to have. In this place - I grant. CAP can NOT take. When this is different, my resignation is in.

"Enforcement" - Since we haven't established standing or privacy, then the enforcement structure will not be an issue. In this case de-pants-ing or disrobing would be the only equable solution for uniform enforcement of uniform items. In CAP, and the military uniform, after you are out of basic, uniform is exterior. Otherwise the Marine in Afghanistan with the Cartoon underwear would have been articled out. Instead he is a bit of a celebrity hero.

Incidentally, CAP currently does regulate what underwear you wear while in uniform -- both socks and t-shirts. 

RiverAux
Not skivvies which was specific in my previous post. Since the T and socks can both be viewed from the exterior... then we aren't speaking about the same thing. Gosh, this is getting goofy. Read for meaning please and don't misrepresent the other side.

To me skivies means any sort of underwear.

RiverAux;
Then for you boxers and briefs. One can't account for every regionalism.

Quote from: Smithsonia on July 20, 2009, 04:29:04 PM
RiverAux
Not skivvies which was specific in my previous post. Since the T and socks can both be viewed from the exterior... then we aren't speaking about the same thing. Gosh, this is getting goofy. Read for meaning please and don't misrepresent the other side.

Okay, if viewing from the exterior is the issue that defines whether CAP can regulate something you wear while in CAP uniform, then how can CAP regulate the color of socks worn with BDUS?  The BDU pants are bloused over the boot or tucked in and in which case the socks should never be seen? 

This will be my final post on this matter.

To all:

Should smoking be banned while in CAP uniform?  Not outright, although I would support a regulation prohibiting it while in CAP vehicles, facilities, or while in the presence of cadets.

To Smithsonia:

Please answer this question with a simple yes or no answer: Can CAP restrict the activities of members at CAP activities or while wearing the CAP uniform in public?  Not should they, but can they?

RiverAux;
Socks can be exposed at the boot top. Mine are often seen but seldom heard. I wear 8 inchers not 9-10 inchers and so I can expose a little sock now and then. Christian crosses can be worn but must be tucked in, etc.. in this we can assume placed in your T-shirt not stuck up a body cavity. Gosh this is the goofiest thread I have ever been apart of. And I've been in some doozies and with you I might add.

NC Hokie;

I am not for prohibiting smoking. BUT, then too - I am for NOT allowing smoking in CAP Vehicles, among cadets (of course one can get accidentally caught and I wouldn't expect to be articled out if I was),I am not for smoking on the flightline, in the plane, or meeting rooms etc. Of course someone will now come up with a variety of "what ifs." Which is why advisory (specific restrictions) is better than prohibited (general ban).

I am a responsible man and good officer. Trust me to do right. Treat me with respect and you will always receive it in return. Treat me like a child and I'll treat you like an idiot. How's that?