While I can see reasons to prohibit drugs and alcohol abuse for military personnel for safety and security reasons, I am not convinced a smoking ban serves any real purpose.

Sure there is the health consideration, but I don't know that this consideration is enough to convince me this isn't being overly invasive.

I do think the military is a different world, with different rules, and they can probably do this, but I am not convinced that it is well reasoned.

Military has special considerations and allowances but they can go too far as well. This is one of those cases.

I’m a non-smoker and hate being around smokers but I’m very tire of government thinking they need to get into every little aspects of people lives.

More significantly, military personnel are eligible for a pension and medical benefits after twenty years of service. Given that long-term smokers tend to have more health problems, the government can argue that disallowing smoking is financially prudent.

On the other hand - I say this as an active duty Marine Master Sergeant and a smoker - I may save the government (tax payers) a lot of money by not having to pay my pension if I die in my 60's as opposed to dying in my 80's (about $24,000 a year). Not to mention the income for doctors, nurses and the like that I'll will possibly generate. In the end it is probably a wash.

We are also talking about a group of people that is generally aged 18 - 38 (enlisted) who with a proper exercise plan - and all of the services have an exercise plan to greater or lesser degree - will stay in good shape regardless of their smoking habits. I'm 37, have smoked for too long and can still run 3 miles in about 24 or 25 minutes. I realize that is not worldclass speed but it is well above the minimum standard of 30 minutes.

The military in general and the Marine Corps in particular inserts itself in the lives of its members enough already. Pardon the pun but on this issue the military needs to butt out.

They can try to argue that but they would be wrong of course. The go to guy on this is Kip Viscusi at Harvard.
Yes, smokers do incur health costs. So do non-smokers. One of the things about life is that no one gets out alive and we all incur health care costs on our way.

However, smokers die, on average, seven years earlier than non-. If the same group (in this case, the Feds) are paying both the health care costs and the pensions, smokers quite clearly save the system money.

The military is a closed society and can get away with things that most employers can not. As the government becomes more responsible for providing health care services and disability benefits, though, I expect we’ll see more moves in this direction in society at large.

Employers getting deeply involved in employees health is already happening. I recently heard a local CEO talk about how his company controlled health care costs. One way was with the use of health savings accounts. Another way was finding out what ailments and medical conditions his employees had and making sure they took care of themselves. Those with diabetes were reminded to eat right, exercise, see the doctor, and take their medication. From what I gathered the employees voluntarily offered the information. Still, I would be uncomfortable working in a place that was that paternalistic. We'll see more of this as employers figure out that it controls costs. Policy-wise we need to find ways to get employers out of providing health insurance to keep them from becoming our parents.

Also, and I only know what I can see from my desk, my impression is that the vast majority of smokers today _are_ the civilians; especially those that retired off active duty & moved into civil service. And as noted, that throws an extra curve ball at the legal issues...