You see, my profession is in the health field; and, I’m finishing up my Uni degree in, of all things, Health Education. However, far from cramming healthy recipes down peoples’ throats or chasing after them with a broom to put out all those cigarettes or knock, from their hands, those dangerous libations, I do plan to use common sense when approaching people about their life choices. After all, it is the person who should come first. The “why” they are practicing unhealthy habits should be explored, not the choice of habit itself, really. Habits are habits, remove one thing, it will be replaced by another unless the ‘why’ of the habit is dealt with. Which is more important, the smoke or the cause of the fire? Stress seems to be high on the list of killers, anyway, so why would I want to add to their stress?? Should I guilt them into health submission? I think not.
Health care costs are staggering; and, one of the ways in which we can reduce costs is to create a more healthy population. Reducing diabetes and cardiovascular problems would be a start. But this article really is not on reducing those problems or really health education of the general population. This post is about health Nazis and their convoluted view on things. What got me riled up was a mere blip I heard on the TV news on how the government, aka health Nazis, is looking into banning the use of cigarettes amongst our military servicemen and women. According to the report compiled courtesy of our government, no doubt at taxpayer's expense, "Over the long term, it(smoking)can cause serious health problems, including lung cancer and cardiovascular disease." Really??? How much did this study cost to tell us what WE ALREADY KNEW?!!!!!! Money that could have been better spent on Veteran's services! #@%!!
Oh, but according to the study, "tobacco use impairs military readiness in the short term." Really?? And, how did they stretch whatever they measured for that hot off the ticker info to suit what they wanted to see in print? Did these scientist "experts" have any previous combat experience? Wait, Sarge, let me light up a ciggie before I light up the incoming insurgents...let's measure how long it all takes.
Oh, the evil ciggie might corrupt the soldiers' health!! Never mind the volley of bullets or the anti-personnel mines, or the religious-indoctrinated-suicide-gonna-get-me-some-virgins bombers (on a side note, what do the female suicide bombers get?). These health Nazis should take a tour of the front lines, and spend a night or twa in a foxhole with the Soldiers and Marines, eat the food they eat, wear the gear they wear, hike the miles they hike, duck their heads for cover when the shooting and bombing starts….and tell me then, they won’t want a cigarette to settle their nerves.
Anyway, shouldn’t the government be concerning itself with spending money not on redundant and pointless studies but with providing better equipment and resources for our people while they are over there? Let the government focus on getting them to quit smoking when they are off the front lines and back home safe. Let the government help our returning veterans in dealing with the effects of combat stress or the physical limitations from injuries. Let the government see that all of our veterans receive the adequate medical care that they deserve. Or perhaps by then, the government has already forgotten about our Veterans and sometimes the intensive care and support that they need when and if they even make it back home? No doubt the government might want to do a study on that.