http://hamptonroads.com/node/565100

"The military has been trying to reduce smoking among soldiers and vets, including banning indoor smoking and ending smoking on submarines by the end of the year. The Pentagon laid out a plan in 1999 to reduce smoking rates by 5 percent a year and reduce chewing tobacco use to 15 percent by 2001, but wasn't able to achieve the goals."
[Reply]

Its amazing how we can ask someone to put their life on the line but then deny them the simple pleasure of a smoke or a chew. At least cigars aren't included.
[Reply]

Wonder how this will affect Hugh and his shipments?
[Reply]

I think this is referring to the same law that exempts cigar shipments from the restrictions, so the troop effort should still be okay. I hope...
[Reply]

Don't worry it's just the beginning. First they target cigarettes and than it spreads to all facets of tobacco. They just need to get a foot in and once they do they barge through the door.
[Reply]

Well, how would they know what's in the box? Don't ask, don't tell!
[Reply]

:-)

Soon they'll say combat is too dangerous for troops and shouldn't be allowed to be in harm’s way. Enough is enough! Injecting troops with questionable drugs and supplying them with defective armor is ok, but cigarette; they can cause cancer. The blown off leg; we’ll give you cane and fake leg…

We have to move on from knowing what is best for someone else. It’s America’s worst trait.
[Reply]

The Pentagon can suck it. :-)
[Reply]

Before we all get our panties in a bunch, this is what you need to know, from the article:

"Lynn Becker, a spokeswoman for the bill's sponsor, Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, said in an e-mail to The Associated Press that the law did not intend to restrict mailing tobacco to soldiers.

"Sen. Kohl's counsel is working with the legal office at USPS to determine whether there is an alternative to Express Mail that could be used to reach troops overseas," Becker said. "He's also working on a legislative fix to ensure that service members overseas can receive care packages that include tobacco products."
[Reply]

Exactly.
That doesn't sound as bad.
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

Simple and to the point, that's one of the reasons I love Scott Shilala.:-)
[Reply]

Regardless as to the "intent" of the law, people have to go by the law. It is still of some concern to me when Hugh is sending many sticks and have a large valuation in $$$$ that some hack at the PO or customs may nab because it is illegal until some time as Congress gets off it's collective dead ass.
[Reply]

So far, so good. Don't really think this needs to be of great concern for us at the moment. I talked to a soldier at an airshow who told me there is enough mail going quickly through the x-ray machine to check it that unless a firearm is observed in the box, one should be good to go.
[Reply]

:-)

Although I suppose we could always find a few MAC flights headed across the pond.
[Reply]

"did not intend"

and

"working on a fix"


sounds like we should have a fix in place sometime in the next decade....
[Reply]

This law only applies to cigarettes & smokeless tobacco. I suppose some hack at the PO could be overzealous and confiscate the cigar shipments, but then HE would be the one doing something illegal :-)
[Reply]