By The Navy announced they will ban smoking on all submarines effective 31 Dec 2010.
The Navy announced today a ban on smoking aboard submarines while they are deployed below the surface after medical testing showed non-smokers suffered effects of second-hand smoke.
Smoking would still be allowed above decks when the sub is on the surface, he said, but they typically pack out for 60 days at a time, sometimes longer, leaving smokers without an opportunity to light up for months at a stretch.
Jones said the Navy would continue to provide smoking cessation assistance, including nicotine patches and gum. [ABC News]
I am surprised it took this long to ban smoking on submarines. I remember when you could smoke in your office, on planes, in restaurants, on subways, etc… I am curious why it took the Navy this long to stop smoking on submarines.
Do you think the Navy should have banned smoking in submarines?
9:31 pm on April 8th, 2010 1
I can't really speak intelligently on the subject but I wonder; was (is) there a place on the subs for sailors to smoke? Did it effect anyone else (the non-smokers)? Perhaps there's a submariner who can educate us.
I would recommend the electronic cigs for these guys (if they do not wish to quit). They're not as satisfying as the real thing but it works in a pinch I suppose.
11:13 pm on April 8th, 2010 2
They're in a can, under water. Get a nicotine patch.
11:34 pm on April 8th, 2010 3
Wow, really Korea? Now you ban smoking on submarines? Now? Wow. The whole country needs a nicotine patch.
1:38 am on April 9th, 2010 4
I think they're talking about the US Navy.
12:16 pm on April 9th, 2010 5
If the military can order their people into harm's way, they can certainly order them out of harm's way. I can't believe smoking was allowed on subs in the first place.
One of my TA's in college was an ex-submariner who told me a story of how some guy had put a sh*tload of Tabasco sauce on some microwave popcorn and proceeded to leave it in the microwave for several minutes too long, burning it. Apparently, the resulting "tear-gas" was so bad that they had to surface.
12:37 pm on April 9th, 2010 6
2nd hand smoke? Didn't John Stocil do a program about the illigetimate claims on 2nd hand smoke as well as interviewing the biggest advocates and calling their bluff, to which they agreed the science was worthless?
Regardless, due to the enourmous amount of taxes smokers must pay,(Its for childrens health care) shouldn't the best sections of the sub be reserved for these people. The deadbeats (who pay 'zero' for childrens healthcare)can be given other places on the sub to congregate in.
1:44 pm on April 9th, 2010 7
If I'm supposed to be cool with second hand smoke, then I assume you are cool with me pissing and vomiting on your shoes. It wouldn't even be as harmful as second hand smoke.
And no, smokers do not deserve "the best sections of the sub," or the best sections of anything. They are actively causing harm and discomfort to others.
1:54 pm on April 9th, 2010 8
Not at all sure how you can try and make that comparison… I'm not a smoker and I don't particularly care for the smell of smoke, but the 2nd hand smoke argument is bunk.
1:58 pm on April 9th, 2010 9
Are they going to ban ALL smoking… or just cigarettes?
With a possible repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell yet a ban on "smoking", I'm getting mixed signals.
2:08 pm on April 9th, 2010 10
Somebody find Buckman, launch him out a torpedo tube.
2:10 pm on April 9th, 2010 11
The nicotine habit is notoriously hard to break. Maybe they could dip snuff.
12:30 am on April 12th, 2010 12
Oh, it’s bunk. Ok. Then I guess you won’t mind if I shit in your bed.
10:34 am on April 12th, 2010 13
Nice answer from a person who isn't interested in the truth, only vulgar responses. Hope you don't own a gun.
12:02 pm on April 12th, 2010 14
Despite tokyojesusfist very publicly cursing a violent death upon me… being unaware of that thing which they call "satire"… I have to agree with him here.
Anybody who wishes to defend the right to blow second-hand smoke needs a good thrashing… verbal or otherwise.
To non-smokers, second-hand smoke is not too different than puke or farts… medically and statistically harmless, if you say so, but needlessly unpleasant and to be avoided.
Keep in mind, private businesses should be allowed to host smokers… but in any place where where smokers and non-smokers are forced to mingle, such as a submarine, rights to be unaffected default with the non-smokers.
Does anybody here dare to defend their "right" to push the dirty results of their addiction off on those around them?
12:07 pm on April 12th, 2010 15
As I mentioned, I'm not a smoker and I don't particularly like the smell of smoke. My point is that instead of tackling issues head on (as you have by saying, "it stinks"), we come up with reasons not based in reality as reasons. If the smell is the issue, then just say, "it stinks and we want to ban it for that reason", instead of, "science proves (when it doesn't) that second hand smoke is dangerous". I will respect the one that is honest about it than one that wants to create junk science to support a cause.
12:43 pm on April 12th, 2010 16
Thomas,
You are absolutely right.
It seems everyone from the government to corporations to special interest groups are so intent on pushing their agendas that the default action is to lie and exaggerate on every issue… which is then used as a foundation for the next group to based their misconceptions.
This kinda creates an alternate reality that is rather funny if you stand back and look at it objectively.
12:55 pm on April 12th, 2010 17
I think he was going for the Steve Martin skit.
"Do you mind if I smoke? No, do you mind if I fart?"
1:03 pm on April 12th, 2010 18
I think smoking on submarines should be mandatory.
10:45 am on April 13th, 2010 19
To which I would add, if congress had any intention of doing something about smoking the answer would be simple. Raise the smoking age to 19 next year, 20 the year after etc.etc.
However congress and the states aren't interested in stopping smoking. There is too much money involved. The states recieve billions each year for their coffers and congressmen recieve millions in campaign contributions.
The only people who are hurt/punished/ and have less money to feed the kids, are the smokers.
If China had our congress during the opium wars, opium would still be legal in China with huge taxes. However it makes people 'feel good' that if they raise taxes on tobbacco they are helping the children.
Wait till the tax on alchohol and twinkies comes up, and its coming. Guess who will be advocating a tax on soda and potato chips? (its for the children, you know)
7:16 pm on April 15th, 2010 20
How is it vulgar? If it's okay to inflict second hand smoke on someone else, then surely it must be okay to shit in their bed as well. I don't see any difference.
And what does me owning or not owning a gun have to do with this?