Ban on Tobacco Urged in Military

Ban on tobacco urged in military

By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Pentagon health experts are urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property, a change that could dramatically alter a culture intertwined with smoking.
Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon's office of clinical and program policy, says he will recommend that Gates adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.

Link:
www.usatoday.com...

[edit on 10 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I searched for this on ATS...didn't see it in the Political News Forum yet...

I'm not sure what I think, this time. I really hate cigarette smoke -- never have smoked, never will (anything).

Certainly the health risks aren't in dispute, perhaps only certain aspects. 'Second-hand' smoke, and such. BUT, knowing that nicotine is such a highly addictive substance, and weaning from it is difficult....

This looks to be about to kick up quite a firestorm.

Impressions?

reply to post by weedwhacker


That's just terrific ...

They're fighting for our freedoms but they're not free to smoke.

I guess they're concerned about their health. Or maybe nicotine interferes with some of the poisons they give our soldiers.

Always about the money isn't it? Some idiot in sector 7G did a risk analysis report and this is what comes of it.

Alcohol would make much more sense. More soldiers die as a direct result of alcohol abuse than our retarded wars. In many cases, they take innocent motorists with them.

Living right next more than one major military installations, the "invincible-itis" is quite obvious in many of the troops returning from their tours. They get back unscathed after 18 months of combat duty, have a party to celebrate their invincibility, then get themselves and others killed while cartwheeling their brand new truck down a 30 MPH zone at 70.

OR, maybe it's got something to do with the FDA taking the reigns on tobacco. Now that's something interesting to ponder...

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Like I say...I'm inclined to see this as a really, really baaaad idea.

AND, coming from me, that's saying sumthin'!!

Story says that just over 1/3 of service-members smoke, compared to about 20% of civilian adult Americans. (More specifically, 'use tobacco'. Applies to chew, as well).

Sector 7 G. Good one.

If they want to smoke, let them smoke. Jesus zombie Christ on a stick. They're over in a desert dieing for oil. Maybe that is in America's interests, or maybe not. I don't know.

But if part of your job involves getting shot at and watching your buddies die, wouldn't you want a cigarette?

reply to post by Unit541


Thanks for that observation, Unit, fleshes out the controversy a bit more.

Oh, and:

...the FDA taking the reigns...

Was that an intentional double-entendre? Either way, it apropos, and it's clever!

[edit on 10 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

Ironic really, they will be allowed to put their lives in danger by choice by joining the military but not allowed to choose to do it by smoking... Hypocrisy at its best.

Hi Weed, nice find. The question I keep asking is why the government keeps pushing the slaves to stop smoking but they themselves don't have to. Congress and parliament both still have smoking areas in their workplaces - The law doesn't apply to them don't you know, many can still smoke in their office.

For a solder who smokes, sometimes a cigarette is the only comfort in their conflict driven world.
How two faced of the government to say it's costing to much to treat the solders who smoke yet the government runs up billions on the tax payers tab to send these guys to war over lies to begin with.

If they're really concerned about saving money maybe we shouldn't have the solders swimming in depleted uranium daily.

I think the governments going to far taking away solders cigarettes while they're comfortably smoking at their desks.

Star and flag!

jhahahaahaha.... yeaaaaa........ Send a man and his lads over to Iraq/Afghanistan, have them get shot at and have their friends get blown up. And THEN try and tell them they cant smoke. Im prettttyyyy sure the last thing you want to do to a distraught man with a gun is take away the ONE thing that will calm him down.

haha

take away their smokes... ahaha

There isn't anything to see here.

It isn't any huge plot behind this. They have been pushing anti-smoking rules since the 1980s. Why? How about better health?

And as someone posted, booze is a problem, and they have been working on that, too.

Maybe the idea of this is to have the military men and women NOT CALM.
If you know what I mean.

What!!! Soldiering is not soldiering unless you have tobacco it's bad enough that the average GI has to pay so much for the beloved cigs. When I was in the Army (ancient days) we paid 23cents a pack or we had little four cig packs in our C- rats usually Chesterfields, Winstons and I can't remember the others. It's nice to have a cig after a firefight or getting shelled all night. I guess it's just another stale, lame sign of the times. No tobacco sheesh...give a grunt a break. Stinkin' politicians and policy makers we should go to war against them.

reply to post by Sundancer

The question I keep asking is why the government keeps pushing the slaves to stop smoking but they themselves don't have to.

Exactly! That's why I see this as Political, and not 'Breaking Alternative News'.

To miss an opening like the one you just provided, Sundancer, would be stupid, so a shameless *bump*... about other Congressional hyprocrisy...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 10 July 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by jerico65
There isn't anything to see here.

It isn't any huge plot behind this. They have been pushing anti-smoking rules since the 1980s. Why? How about better health?

And as someone posted, booze is a problem, and they have been working on that, too.

What a bunch of feces.

The TRUE dangers to their health are
Bullets and Bombs. Duh.

No one is banning those tho!

[edit on 10-7-2009 by muzzleflash]

Yes it is bad for you , but it DOES calm peoples nerves.

I think the last thing they need to be thinking about is not getting a smoke while patrolling in afganistans 45 c heat.

[edit on 10-7-2009 by MR BOB]

I am inclined to think that perhaps tobacco disables fluoridation effects and that is the reason, besides health issues, that the governments are pushing to regulate or ban tobacco usage.

If they truly cared about people's health, pharmaceutical companies would all be severely regulated and the FDA would actually work instead of allowing deadly medicines to kill people for years before a recall.

food for thought

[edit on 10-7-2009 by warrenb]

Well, I don't think they mind you getting killed in action, but they want you to be in top shape if you get killed. You're government property G.I. Joe as in Government Issued Joe. Anything that keeps you from doing the mission at your top game is out of line and not tolerated. I've seen people get in trouble for getting a sunburn while in the military so I guess it's no surprise that smoking makes the list.

reply to post by warrenb

...and the FDA would actually work instead of allowing deadly medicines to kill people for years before a recall.

food for thought

Excellent points! Now, speaking of dangerous readily available compounds, I still have to finish chewing my Tylenol. Still working on the liver failure (booze helps...)

Originally posted by warrenb
If they truly cared about people's health, pharmaceutical companies would all be severely regulated and the FDA would actually work instead of allowing deadly medicines to kill people for years before a recall.
[edit on 10-7-2009 by warrenb]

Exactly!

Why doesn't the Government ban it completely? Because there is a lot of money in Government sponsored prevention as well as lobbyists......sell it with your right hand and restrict it with your left.