Should smoking be banned while in CAP uniform?

[Rotorhead]

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.

[Smithsonia]

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?

[KyCAP]

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. 

[Smithsonia]

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.

[RiverAux]

CAP 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.

[Smithsonia]

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.

[Rotorhead]

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.

[Smithsonia]

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.

[NC Hokie]

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.

[jb512]

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.

[BrandonKea]

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?

[NC Hokie]

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.

[jb512]

But it looks so cool...

[BrandonKea]

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

[Smithsonia]

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.   

[PHall]

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.

[NC Hokie]

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! 

[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.   

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. 

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.

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.

[NC Hokie]

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:

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:

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?

[SarDragon]

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.