kaitak
Posts: 9033
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:54 am

The Pentagon is looking to ban the sale of cigarettes at US military bases:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/12/military.smoking.ban/index.html

The Pentagon studies suggest that the use of tobacco impairs military readiness and may even cause long term health problems (no, really?)

The proposal hasn't been greeted with complete enthusiasm, with some suggesting that it was a vital stress reliever for troops in combat; said one soldier - "if you take that away, what do you replace it with?"

One question: what about military firing squads? Will they just replace the last cigarette with a nicotine patch?
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:00 am



Quoting Kaitak (Thread starter):
The proposal hasn't been greeted with complete enthusiasm,

I think that is just being polite. I think this would be as big as Ike desegrating the military, which might have been easier since you didn't have the chemical dependency issues.

Look for this to be quitely pushed to the side.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11909
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:17 am

Heard about this earlier today somewhere.

I, for one, would not begrudge a soldier a cigarette or 10.

Whether the military bases should continue selling them? I don't know. Don't know if its in their best interests to promote the habit. But it doesn't bother me.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
gosimeon
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:45 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:34 am

If the US wants to have the best military in the world, they should strive for it to be the fittest, healthiest around. Banning smoking is a good idea. Smoking is basicly the most damaging thing you can do to yourself, bar eating Mac Ds every day or something like that. Smokers can't run as fast, last as long, or think as clearly. Good on the Pentagon for figuring this one out.

Smoking and the army has a poor history really. The tobacco companies used to give them away in the World Wars knowing when the troops came home, they would have an army (literally) of very addicted customers ready to spend alotta army wage on their smokes. It's about time the miltary told Big Tobacco where to go.
 
hercppmx
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 8:25 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:53 am

Yes Tobacco is bad for you, However I don't see this policy ever getting put in place, or even obeyed. You have people who will get shot at, drive over IED's, get mortared, amongst other things. If at the end of the day they want to smoke or have a dip(smokeless) let them. I think this would be a hugh morale problem and would affect peoples choice to stay in the military or not.
C-130; it's a love-hate relationship
 
OffshoreAir
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 4:56 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:28 am

What about the costs cigarettes cost tax payers in long-term VA Medical bills later in life? If the military supplies cigarettes for soldiers, who then smoke and get cancer, then have to turn to VA medical care for the rest of their life costing tax payers a lot of money.

Don't get me wrong - I will gladly pay my taxes for any sort of injuries (mental and physical) inflicted on our soldiers - they deserve it, in fact, the deserve the best medical care in the world, but when they decide to do something to themselves that is going to kill them, something involuntary like smoking cigarettes, I don't have much sympathy.
OffshoreAir
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12502
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:45 am

The US Military has far more important issues as to the health of solders than trying to put in a total ban on smoking. Yes, phase in greater difficultity to purchase on-base tobacco products, put in higher taxes for on-base sales, discourage on-base consumption but don't go for a total prohibition. A total ban will backfire with more costs from disipline, loss of critical personal and losses of revenues critical for certain family programs.
 
OffshoreAir
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 4:56 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:48 am



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
The US Military has far more important issues as to the health of solders than trying to put in a total ban on smoking. Yes, phase in greater difficultity to purchase on-base tobacco products, put in higher taxes for on-base sales, discourage on-base consumption but don't go for a total prohibition. A total ban will backfire with more costs from disipline, loss of critical personal and losses of revenues critical for certain family programs.

I didn't think of that..Damn Mondays. Great point though, it shouldn't be totally banned, but I think higher taxes and greater difficulty to purchase would go a long way.
OffshoreAir
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:21 pm



Quoting OffshoreAir (Reply 5):
What about the costs cigarettes cost tax payers in long-term VA Medical bills later in life? If the military supplies cigarettes for soldiers, who then smoke and get cancer, then have to turn to VA medical care for the rest of their life costing tax payers a lot of money.

Don't get me wrong - I will gladly pay my taxes for any sort of injuries (mental and physical) inflicted on our soldiers - they deserve it, in fact, the deserve the best medical care in the world, but when they decide to do something to themselves that is going to kill them, something involuntary like smoking cigarettes, I don't have much sympathy.

 checkmark  checkmark  checkmark 

Very well said, sir.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 6):
The US Military has far more important issues as to the health of solders than trying to put in a total ban on smoking.

As I understand it, the US Military is running into very significant budget shortfalls. And long-term health care expenses are not insignificant. It is a fact that a smoking ban would greatly reduce the long-term health problems (and expenses) that tobacco use causes. So enacting a smoking ban would in fact save a great many dollars and lives. It would also free a huge amount of money that could be used to improve overall capability and readiness across the board. That qualifies as an "important issue" in my book.

As long as I'm footing the bill to support such a stupid, detrimental and expensive habit, I will fully support such a ban. Yes, the soldiers will have withdrawal issues, but you know what? It's their own doing. Nobody forced them to start smoking. As I said, as long as I'm footing the bill for their self-destructive behavior, they'll just have to deal with it.

2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5711
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:25 pm



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 8):
As I understand it, the US Military is running into very significant budget shortfalls. And long-term health care expenses are not insignificant. It is a fact that a smoking ban would greatly reduce the long-term health problems (and expenses) that tobacco use causes. So enacting a smoking ban would in fact save a great many dollars and lives. It would also free a huge amount of money that could be used to improve overall capability and readiness across the board. That qualifies as an "important issue" in my book.

Those costs don't come out of the DOD budget. They come out of the VA budget or the Medicare/ Medicaid budgets. Any savings would not put any additional money into the DOD budget.

The past has shown us over and over that when the military finds ways to save money, Congress reduces the DOD budget and puts the money into other programs. DOD does not get a penny to improve cabability or readiness.

If the US military were to 'ban' tobacco - well, they might as well ban alcohol also. Because neither would work, certainly not as well as prohibition did.

