You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Will Pentagon Ban Tobacco Use in the Military?
2009-07-10
Health experts at the Pentagon want a ban on the sale and use of tobacco in the military, USA Today reports.
Because nobody knows what's good for troops like a bureaucrat.
A study commissioned by the Pentagon and Veteran Affairs recommends banning the product in phases over the next several years. Additionally, it suggests that "achieving a tobacco-free military begins by closing the pipeline of new tobacco users entering the military and by promoting cessation programs to ensure abstinence" -- which means requiring all enlisting members to be tobacco-free, Army.com reports.
I used to smoke like a leaky furnace when I was a young enlisted man. In Vietnam I found that puffing on gaspers helped while away the hours when under rocket attack. That was prob'ly because I never gave much consideration to which was worse for my health. I'll admit, though, that I kept smoking longer than I kept getting attacked by rockets.
As the head of the Pentagon's office of clinical and program policy, Jack Smith told USA Today that he will be urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to adopt the proposals set forth by the study.
One wonders, idly, of course, how much artillery Jack's seen in his life.
Dr. Smith is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Medicine and holds a Master of Medical Management degree from Tulane University. He served more than 30 years in the U.S. Navy and retired in 2005. He is a board certified Family Physician with more than fifteen years of executive medicine experience. During his Navy career, he served as Commanding Officer of Naval Hospital, Yokosuka, Japan. He also had operational assignments as Senior Medical Officer of USS Missouri (BB 63) and as Group Surgeon for Second Force Service Support Group, Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic. Other highlights of his career include participation in humanitarian relief operations in Chuuk State, Federated States of Micronesia, and Haitian and Cuban migrant operations in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he served as the Joint Task Force Surgeon in 1994. More recently, he supported medical sector reconstruction projects in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He is a Certified Physician Executive of the American College of Physician Executives, and a member of the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physician Executives, the American College of Healthcare Executives, the American Medical Association, the Society of Military Consultants to the Armed Forces and the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States.

It finds that tobacco use costs the Pentagon nearly $846 million each year. $6 billion is spent by the Department of Veteran Affairs on treating tobacco-related illnesses as well.
Oh, noes! Of course, the military health system spends a lot of money delivering babies, too, so it'd be logical for troops to be forbidden to have children. And I just got a new hip that'da cost me a fortune if I'd been a civilian. Military personnel should prob'ly be required to turn in their bones when they retire. Either that or the Pentagon could simply cease treating retirees, since we're not needed anymore.
The Pentagon requested the study in 2007, according to Army.com. It found one in three service members currently use tobacco products, and that the heaviest smokers are in the Army and Marines. The study also found that tobacco use has risen since the start of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, suggesting a direct correlation between combat and tobacco use.
It's the rockets. Take my word for it.
Heavy smoking has been part of military culture for years.
Duh.
"The image of the battle-weary soldier in fatigues and helmet, fighting for his country, has frequently included his lit cigarette," the study says. A ban would mean fewer such associations, possibly changing the culture altogether, the study suggests.
Yeah. Go ahead. Change the culture. It's not like it works or anything...
Although tobacco use in the military is not encouraged, anti-tobacco advocate Kenneth Kizer told USA Today that such products are subsidized for troops. Much of the profits from their sale to troops go to recreation and family support programs.
From what I recall, the main price differential had to do with not paying state taxes on the cancer sticks. Such a deal.
If the proposals are adopted, tobacco products will not be sold at military commissaries. In addition, tobacco use would be banned on military property and tobacco use would be treated similarly to alcohol abuse
A friend of mine ordered wine with her lunch while in uniform once, at a rest stop in Germany, to be accused by another officer apparently belonging to the Nanny branch of being an alcoholic. Rather than having a glass of wine she was "consuming alcohol." That was in 1983. Things haven't gotten better, I see.
and poor fitness, according to Army.com.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#8  A zero sum game. Everybody eventually dies. Taking out tobacco just changes the life path, even extends it, but the final result and cost impact eventually the same.
Posted by: Skunky Glins 5***   2009-07-10 22:35  

#7  Would this include their ummmmmmmmmmmmmm...Commander in Chief?
Posted by: tu3031   2009-07-10 21:56  

#6  Aborting the unborn of US service women... GOOD TO GO! Lucky Strikes.... not so much.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-07-10 21:11  

#5  As a lung doc you can imagine what I think of tobacco.

But my learned colleague, Dr. Smith, is mistaken in his approach. Coercion to make people stop smoking doesn't work well either short- or long-term. What works is education, and that works when a patient is ready to listen.
Posted by: Steve White   2009-07-10 20:22  

#4  The word Backlash pops up.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2009-07-10 18:23  

#3  The drug nicotine increases alertness which can lead to increased survival rate in a number of military situations. Long-term negative health consequences don't matter if you don't live long enough to get to long-term.
Posted by: Glenmore   2009-07-10 18:19  

#2  Troops in a war zone (or even a semi-war zone) are by the nature of the situation denied so many ordinary pleasures that it strikes me as unwise to remove the few they have left. Not to mention that uniting cranky, unsatisfied nicotine addicts with sharp and explosive things seems an inherently risky idea.
Posted by: trailing wife    2009-07-10 18:05  

#1  As our family Marine said about smoking: "It's a sh*t ton better than a piece of cr*ppy gum!"
Posted by: Mullah Richard   2009-07-10 17:28  

00:00