Obama, Pentagon Consider Banning Tobacco in US Military

[Guard Dog]

Excerpt:

 

U.S. soldiers are trained to handle deadly weapons and smoke out enemies but they may soon find that they aren't allowed to handle cigarettes and light up a smoke.

 

Pentagon health experts are pressing Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and ends its sale on military property, according to USA Today.

 

Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon's office of clinical and program policy, told the newspaper that he will advise Gates to adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.

 

The study by the Institute of Medicine calls for a phased-in ban over a period of perhaps up to 20 years.

 

"We'll certainly be taking that recommendation forward," Smith told the newspaper.

 

The VA and the Pentagon requested the study, which found that troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a "stress reliever." The study also found that tobacco use in the military rose after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.

 

Tobacco use costs the Pentagon $846 million a year in medical care and lost productivity, according to the study, which was released last month and used older data. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends up to $6 billion in treatments for tobacco-related illnesses, the study found.

 

The study recommends requiring new officers and enlisted personnel to be tobacco-free, eliminating tobacco use on military installations, ships and aircraft, expanding treatment programs and eliminating the sale of tobacco on military property.

 

"Any tobacco use while in uniform should be prohibited," the study said.

 

Link:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/11...trike-military/

 

I'm curious what everyone thinks here. I have my own opinion on this of course but before I elaborate I'd like to hear from you guys first. I think this story is very telling about more than just banning smoking in the military. I do find it a little ironic that Obama wants to take tobacco away from other people but has no inclination of giving it up himself.

[taks]

I do find it a little ironic that Obama wants to take tobacco away from other people but has no inclination of giving it up himself.

wouldn't that be hypocritical, not ironic?

 

nanny-state to the rescue!

 

taks

[Kelverin]

All smokers should be shot immediately if not sooner!

[Gorgon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/08/business/08smoking.html

 

I believe the standard answer to this story is that people are perfectly free not to join the company and therefore it's health care plans don't infringe on individual liberty. I Imagine Obama is considering the army ban for much the same reason as Weyco.

 

I smoke myself, and yet I can understand why it's being considered. It would save money in the long run, and I believe the US army already has 'socialized' medical care.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Gorgon

[Gorgon]

uhh apparently the NY times don't allow remote linking. Anyway google 'Weyco smoking ban'

[Enoch]

Curious that you led the thread title with "Obama" given that he's not mentioned at all in the linked article, and that government studies are pretty slow moving animals, which means that this one was probably commissioned well before his inauguration. It's a recommendation from an internal Pentagon/VA health group, not an official statement of administration policy.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Enoch

[Hurlshort]

I'm pretty biased, since I really dislike smoking, but I think it is a positive move.

 

Here is the thing, smoking is very bad for you. The US Military wants to promote itself as helping young people become brighter and stronger, yet tobacco use is extremely high within the armed forces. Apparently it has actually gone up over the last two decades, which is fairly disappointing.

 

It sounds like current military personnel are exempt, so basically if you want to join the military, you would be expected not to smoke while in uniform. I don't see how that is unreasonable.

 

Why shouldn't we be moving towards a smoke-free society anyways? It is tremendously unhealthy. If you convince young people that it just isn't worth starting, then you end up with whole generations of healthier humans. I know people will make the comparison to drinking, but I'm pretty sure you can't down a beer while in uniform either.

[Guard Dog]

Curious that you led the thread title with "Obama" given that he's not mentioned at all in the linked article, and that government studies are pretty slow moving animals, which means that this one was probably commissioned well before his inauguration. It's a recommendation from an internal Pentagon/VA health group, not an official statement of administration policy.

 

No actually he was not directly involved in this but in two of the articles over the weekend including the CNN one which I can no longer find, the study was completed last year then apparently shelved until Sebelius started pushing it. She is his HHS secretary. He is the CIC of the military. He does smoke. He is responsible for actions taken on his behalf by his cabinet affecting institutions he has direct control over.

[Hurlshort]

Obama has stated a few times that he is addicted to cigarettes and has not been able to quit despite attempts. So it seems plenty logical to me that he would want to help prevent young soldiers from going down that same path.

 

 

But the article doesn't really mention anything about that, so it is just speculation.

 

 

I really doubt the tobacco industry will allow this anyways. The military is their biggest constituency after Hollywood.

[Rosbjerg]

I think it's a stupid idea honestly, but they have the right to ban smoking while they are on duty imo. if more soldiers starts smoking however, you look at why that is the case rather than ban the behaviour.. you know, maybe it actually helps with their stress and if so wouldn't it be wiser to provide better stress-relieve rather than taking one away. If they do it however, I think the 20 year phase-out time is wise. By then you'll probably be socially stigmatized if you smoke anyway, if the current trend continues.