The US military could stop sales of tobacco on military bases. Now, I've been retired from the Navy for many years and do not go on military bases often. Having never been a smoker, or dipper - I don't follow tobacco prices on base. (My mother smoked two to three packs a day, my father dipped - turned me off at an early age).

The military exchange, comissary and class six stores which sell tobacco are MWR activities. The original purpose was to provide items to military members and families which were not available locally. In the US, these facilities are often under political pressure to be eliminated so that military members and their families are forced to shop on the civilian market.

Military base facility sales do not pay local city or state sales taxes, nor in my past were local/ state alcohol and tobacco taxes paid.

Many states and local governments now depend on a healthy alcohol and tobacco sales volume to make their budgets. They would love to have tobacco sales, and eventually alcohol sales banned on military bases.

Overseas, this would force troops to buy on the local economy. In some locations, it would subject troops to dealing with local criminal elements to obtain their tobacco.

The sale of these items on military bases provides about $80-90 million dollars according to the CNN article to MWR activities. You can be absolutely certain that Congress will not replace those funds. So you are going to take $80-90 million out of the funds which make military life acceptable/ better for military members and their families at remote bases around the world.

Brilliant - take away their favorite low grade drug and take away their recreation activities.

The US military force is a reflection of US society as a whole.

There are a lot of good reasons to eliminate smoking, dipping and other tobacco uses. And it ain't gonna happen in the US military before it happens in the US general population.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:42 pm



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 9):
Those costs don't come out of the DOD budget. They come out of the VA budget or the Medicare/ Medicaid budgets.

It's all tax dollars to me. In the end, I'm funding a stupid, self-destructive, and expensive habit.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 9):
So you are going to take $80-90 million out of the funds which make military life acceptable/ better for military members and their families at remote bases around the world.

Smoking kills people. It may make military life "acceptable/better for military members and their families" on a very short-term, day-to-day basis, but if you talk to the families of people fighting and dying from cancer and other diseases directly related to smoking, they will not describe life as "acceptable" or "better'. This I assure you.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 9):
Brilliant - take away their favorite low grade drug and take away their recreation activities.

Ok, then for the sake of argument, let's roll with your logic. If introducing a "low grade drug" in fact results in a net benefit....from financial, job performance, and personal well-being standpoints, then why stop at tobacco? If tobacco use in fact, as you imply, creates a better soldier, then by that logic, we should also be providing them with over-the-counter and prescription drugs that make them feel good and are "fun to use".

Because after all, we need to support the local economies around the bases, give them good "hits" to keep stress levels down, and enhance their recreational activities. Even at the cost of lung disease, cancer, and all the related costs and deaths. Right?

I don't mean any disrespect, RF. I hear what you're saying. It would be hugely difficult for our smoking soldiers to adjust to such a change, and it would be a messy process, but I simply don't buy the argument that, when the cost of heath care and lives is taken into account, that tobacco use results in a net benefit to any of us.

2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
Vega9000
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:48 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:48 pm



Quoting Gosimeon (Reply 3):
Smoking is basicly the most damaging thing you can do to yourself, bar eating Mac Ds every day or something like that

I think going into battle beats smoking and McDonald's as the most damaging thing that you can do to your body. Don't you agree?

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 8):
Nobody forced them to start smoking.

Smoking is one of the most formidable stress relievers avaliable, and I can't even imagine the kind of stress levels they endure on a battlefield. If you deny them a smoke, aren't we subjecting them to higher levels of stress in the long run? What are the consequences for the preparedness, let alone the moral? Do we tell them to practise Yoga? In a trench? With the enemy firing at you?
The fact is, smoking can help clear the mind when critical decisions have to be made.

Quoting Gosimeon (Reply 3):
If the US wants to have the best military in the world, they should strive for it to be the fittest, healthiest around.

That's fine if you're talking about Olimpic athletes. But you're not.

Quoting OffshoreAir (Reply 5):
If the military supplies cigarettes for soldiers, who then smoke and get cancer, then have to turn to VA medical care for the rest of their life costing tax payers a lot of money.

I can think of a lot of things far worse on a battlefield that will also give you cancer, and much more than a smoking habit, such as uranium armor. Should we ban that for fear of medical bills?

Denying a soldier a smoke in a war zone...what kind of people are you?
Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:58 pm



Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 11):
Smoking is one of the most formidable stress relievers avaliable

Not to non-smokers, it isn't.

2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
OffshoreAir
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 4:56 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:08 pm



Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 11):
If you deny them a smoke, aren't we subjecting them to higher levels of stress in the long run?

In the long run? No, absolutely not. You may cause the soldiers stress of going through the destructive pattern of withdrawl - but this is a direct result of their choice to being smoking in the first place. And by no means would it be long term - it would actually be very short term.

Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 11):
What are the consequences for the preparedness, let alone the moral? Do we tell them to practise Yoga? In a trench? With the enemy firing at you?
The fact is, smoking can help clear the mind when critical decisions have to be made.

You are being extremely over the top here - no one is suggesting something as extreme as doing yoga in a trench (really? that's what you got out of our statements?) The dose of nicotine is very short lived in the body. To even further this point, when a soldier is in a firing situation or any situation where critical decision need to be made, I guarantee that he is not sitting there going "Gee, I need a cigarette real quick, let me stop and take a few minutes to suck one down" Oh yeah, and caffeine can clear the mind much, MUCH better and for longer durations of time than cigarettes can. Not to mention it is not nearly as addictive and much less harmful.

Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 11):
That's fine if you're talking about Olimpic athletes. But you're not.

Our military stresses our field and combat soldiers to be in peak physical and mental condition, very similar to Olympic athletes. I think it is extremely conter-productive to allow soldiers to smoke cigarettes which cause anything from reduced lung capacity and reduced physical endurance, to death.

Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 11):
I can think of a lot of things far worse on a battlefield that will also give you cancer, and much more than a smoking habit, such as uranium armor. Should we ban that for fear of medical bills?

Yes, but those things on the battle field that are hazardous to a solider's health are out of the soldier's hands - he can't stop that guy from shooting at his head, he can't stop that guy from detonating the IED on the side of the road, hell, he can't even disobey his superior when he is asked to attack a position - but cigarettes? Smoking cigarettes is STRICTLY and single-handedly the decision of the individual soldier - entirely in his own hands.

Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 11):
Denying a soldier a smoke in a war zone...what kind of people are you?

I can see your point here - but if there wasn't an addiction for the soldier to need a cigarette, this would not be an issue, and it would keep our soldiers healthier
OffshoreAir
 
StuckInCA
Posts: 1620
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:30 pm

This seems like a complicated issue.

It's hard to ignore that there's a link between smoking and long term health problems. If taxpayers are going to be on the hook for financing these people's health care, then it seems reasonable to not have smokes available on base.

But... I peronally think that all US citizens should have some form of health care provided by the government and in that case I don't really feel comfortable with the government making that same rule for those people.

Tough spot.

I guess that since the military is voluntary, it's reasonable to put this restriction in place (in my opinion). Don't see it happening though.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5711
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:25 pm



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10):
that tobacco use results in a net benefit to any of us.

I didn't indicate that - nor do I believe it.

However, if our nation wants to attack smoking - then we need to start at the top of the problem - our federal tax dollar subsidies to keep farmers producing tobacco at a profit.

Federal, state and local tax breaks to tobacco companies for their plants, their distrubtion facilities, their retail outlets.

Yes, federal medical spending for smoking related illnesses is a very large dollar amount of tax receipts each year. An almost impossible number to quantify because it is hidden in so many different budgets.

However, we also spend a very significant portion of that amount to keep the tobacco industry alive. That is the first place to reclaim your tax dollars.

The US government has structured the Department of Defense MWR system to make it very dependent upon the sale of legal drugs - nicotine and alcohol. If they want that income source removed, then they need to replace it.

My 20 years in the US Navy (1972-1992) saw the transition from smoking in every office and workspace to limitations on smoking areas. Those restrictions have increased since I left active duty. Heck, when I went to high school - almost every school in this nation allowed students to smoke in certain areas.

But as I said above - the military is a reflection of our US society. If we want to ban smoking in the military, it needs to be banned in civilian life first.

No, I do not ever expect a ban on tobacco use to be effective in the US.

I've seen the peer pressure of the young, and the destructiveness of nicotine on people's lives in my own family. From my parents and their sibiling to my daughter, and it's impact upon her children.

But the military will never be able to make a dent in the problem until society considers smoking a problem.

And society in the United States, and almost all other nations, does not consider smoking / tobacco use a real problem.

Yes we have limits upon where people can smoke.

But we still romanticize smoking. We still support smoking through our personal funds when we attend movies, we buy products with ties to tobacco, we buy magazines which advertise tobacco, we support tobacco sales to increase our tax revenue.

We talk a lot about smoking and its problems - but very few people take it as a serious issue. Their behavior proves that they do not.

All I'm saying is that until the people of the United States take tobacco as a serious issue - the US military is not the place to experiment in finding ways to make soldiers 'criminals' for behavior legal in US society.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6147
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:40 pm

I'd be curious who here defends smoking in the military that doesn't smoke or those who do smoke that do support a possible ban. To be honest these are the people that can bring the best debate since they are looking at the issue with a more whole perspective.

I for one don't smoke and say ban it. It does not lead to a more effective fighting force, there is not a single soldier who is better for smoking than one that doesn't suffer the addiction of (and therefore withdrawal effects if not) smoking.

Speaking of the effects of withdrawal, how does a soldier deal with nicotine withdrawal when on assignment/combat/patrol? I've seen people after a 5 hour plane flight that are almost wrecks, needing to get a smoke. If there is no nicotine source available, after a few days, how does a soldier deal with it? Does it make him (or her) a less effective soldier?

Tugg

[Edited 2009-07-13 10:49:11]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5288
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:43 pm



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 15):
But as I said above - the military is a reflection of our US society.

Not really. The military has always been a bit different from U.S. society. Historically, the military has actually been a leader in many areas. The U.S. military desegregated its troops long before society desegregated its schools/buses/etc.

As it is now, the military doesn't reflect society as the smoking rate among military members is higher than that of the general population. Of course, that may very well be due to the nature of the militaries job, but nonetheless military members smoking behaviors don't completely reflect society.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 15):
If we want to ban smoking in the military, it needs to be banned in civilian life first.

Using that logic, school teachers should be allowed to smoke in front of children since its not banned in society. Surgeons should be allowed to smoke while operating, since its not banned in society. Your logic is faulty.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 5:59 pm

Its amazing on how many people here want to tell others what to do. I am a non smoker, tried it just never took hold, but I am not going to be a fanatict a purge the military of smokers. How many people here have been in a situation similar to a soldiers, now issue a order to ban smoking. Lets see we have a soldier/marine in combat nerves on edge going through nicotine withdrawal,nice.
This ban smoking crowd is probably the same one that wants to legalize pot. Before a military smoking ban there should be a civilian smoking ban, not until then. We don't allow military to drink under 21 unless overseas just like their civilian counterparts do we.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5711
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 6:57 pm



Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 17):
Not really. The military has always been a bit different from U.S. society.

Perhaps you should tell this to the generals, admirals and other professionals who lead the military. Who have to deal with the process of turning raw recruits into soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.

There are still two very different groups which make up the US military - the short term and the long term soldiers.

I will agree that the lifers tend to be a more conservative group - I should know - I was one. However, because they are much younger than their counterparts in the civilian world, they are also more attuned to technology, the young and of course - what is happening in the world outside the borders of the United States. Most senior military people are under age 50 and the number over age 60 is a miniscule percentage. The average career soldier retires before age 45.

