Adults Smoking at Scout Events

[Fat Old Guy]

"I find it preposterous that we live in a society where tobacco is legal but marijuana is illegal. Tobacco is much more harmful."

 

I guess that really depends on how you define "much more harmful." I really wouldn't mind an airline pilot smoking a Lucky Strike while flying but I would be very upset and concerned if I discovered that my pilot was smoking pot.

[dsteele]

I think it's pretty clear that I don't always agree with NJCubScouter's point of view. What may not be clear (in other words, it may be clear to some of you) I admire the man very much. I admire anyone who expresses his/her opinion reasonably, without direct personal attacks, and can defend his/her view.

 

Salut`e NJCubScouter.

 

I am a smoker and I have a right to do it. I do not believe I have the right to smoke in front of children and take great pains not to do so. It doesn't always work.

 

If I'm in the outdoors and you ask me to pull the stuff out of my pockets, you'll find that's where the cigarette butts go after I field strip them.

 

I also agree with NJCubScouter that I think the wording was left vague because smoking is taken up by a large number of Scouters and is perceived differently in different parts of the country.

 

Now we get to the semantics. I was an English Minor with 50 hours of English in College, so I'll try to address this. (Yes the phrasing is ambiguous in the G2SS)

 

Some are reading "may not allow smoking . . ." in the following way:

 

"MAY not allow smoking" Meaning "May" choose to dis "allow smoking"

 

others are reading it as

 

"may NOT allow smoking" Meaning "Ain't no way, no how, that adults can smoke in front of youth."

 

Now, just to have a little fun , perhaps, NJCubScouter, smoking is a local option?

 

As I hit submit, I realized that NJCubScouter may feel this post is attacking his point of view. It is not. I'm serious when I say I admire you, NJ.

 

DS

 

(This message has been edited by dsteele)

[GeBlack]

I think I've got the next crusade. Let's ban automobiles!!

 

-120 deaths per day in the USA alone are due to automobile accidents

-One car produces 2.7 billion cubic yards of poisonous air during its normal life (producing much more respiratory distress than cigarettes)

-Car crashes are the number one cause of death in children in North America

-29 tons of waste material are created during the construction of a single automobile

-There have been more deaths and disfigurement due to car accidents than in the two world wars

-The quest for oil and gas results in frequent wars

-The quest for rubber for tires has essentially obliterated the worlds rubber trees.

 

Given the facts how could we continue to subject our children to this risk of death. Not only should we not allow our children to drive, but we should abstain from driving ourself. After all, how can we tell them that they can't drive and yet continue driving ourselves.

[packsaddle]

Of course the same argument could be made for many other day-to-day activities in our society. Such comparison would be better if done on a per capita basis. But point taken, I would love to have cleaner, safer transportation available.

However, a ban on automobiles would obviously negatively impact our economy in ways that a ban on tobacco use at BSA events would not. The comparison is just a little lop-sided. Or do you disagree?

You can help me out with some terminology here, though. I have read this several times now and I don't know what 'field stripping a cigarette butt' means. I have a mental image but I'm not sure it's correct. How is this accomplished and why is it important?

[Fat Old Guy]

" I have read this several times now and I don't know what 'field stripping a cigarette butt' means."

 

It is a technique that is taught in the army, to eliminate the glaring white butts from the ground. To field strip a butt, you remove the filter and paper, leave the tobacco in the grass and put the paper and filter in your pocket. The tobacco becomes part of the ground degrades, the paper eventually makes it into the trash.

 

Although a highly skilled tracker could find the tobacco residue left on the ground, it does conceal the fact that you were there, smoking, in a combat situation. In a garrision situation, it means that there aren't any butts left on the ground to be picked up by the grounds keepers.

 

 

[Bob White]

I agree with GE 100% and I fully endorse prohibiting the driving of motor vehicles in campsites by any member of the BSA. In addition, I would support a rule that adult leaders may not allow the driving of motor vehicles by anyone in campsites.

 

 

Bob White

[GeBlack]

How unfortunate that the mitigating factors for not pursuing a ban on motor vehicles be economy and convenience, don't you care at all about the children who die in auto accidents each year. The fact that it is the leading cause of death for persons under the age of 35?

 

Even if you wouldn't support a nationwide ban on autos, maybe the BSA could idealistically lead the way by banning vehicle use at all of it's events. And if people couldn't do without their vehicles, at least keep them out of site from our youth. You don't want to encourage a behavior which leads to the types of pain and suffering brought on by motor vehicles.

 

 

[GeBlack]

See the CDC statistics at

 

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

 

if you want to see how much of a risk this is to our youth.

[GeBlack]

In order to provide information from alternative sources so that you might get a different perspective on this issue (or in the very least have a better understanding of 'statistics' that are bandied about) I recommend reading Lauren Colby's book at

 

http://www.lcolby.com/pdf/book.pdf'>http://www.lcolby.com/pdf/book.pdf

 

or

 

http://www.lcolby.com/

[SR540Beaver]

NJ,

 

I believe you stated my point in a more articulate way. You talked about "proper English". How many of you out there use proper English or hear it spoken very often? I keep stating that the BSA needs to reword their policy in the G2SS in a manner that leaves no loopholes. If their intent is to prohibit smoking, say it that way. Do not write it in a way that while correct, is not understood by many Americans. The debate would end with changing the words "may not allow" with "prohibit". Simple and easy. We can then find a new bone to chew on.

[Fat Old Guy]

"How many of you out there use proper English or hear it spoken very often?"

 

[evmori]

Proper English?? You mean like

 

Whut uns talkin bout?

[SR540Beaver]

zakly!

[OldGreyEagle]

Wattchatalkinabout?

 

Gud English?

 

Fuggedittaboutit

[Hunt]

"Adult leaders should support the attitude that young adults are better off without tobacco and may not allow the use of tobacco products at any BSA activity involving youth participants." -- from the Guide to Safe Scouting, Part IV

 

I agree with the sentiment that smoking should be prohibited at all scouting activities. I especially don't think anybody in uniform should be seen smoking, anytime or anyplace. But, as an English major, I feel competent to say that the above wording is vague, or at least strange. It begins by focussing on what adult leaders "should" do and then uses the phrase "may not allow." The first time I read this, I asked myself, "Is this a prohibition, or do they just mean that the adult leaders have the power to prohibit smoking?" Also, it immediately follows a passage which states that "BSA prohibits" certain activities. Why is the smoking language then couched in terms of what adult leaders may not allow? And it's followed by another passage which says activities "should" be carried out on a smoke-free basis, with designated smoking areas "away" from all participants. Is this last referring only to activities with no youth participants? Perhaps the explanation is really that BSA wanted to prohibit smoking but wanted to soften the language. I think smoking prohibitions have become familiar enough that this is no longer necessary, and is undesirable if it leads to confusion.