Should smoking be banned while in CAP uniform?

[Rotorhead]

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.

[Smithsonia]

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.

[Lt Oliv]

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.

[BrandonKea]

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.

[Smithsonia]

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.

[jeders]

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.

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.

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."

How much bad press would CAP suffer?

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

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.

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.

[Gunner C]

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.

[capn_shad]

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)?

[RiverAux]

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

at 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

when 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. 

[davedove]

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

at 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

when 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.

[RiverAux]

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.

[NC Hokie]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Smithsonia]

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!

[RiverAux]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[NC Hokie]

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.

[Smithsonia]

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.

[Hawk200]

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.

[MooneyMeyer]

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?

[Smithsonia]

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.