If I were still in uniform at age 56, and 37 years continious active service - I would be a unique relic. In the civilian world, I'm merely one of the older folks in a high tech field. I am a bit unusual because my average job lasts about 8 years before I move, but not because of my age.

The short term 'kids' are very much like their civilian counterparts. From their tastes in music, food, recreation, politics. They have more discipline than many of their civilian counterparts - but not more than all. These teenagers and 20 year olds make up the vast majority of people in uniform.

We do see a lot recently about reservists - and they are an older group. But the reservist are focused in only a small part of the active military today. Their role is the largest since Korea, but they are not the dominante military community.

There are a lot of civilians, a majority of young late teens and early 20's, in this country who show much the same discipline, drive and focus as their counterparts in uniform.

We don't hear much about them in the media because they are not 'colorful'. Because they do the right things with their life.

Perhaps the biggest difference is those in uniform tend to be more aware of the wide world and their personal potential role in that world.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 17):
the military doesn't reflect society as the smoking rate among military members is higher than that of the general population.

I would like to see some numbers - especially comparisons of identical age groups. My experience is that older military members tend to smoke more than a similar the civilian population. Youngsters seem to be about the same percentage.

I am greatly dismayed to see what appears to be a growing percentage of kids coming out of high school and college smoking. Especially females. The perception of smoking as an effective appetite suppressant among young girls is growing.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11909
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:27 pm



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 15):
All I'm saying is that until the people of the United States take tobacco as a serious issue - the US military is not the place to experiment in finding ways to make soldiers 'criminals' for behavior legal in US society.

We've already done that to a certain extent with "Don't Ask Don't Tell", haven't we?

Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 11):
Smoking is one of the most formidable stress relievers avaliable, and I can't even imagine the kind of stress levels they endure on a battlefield. If you deny them a smoke, aren't we subjecting them to higher levels of stress in the long run? What are the consequences for the preparedness, let alone the moral? Do we tell them to practise Yoga? In a trench? With the enemy firing at you?
The fact is, smoking can help clear the mind when critical decisions have to be made.

Far as I know, smoking does not actually lower stress. It might make smokers feel like they have less stress. But in the same way that alcohol does not actually make you warm, I don't think smoking lowers your stress.

A non-smoker would very likely never think smoking a cigarette would lower your stress. After all, the last thing you want when you're stressed out is to increase your heart rate, lower your blood's oxygen content, increase your blood pressure, etc....

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 18):
This ban smoking crowd is probably the same one that wants to legalize pot.

Extremely confused by your reasoning here.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
windy95
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:32 pm



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 8):
As long as I'm footing the bill to support such a stupid, detrimental and expensive habit, I will fully support such a ban. Yes, the soldiers will have withdrawal issues, but you know what? It's their own doing. Nobody forced them to start smoking



Quoting OffshoreAir (Reply 5):
Don't get me wrong - I will gladly pay my taxes for any sort of injuries (mental and physical) inflicted on our soldiers - they deserve it, in fact, the deserve the best medical care in the world, but when they decide to do something to themselves that is going to kill them

As a long time member of the Military I think they should ban the products.


This fits right in with the National healtcare debate. Why should someone who does not smoke or chew tobacco or abuse alchohol have to pay higher premiums or the same premiums as smokers. If you choose to do these things you should have a far higher premium or be denied on your claims for anything resulting from the use. Same goes for weight issues. You want to lower healthcare costs across the board including the VA then ban these products or deny benefits if you use them.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6147
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:45 pm



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 19):
I would like to see some numbers - especially comparisons of identical age groups. My experience is that older military members tend to smoke more than a similar the civilian population. Youngsters seem to be about the same percentage.

Here's the best I could find quickly:

For teh general US population:

Quote:
Thirty percent of 18- to 29-year-olds and 26% of those 30 to 49 say they had a cigarette in the past week. This contrasts with only 17% of those 50 to 64 and 9% of those 65 and older.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us...moking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
For the military:

Quote:
In 2005, 32 percent of active-duty personnel and 22 percent of veterans were smokers; rates among active-duty personnel have recently increased, possibly because of growing tobacco use by deployed troops.

http://www.medilexicon.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=155644

So it does appear to be fairly close for data that does not match up exactly.

It was also stated that smoking rates for military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may be 50 percent higher than rates among non-deployed military.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
7324ever
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 10:46 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:47 pm

If that's the case then prisoners get more rights than the nations finest. They let them buy and some cigarettes. so its kind of pointless.
Anything the US and EU build the Russians do it better! i.e. TU-144 vs Concorde and TU-154 vs The 727...
 
rfields5421
Posts: 5711
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:09 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 22):
It was also stated that smoking rates for military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may be 50 percent higher than rates among non-deployed military.

I don't know about 50% but higher rates do match my personal experience. I'm also sure alcohol usage to excess and illegal drugs rates of usage are significantly higher.

A combat environment is a easy place to seek something to calm the nerves, and the way most of these work, easily to become dependent upon that relief.
 
2H4
Posts: 7960
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:11 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:04 pm



Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 15):
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10):
that tobacco use results in a net benefit to any of us.

I didn't indicate that - nor do I believe it.

By opposing a military smoking ban, and by presenting arguments that support the sale and use of cigarettes, you seem to be of the opinion that the benefits of smoking outweigh the downsides.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 15):
Yes, federal medical spending for smoking related illnesses is a very large dollar amount of tax receipts each year. An almost impossible number to quantify because it is hidden in so many different budgets.

It would be quite unwise to give up on worthwhile efforts simply because they are difficult to quantify, don't you think?

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 15):
But as I said above - the military is a reflection of our US society. If we want to ban smoking in the military, it needs to be banned in civilian life first.

Certain aspects of military service are already more restrictive than civilian life. Why would it be inappropriate to continue this?