 

But it's something I've been worried about for awhile. Goverments ban or issue taxes on unhealthy items.. mostly because, I believe, that thet believe it's too expensive for them in the long run. While they are perfectly happy with keeping people in unhealthy job conditions until they are 65, as long as said workers pay their taxes. Generally I just think it's detestable when companies/goverments feign responsibilty - something I see in my own current goverment.

 

I'm just worried what banning smokes all together would do.. Looking at USA in the 20's I don't think goverment bans really works and many countries are still dealing with the rise in crime from when they had bans..

 

 

uhh apparently the NY times don't allow remote linking. Anyway google 'Weyco smoking ban'

link works fine for me.. I hope that isn't allowed to stand, companies have no buisness meddling in your private life, I think it's okay to ban smoking/drinking etc while on the job, since it can be a health risk to other people.. but companies shouldn't have any say on what you do in your spare time, as long as it's legal.

[taks]

Why shouldn't we be moving towards a smoke-free society anyways?

personal choice? at what point should the government be required to stop saving us from ourselves (even if it is only part of the military)?

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

Why shouldn't we be moving towards a smoke-free society anyways?

personal choice? at what point should the government be required to stop saving us from ourselves (even if it is only part of the military)?

 

taks

 

I have to agree.. We should definitely try to move towards a healthier society, but making it illegal not to move in that direction is pretty intrusive.. Nothing works better than social pressure anyway, so if we want smoking out of society we should just make it as unpopular as alchoholism..

[Pidesco]

It's a specific organization where the health of its members is very important to its function. The question is why smoking isn't already banned in the military.

[Moose]

Geez if they're worried about the health of soldiers then maybe they should stop sending them out to fight. This whole motion is ridiculous given the context.

[Kelverin]

unpopular as alchoholism..

Yes, since it's helped people to stop drinking alcohol

 

Diet, exercise, take care of yourself and die anyway

[Hurlshort]

Why shouldn't we be moving towards a smoke-free society anyways?

personal choice? at what point should the government be required to stop saving us from ourselves (even if it is only part of the military)?

 

taks

 

If you read my post carefully, I didn't say anything about the government making tobacco illegal. A smoke-free society enforced by law wouldn't work, as we learned with prohibition and alcohol. I'm talking about changing the culture of the US to a point where it isn't "cool" to smoke.

 

Men and women in uniform are representing the US military, and many children look up to them. I think the government would be making a positive change here to create a more healthy image for young people.

[Pidesco]

Geez if they're worried about the health of soldiers then maybe they should stop sending them out to fight. This whole motion is ridiculous given the context.

 

 

By that rationale, the military shouldn't even bother with training the soldiers, as they're going to be sent to their deaths anyway.

[Meshugger]

Why shouldn't we be moving towards a smoke-free society anyways?

 

As long as smoking is part of the "sex, drugs and rock n' roll"(cool), "live fast and die hard"(cool) and generally rugged and anti-authoritarian imagery(cool), people will continue to smoke.

 

If those in authoritarian positions(state, head of coorporations, police, judges, teachers, boring parents) and those who worship them, started to smoke and even publicly promote it, then smoking would dissappear within a generation.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Meshugger

[Oner]

Right, everyone smokes 'cause it's cool, not because it feels good and relieves stress.

[Meshugger]

Right, everyone smokes 'cause it's cool, not because it feels good and relieves stress.

 

That is true on personal level, as i smoke myself. However, i am talking about the social phenomenon of smoking beeing tied to rebellious behaviour.

[Pidesco]

It doesn't feel good, at first. It tastes bloody awful and is even painful the first few times, so that's a load of bollocks. If people mostly smoked because it felt good and relieved stress, they wouldn't smoke at all.

 

Peer pressure is the main reason why people begin to smoke tobacco.

[Meshugger]

It doesn't feel good, at first. It tastes bloody awful and is even painful the first few times, so that's a load of bollocks. If people mostly smoked because it felt good and relieved stress, they wouldn't smoke at all.

 

Peer pressure is the main reason why people begin to smoke tobacco.

 

Everyone wants to be the cool kid.

[Moose]

Geez if they're worried about the health of soldiers then maybe they should stop sending them out to fight. This whole motion is ridiculous given the context.

 

 

By that rationale, the military shouldn't even bother with training the soldiers, as they're going to be sent to their deaths anyway.

 

No, because training has a significant impact on mortality rate, where as smoking won't. You have to take things into context.

[Pidesco]

I'm betting a sudden hacking cough while trying to dodge bullets has a definite effect on a soldier's chance of dying.

 

Edit: not to mention the general effect of reduced stamina

[Oner]

Geez if they're worried about the health of soldiers then maybe they should stop sending them out to fight. This whole motion is ridiculous given the context.

 

 

By that rationale, the military shouldn't even bother with training the soldiers, as they're going to be sent to their deaths anyway.

No, because training has a significant impact on mortality rate, where as smoking won't. You have to take things into context.

I think most of us wouldn't bear the pressure of having to stand guard all day long in some foreign country where any random by passer may be walking bomb without cigarettes.