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 18):
Its amazing on how many people here want to tell others what to do.

There's nothing wrong with telling our government what to do. And there's nothing wrong with telling someone what to do when the actions in question are impacting you.

I see no problem with telling the military (and the country as a whole) to ban activity that is so blatantly harmful to the participants themselves as well as to others. I see no problem with telling them to put an end to voluntary, self-destructive behavior that costs me money.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 18):
This ban smoking crowd is probably the same one that wants to legalize pot.

Sorry, I'm not following you. Can you please explain your reasoning?

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 18):
Before a military smoking ban there should be a civilian smoking ban, not until then.

Why not? As I already mentioned, there are aspects of military service that are already more restrictive than civilian life. A smoking ban is just one more. One that benefits the health of the people involved.

Quoting 7324ever (Reply 23):
If that's the case then prisoners get more rights than the nations finest.

Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to use tobacco, either. While it could be argued that shorter prisoner lifespans could save taxpayers money, a much more realistic money-saving solution would be to ban smoking and save money on the health care costs related to the treatment of cancer, emphysema, lung disease, or any one of the multitude of smoking-related diseases.

So I'm not arguing that the smoking ban should be limited to the military. Anyone who does not pay every penny of their own health care costs out of their own pocket for the entirety of their lives should be completely banned from tobacco use. The second their self-destructive habit increases health care costs for the rest of us...directly or indirectly...they become our problem.

-------

If all the pro-smoker folks are so adamant that the benefits associated with smoking in the military outweigh the downsides, I'd really like to hear why we shouldn't also be providing our soldiers with an unregulated and unlimited supply of over-the-counter medications, prescription drugs, and any other self-destructive substance that make them feel good and are "fun to use", regardless of the short or long-term effects. Because frankly, I see absolutely no difference.

2H4
Intentionally Left Blank
 
OffshoreAir
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 4:56 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:16 pm



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 25):
Certain aspects of military service are already more restrictive than civilian life. Why would it be inappropriate to continue this?

This is an extremely valid point. I do not think our military is a reflection of a society - it is the arm of our government used to protect the citizens of this country and to uphold our laws. It is not modeled after our society - if it was, then we would all need to shave our heads, dress in the same outfit, and have defined ranked and values as the military does.

In the military the restrictions that are placed on the soldiers' is something that is volunteered for - they sign up to reap the pros and cons of being in the military. I just do not see why I should pay for long term heath-care for soldiers' that choose to be self-destructive in the manner that smoking cigarettes affects them.
OffshoreAir
 
7324ever
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 10:46 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:43 pm



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 25):

Prisoners shouldn't be allowed to use tobacco, either. While it could be argued that shorter prisoner lifespans could save taxpayers money, a much more realistic money-saving solution would be to ban smoking and save money on the health care costs related to the treatment of cancer, emphysema, lung disease, or any one of the multitude of smoking-related diseases.

So I'm not arguing that the smoking ban should be limited to the military. Anyone who does not pay every penny of their own health care costs out of their own pocket for the entirety of their lives should be completely banned from tobacco use. The second their self-destructive habit increases health care costs for the rest of us...directly or indirectly...they become our problem.

I absolutely agree with you 1000%. I was just saying that they should ban them for prisoners before the military and I could see why they would want to ban cigarettes from the army for the same heath reasons...
Anything the US and EU build the Russians do it better! i.e. TU-144 vs Concorde and TU-154 vs The 727...
 
windy95
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:43 pm



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 25):
So I'm not arguing that the smoking ban should be limited to the military. Anyone who does not pay every penny of their own health care costs out of their own pocket for the entirety of their lives should be completely banned from tobacco use. The second their self-destructive habit increases health care costs for the rest of us...directly or indirectly...they become our problem.

Great post 2H4. At what point do the people who avoid these bad habits stop supporting those who do?
 
Flighty
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:33 pm



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10):
It's all tax dollars to me. In the end, I'm funding a stupid, self-destructive, and expensive habit.

What soldiers do on their own time is probably none of our business. You fund a paycheck and, as Americans, they can spend it how they wish.

I agree that cigarettes are really bad though. Would I smoke as a soldier, probably yeah. It is a great drug when you are desperately stressed out.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 25):
While it could be argued that shorter prisoner lifespans could save taxpayers money,

Of course. And, this also is true for the VA system. So that kind of puts a hole in the notion that smoking increases VA costs that you and I are paying for. Veterans (especially retired military drawing a pension) are much more expensive if they live to be 93 instead of 63. Smoking saves money in these cases. Pretty solid case.
 
kingairta
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:24 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:39 pm

I'm all for it. Bring on the ban. But it has to be in baby steps. The first step has already started with no smoking in buildings.
step 2 would be to raise tobacco prices at the exchange to those comparable off base including taxes. So if a pack costs $4 out in town with all the taxes then the exchange/BX/PX etc should sell the same pack for $4 as well. After all the profits are used to support MWR.
Step 3 would be to recruit non-smokers. Granted easier said then done but with tobacco use on the decline...
Step 4 would be to ban tobacco use while on post.

That would be about the extent of it. Do it over a ten to 20 year span and it will meet very little resistance.

When I worked in a squadron doing MX I had a bunch of slackers who would use "smoke breaks" to get out of work. I spent more time hunting down the smokers then I needed to. I even worked with a guy who took up smoking big fat cigars so he could take a 20 minute smoke break.

You need a five minute break? fine just not every 20 minutes.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6147
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:59 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 29):
It is a great drug when you are desperately stressed out.

Wouldn't Vicodin be better for that?

Quoting Kingairta (Reply 30):
When I worked in a squadron doing MX I had a bunch of slackers who would use "smoke breaks" to get out of work. I spent more time hunting down the smokers then I needed to. I even worked with a guy who took up smoking big fat cigars so he could take a 20 minute smoke break.

I have a friend who did the same (cigarettes) so as to get a break as well. Saw all the other guys getting a smoke break while he was stuck still having to work and figured WTF? So he started smoking to get the break.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
Vega9000
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:48 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:23 am

First of all, let me admit here that I smoke (not cigarettes though), so I'm playing Devil's advocate in a western society that is moving in big steps, fortunately, to a smoke free society. But that's OK, i don't mind voicing unpopular opinions, since they are the very core of a healthy discussion.

Quoting OffshoreAir (Reply 13):
You may cause the soldiers stress of going through the destructive pattern of withdrawal - but this is a direct result of their choice to being smoking in the first place. And by no means would it be long term - it would actually be very short term.

The idea of smoking in the battlefield is precisely a short term fix to relax during very stressful moments. If a soldier wants to quit smoking, he should do it in a non-battlefield environment.

Quoting OffshoreAir (Reply 13):
You are being extremely over the top here - no one is suggesting something as extreme as doing yoga in a trench (really? that's what you got out of our statements?) The dose of nicotine is very short lived in the body. To even further this point, when a soldier is in a firing situation or any situation where critical decision need to be made, I guarantee that he is not sitting there going "Gee, I need a cigarette real quick, let me stop and take a few minutes to suck one down" Oh yeah, and caffeine can clear the mind much, MUCH better and for longer durations of time than cigarettes can. Not to mention it is not nearly as addictive and much less harmful.

I was being deliberately over the top to make a point. No one is suggesting the they practice Yoga during combat. And I'm not suggesting that they stop combat to have a smoke. What I'm saying is that in a war environment, they should have something, a quick fix, to calm the nerves before deciding, for example, if they should attack an enemy position or retreat. That's the kind of life-or-death decisions that require a (temporary, I admit) reduction in the levels of stress. If a cigarette helps, good. What are the alternatives? Some kind of pill? Which one?
And are you seriously suggesting that a soldier, with their hands trembling, having being just shot at, or seeing a fellow soldier shot and bleeding, should drink a cup of coffee?

Quoting OffshoreAir (Reply 13):
Our military stresses our field and combat soldiers to be in peak physical and mental condition, very similar to Olympic athletes.

it's not the same situation. Take Michael Phelps. Tell him that he NEEDS to win, or else his career is over. He prepares, trains his body and mind to the job that he needs to do. When he succeeds, he celebrates. Now tell him that if he doesn't win the next round, you will shoot him. Do you think the stress levels are comparable?

Quoting OffshoreAir (Reply 13):
Smoking cigarettes is STRICTLY and single-handedly the decision of the individual soldier - entirely in his own hands.

True if you're a super-human with ice instead of blood. For most of the soldiers, that's not true, They are merely very brave men in some impossible situations.

My point is: not smoking is a very sound and reasonable decision for most of us in our normal lives. The combat field is not a normal situation, so some rules do not apply. If the military wants to ban smoking in the bases in the US, it's fine by me. As many said, it's a soldiers duty to be in the best shape possible. But in a battle situation, it's a different story. I say let them smoke all they want (within reason), and then treat the withdrawal symptoms as you would treat all battle related injuries.
Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.
 
ual777
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:25 am



Quoting Tugger (Reply 31):

Wouldn't Vicodin be better for that?

Absolutely not! Vicodin can be addictive and carries side effects such as:

"Side effects for Vicodin are most commonly upset stomach, nausea, and altered mental status (eg. dizziness, light headedness). Other more rare side effects include allergic reaction, seizures, clammy skin, hallucinations, severe weakness, dizziness, hyperventilation, unconsciousness, jaundice (yellowing of eyes or skin), unusual fatigue, bleeding, bruising, stomach pain[11], constipation, dry mouth, decreased appetite, muscle twitches, sweating, hot flashes, itching, tinnitus, hearing loss, decreased urination, and altered sex drive. Vicodin also has depressant effects on the central nervous system. However, some of the less mundane effects can be desirable effects that are sought after by some. Those effects include euphoria and drowsiness, as well as slowing of the pulse. Unlike NSAIDs, Paracetamol does not cause ulcers. Liver damage can manifest ranging from abdominal pain to outright liver failure, and can necessitate a liver transplant to avoid death.Side effects for Vicodin are most commonly upset stomach, nausea, and altered mental status (eg. dizziness, light headedness). Other more rare side effects include allergic reaction, seizures, clammy skin, hallucinations, severe weakness, dizziness, hyperventilation, unconsciousness, jaundice (yellowing of eyes or skin), unusual fatigue, bleeding, bruising, stomach pain[11], constipation, dry mouth, decreased appetite, muscle twitches, sweating, hot flashes, itching, tinnitus, hearing loss, decreased urination, and altered sex drive. Vicodin also has depressant effects on the central nervous system. However, some of the less mundane effects can be desirable effects that are sought after by some. Those effects include euphoria and drowsiness, as well as slowing of the pulse. Unlike NSAIDs, Paracetamol does not cause ulcers. Liver damage can manifest ranging from abdominal pain to outright liver failure, and can necessitate a liver transplant to avoid death."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicodin#Side_effects

Smoking has positive effects when it comes to repetitive tasks. It also relieves stress and calms the nerves. It has also been known to suppress schitzophrenia. Guys getting shot at on a daily basis should be allowed to smoke if they so choose.

The military already has free smoking cessation programs.
It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6147
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:41 am

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 33):
Smoking has positive effects when it comes to repetitive tasks. It also relieves stress and calms the nerves. It has also been known to suppress schitzophrenia. Guys getting shot at on a daily basis should be allowed to smoke if they so choose.

Who knew smoking was so good for you?   

Also you double posted the side effects of Vicodin.

I was saying it mostly tongue in cheek but actually the side effects aren't that bad when compared to smoking:

Quote:
Side effects for Vicodin are most commonly upset stomach, nausea, and altered mental status (eg. dizziness, light headedness).


And several of the one listed as "rare" happen to many when they start smoking.

Quote:
Other more rare side effects include allergic reaction, seizures, clammy skin, hallucinations, severe weakness, dizziness, hyperventilation, unconsciousness, jaundice (yellowing of eyes or skin), unusual fatigue, bleeding, bruising, stomach pain, constipation, dry mouth, decreased appetite, muscle twitches, sweating, hot flashes, itching, tinnitus, hearing loss, decreased urination, and altered sex drive.

And finally, the last part can also apply to cigarettes:

Quote:
also has depressant effects on the central nervous system. However, some of the less mundane effects can be desirable effects that are sought after by some. Those effects include euphoria and drowsiness, as well as slowing of the pulse. Unlike NSAIDs, Paracetamol does not cause ulcers. Liver damage can manifest ranging from abdominal pain to outright liver failure, and can necessitate a liver transplant to avoid death.

Though instead of liver damage, insert lung damage.

And what the heck is someone supposed to make of this statement?

Quoting UAL777 (Reply 33):
Absolutely not! Vicodin can be addictive

Hello?  whistleblower 

Tugg

[Edited 2009-07-13 17:44:20]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
windy95
Posts: 2660
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:46 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 29):
agree that cigarettes are really bad though. Would I smoke as a soldier, probably yeah. It is a great drug when you are desperately stressed out.

I work in a highly stressful job abd spent many years in the military stressed out yet i never had to smoke. Stop making excuses for weak people because that is what smoking is, a weakness.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 29):
So that kind of puts a hole in the notion that smoking increases VA costs that you and I are paying for.

No because the healthy person will never visit the VA while the cancer ridden chain smoker will cost plenty in treatments and surgeries before he croaks. Give me the healthy long living guy anytime.

Quoting Kingairta (Reply 30):
When I worked in a squadron doing MX I had a bunch of slackers who would use "smoke breaks" to get out of work.

I have and do feel your pain on this one.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 31):
So he started smoking to get the break.

We just go stand by them until they are finished.
 
OffshoreAir
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 4:56 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:41 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 29):
What soldiers do on their own time is probably none of our business. You fund a paycheck and, as Americans, they can spend it how they wish.

No, there needs to be responsibility here. Just because they want to be self-destructive and do something extremely hazardous to their health on their own time doesn't mean I, and every other taxpayer, must suffer the consequences, no matter how big or how small. With your logic here, a soldier can go out and steal cars and anything he wants on his own time, and it is none of our business. Absolutely not.

Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 32):
The idea of smoking in the battlefield is precisely a short term fix to relax during very stressful moments. If a soldier wants to quit smoking, he should do it in a non-battlefield environment.

I completely agree with you here.

Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 32):
And I'm not suggesting that they stop combat to have a smoke. What I'm saying is that in a war environment, they should have something, a quick fix, to calm the nerves before deciding, for example, if they should attack an enemy position or retreat. That's the kind of life-or-death decisions that require a (temporary, I admit) reduction in the lev

Why would be breed an army that is reliant on the use of a drug in order to be successful? At what point is our reliance on "cigarettes" too much? Soldiers should be trained to deal with these issues without having to rely on a crutch like cigarettes.

Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 32):
it's not the same situation. Take Michael Phelps. Tell him that he NEEDS to win, or else his career is over. He prepares, trains his body and mind to the job that he needs to do. When he succeeds, he celebrates. Now tell him that if he doesn't win the next round, you will shoot him. Do you think the stress levels are comparable?

I see your point here, and I'm not sure what I think. I reckon I need to think about this situation more.

Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 32):
True if you're a super-human with ice instead of blood. For most of the soldiers, that's not true, They are merely very brave men in some impossible situations.

You don't have to be any super-human with ice for blood to cope with trauma. I have coped with my share of trauma without having to have a cigarette. The need for a cigarette only comes from the initial behavior of having a cigarette without needing one. The human race would function perfectly fine without cigarettes. WE don't need cigarettes as humans, cigarettes need US.
OffshoreAir
 
dragon6172
Posts: 800
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:06 am



Quoting Gosimeon (Reply 3):
Smoking is basicly the most damaging thing you can do to yourself, bar eating Mac Ds every day or something like that.

Funny you should mention that, because there are McDonalds and other fast food joints on just about every base. In Iraq, there was a Burger King, Pizza Hut, and Subway at Al Asad, and other bases had similiar set-ups. I would say that the percentage of military folks who eat at these places daily is much higher than the percentage who are smokers.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 16):
I'd be curious who here defends smoking in the military that doesn't smoke or those who do smoke that do support a possible ban. To be honest these are the people that can bring the best debate since they are looking at the issue with a more whole perspective.

I honestly do not care if people smoke in the military. I am a non smoker, spent ten years in the military as a non smoker. I think if a ban is in order, it needs to be a well thought out gradual implementation. The first part of that is typically difficult for the military to accomplish though.
I would say it should go something like
-equalizing tobacco prices on base with off base.
-banning the sale of chewing tobacco on base
-banning the use of chewing tobacco while in uniform
-banning the sale of all tobacco products on base
-banning the use of all tobacco products while in uniform
-limiting VA medical benefits for conditions related to smoking or chewing tobacco

I would add the caveat that if you are deployed to a combat zone (i.e. you are getting hostile fire pay) then the "in uniform" bans are not enforced.

I feel this is a gradual ban (between 15-20 yrs?) that will be more easily accepted among members of the military. It also promises VA benefits for tobacco related problems until after all these bans are in place (a sort of grandfathering). Once all the bans are in place, then any tobacco related illnesses are happening while the member is on their own time, and the VA (and public) would not have to pick up the tab.

I do not think there is a way to limit any care for tobacco related health care while active duty though. It is a mission readiness issue to deny someone the care. I do not have any numbers, but I would guess it is more expensive to recruit and train someone new to replace a military member you do not want to pay health care for. And it certainly would lower a units readiness to be always getting someone new because you had to get rid of people.

Quoting Kingairta (Reply 30):
When I worked in a squadron doing MX I had a bunch of slackers who would use "smoke breaks" to get out of work. I spent more time hunting down the smokers then I needed to.

I always said if I had been a smoker while I was in the Marines I would have worked half as much, and probably live half as long. I certainly would not miss the end of "smoke pits" if I was still in.
Phrogs Phorever
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3754
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:34 pm



Quoting Vega9000 (Reply 11):

Smoking is one of the most formidable stress relievers avaliable, and I can't even imagine the kind of stress levels they endure on a battlefield. If you deny them a smoke, aren't we subjecting them to higher levels of stress in the long run?

Smoking gives the impression of relieving stress, when in actual fact over the long run it actually increases stress (along with all the other side effects). Also worth noting is that smokers performance drops off significantly if they are going through withdrawal from not having smoked (for some in as few as a few hours). So on the battlefield if a smoke is not available you start to have issues.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:59 pm

Truthfully I think this is going to result in a LOT of people leaving the armed forces... As for medical bills, we spend so much money on weapons systems of incredible complexity, taking care of a bunch of soldiers would be quite cheap in comparison.

I think they really should at least let them have some kind of nicotine substitute. Snus is good. It doesn't even cause cancer...
 
OffshoreAir
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 4:56 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:58 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 39):
I think they really should at least let them have some kind of nicotine substitute. Snus is good. It doesn't even cause cancer...

Really? Are you saying snuff (snus) doesn't cause cancer?
OffshoreAir
 
ual777
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:27 pm



Quoting Tugger (Reply 34):

Who knew smoking was so good for you?

Also you double posted the side effects of Vicodin.

I was saying it mostly tongue in cheek but actually the side effects aren't that bad when compared to smoking:

That was taken from a study done by the FAA by the way.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 34):


And several of the one listed as "rare" happen to many when they start smoking.

I have never seen someone get seizures, clammy skin, hallucinations, severe weakness, dizziness, hyperventilation, unconsciousness, jaundice (yellowing of eyes or skin), unusual fatigue, bleeding, bruising, stomach pain, constipation, muscle twitches, sweating, itching, tinnitus, hearing loss, or decreased urination from smoking a cigarette.


Quoting Tugger (Reply 34):

And finally, the last part can also apply to cigarettes:

While smoking does cause lung damage, Vicodin does it faster in most cases.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 34):

Hello? whistleblower

Smoking a cigarette and having a prescription drug addiction are two totally different things.
It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
 
dragon6172
Posts: 800
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:28 pm



Quoting Ual777 (Reply 41):
That was taken from a study done by the FAA by the way

FDA you mean?
Phrogs Phorever
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11909
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:50 pm



Quoting Ual777 (Reply 41):
Smoking a cigarette and having a prescription drug addiction are two totally different things.

Taking a single Vicodin and having a smoking addiction are two totally different things as well.

An addiction, whether to Vicodin or cigarettes, is much the same thing. Both can harm you. Both will probably kill you eventually.

Also importantly where the military (or other employers) is concerned, both make you cease to function well if you don't happen to have any.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
ual777
Posts: 1534
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:02 pm



Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 42):

FDA you mean?

No, the FAA has done multiple studies on the effects of tobacco use on pilots.
It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
 
DeltaMD11
Posts: 1678
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 4:56 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:39 am

Well, I'll offer my perspective on this looking through the lens as an officer in the United States Army. While I would generally agree that tobacco use is detrimental to one's overall health, I think that it is the wrong direction for the DoD to go to ban its sale on military installations and the use of such items while in uniform. The military generates one of the most stressful environments around through the very nature of our line of work whether in garrison or in a combat situation. Many Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen alike find smoking and dipping especially helpful in stress relief, and maintaining situational awareness. I would never tell Private Joe Snuffy to get rid of a good dip if it helps him to do his job better and keeps him content. And down range in a combat situation, forget it. You try busting into house after house not knowing whats around the next corner or getting an EFP through the side of your truck and try to maintain calm afterwards. What many who have posted previously also fail to mention is that soldiers, just like civilians, also are tax payers and quite a bit of the money that we earn goes right back into Uncle Sam's coffers. As long as I pay taxes I think I should have the right to what I want to my body as long as it does not prove to be detrimental to combat readiness. Just my perspective.
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:46 am

OffshoreAir,

Snus is not the same as Snuff...
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20150
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Wed Jul 15, 2009 6:08 am

As anti-smoking as I am, I do not support a ban on tobacco. I believe in free choice and free will and I do not believe that it should be the military's business what personnel do while off-duty as long as they aren't making trouble. I would, however, encourage banning it while on duty (i.e. while working, even if outside). And I don't think commissaries should be selling them. The military should not be providing poison to its members.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
OffshoreAir
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 4:56 pm

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:26 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 46):
OffshoreAir,

Snus is not the same as Snuff...

Oh I understand that. But Snus is still a carcinogen that causes cancer. In fact, it has been BANNED in the European Union because of the cancer it causes.

It is only less harmful, not harm-free.
OffshoreAir
 
Vega9000
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:48 am

RE: Tobacco Ban For US Military?

Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:53 am



Quoting DeltaMD11 (Reply 45):
The military generates one of the most stressful environments around through the very nature of our line of work whether in garrison or in a combat situation. Many Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen alike find smoking and dipping especially helpful in stress relief, and maintaining situational awareness. I would never tell Private Joe Snuffy to get rid of a good dip if it helps him to do his job better and keeps him content. And down range in a combat situation, forget it. You try busting into house after house not knowing whats around the next corner or getting an EFP through the side of your truck and try to maintain calm afterwards.

 checkmark 

Thank you. That was precisely my point.
Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Pihero, Veetwo and 24 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos