War zone smoking will stay, Pentagon says

[RamboLiberal]

Source: MSNBC/AP

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon says it won't ban smoking by troops in war zones despite a recent study recommending a tobacco-free military.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell says troops already are under enough stress and making enough sacrifices from fighting the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he says Defense Secretary Robert Gates doesn't want to do add to that stress by taking away one of the few outlets they have to relieve it.

But Morrell says Gates will look at the study to see what other things can be done to move toward a goal of a tobacco-free force.



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31927697/ns/health-addictions/

---

Good.

[Mari333]

1. wise move. nt

[mrbarber]

2. Oh for God's sake.

The anti-tobacco zealots are just to much sometimes.

[Skittles]

3. yes

a neighbor told me I should not send cigarettes to Marines in Afghanistan because "it's bad for them". Lots of irony in that opinion, no? :o

[EFerrari]

6. Oh, Geeze.

:crazy:

[EFerrari]

4. Maybe there could be a trade. Our service people won't smoke if

these anti-smoking nutcases agree to be shot at.

[mamaleah]

26. I don't smoke

but I have some friends who I would like to sign up for your program! :evilgrin:

[salguine]

5. Oh, for fuck's sake! I hadn't even heard this one. If they had actually

gone through with banning smoking by soldiers in combat zones, I think we would have seen a thousand-fold increase in fraggings of non-smoking enforcement officers...

[Xenotime]

7. That's too bad. I see all these photos of troops and cigars.

It just can't be healthy

[mrbarber]

8. You are being facetious, right?

[Xenotime]

33. No. They are government workers and need to follow the rules.

If they can't haul gear to where it needs to go because they are wheezing and can't breath there is a fucking problem.

[tranche]

40. Sometimes I see where some come from when they denigrate "liberals".

I can see it now... some little hall monitor type kid, huge glasses, monitoring marine's smoking as they hump their gear up towards the battle field.

"Nope, no cigar for you, you've got to follow the rules".

jazuz

[MadMaddie]

23. Weighing cigerattes

against roadside bombs, snipers, disiese, depression, suicide

I would rather let the soldiars smoke.

This is America if people want to smoke let them....as long as they understand that they can't sue for their habits.

[Nickster]

9. Yeahhhhh, the chance of that EVER being enforceable? 0.0 Percent.

[JonQ]

10. I'm for a ban

our troops should be kept safe.

Also, they should ban bullets, shrapnel and IEDs. Those things, while not carcinogenic themselves, can also put our troops at risk.

And they're out in the sun alot, that could lead to skin cancer. Maybe we should only do operations at night.

[orion007]

12. Smoking is permitted on the hill

in D.C.

Senators and Reps. can smoke in their offices, certain cafeterias, and other designated places.
Once in a while you hear something about a movement to ban smoking on the hill,it goes nowhere.
They should be held to the same smoking enforcement laws as the rest of us.

What an idiot to even suggest a no smoking military,

[Submariner]

14. "Do as I say, NOT as I do"

If there was ever an instance for that cliche, the smoking on the Hill as you describe is it. Wow...what hypocrites.

[KoKo]

16. I think what I read was that Pelosi asked them to go OUTSIDE

so the smoke didn't fill the corridors outside her office and the offices of other Senators who found it offensive to smell it.

I think they now go out to a Balcony off the Senate floors.

[mamaleah]

27. Meanwhile in most states

you cannot smoke near your office at all.

Yup, as usual, Do As I Say, Not As I Do.

[Robb]

11. Well, too bad.

Although the media have boiled this down to "a ban on smoking in war zones," which no one in their right mind would agree is a good idea, the study actually had several good recommendations that would take more than a decade to put in place:

The study ... recommends closing “the pipeline of new tobacco users entering the military” by prohibiting tobacco use in the service academies and officer-training programs like ROTC and eventually instituting a total ban on all use of tobacco by active-duty personnel.

Suggestions included eliminating the sale of tobacco products on military installations -- or at the very least, eliminating the discount for service members and charging full market price. And "...Provide all Pentagon and VA staff and patients with unfettered access to tobacco-cessation services ... Ensure resources, including infrastructure and funding, at all facilities."

And it would pay for itself over time:

The study, led by Stuart Bondurant, a professor of medicine and emeritus dean at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, said smoking and tobacco-related illnesses cost the Pentagon more than $800 million a year in lost productivity and health care expenses.

The bill for the VA is much higher, it said, saying more than 80 percent of the $5 billion annual cost of treating pulmonary disease among military retirees was directly attributable to smoking.

Hell, I don't want to take away a combat soldier's smokes. But there were good ideas here for a gradual phase-out that got zapped by a bunch of reactionary types. :(

[RamboLiberal]

13. Only thing that got shot down so far from what I read

is banning smoking in a war zone.

I think they still want to do the other things to lessen smoking on military bases not in war zones.

Heck I think it's bad they banned alcohol in Iraq and Afghanistan. IMHO the troops should at least be allowed beer.
I've heard that some find ways of getting booze smuggled in.

[merwin]

31. So it's 80% of the 5 billion annual cost of treating pulmonary disease for VA hospitals...

But how much does the VA spend annually on treatment costs overall? And how many of those people smoked while in the military vs starting smoking as a mental coping mechanism for PTSD, war injuries, etc. I'd also like to see what percentage of military personnel smoke, and what percentage fall into that "80% of the $5 billion", and how that relates to civilian numbers.

I'd be willing to bet that some of the symptoms of chemical exposure that our troops are put into could very well be inadvertantly lumped into the "directly attributable to smoking" category, which is why having the civilian numbers are important.

I'm always skeptical of supposedly scientific studies that begin with the conclusion (in this case, the cost of treating smoking-related illnesses) and find data to support that, rather than having controlled studies. A quick google of Stuart Bondurant led me to a 1999 study on methods to reduce the danger of smoking... pretty sure there's a bias there that he's starting with.

I'm not saying that smoking is good, I'm just saying that if you're going to do a study... do it fairly and accurately. Get impartial scientists to lead the study and use proper scientific method.

[Robb]

32. "I'm not saying that smoking is good..."

Well, you're saying any research done that supports a conclusion that stands counter to smoking is biased. Parse it all you want, but that's what you're saying. :shrug:

Wholly untenable position you have there. And I say that as a proponent of smoking in moderation.

[merwin]

35. I'm saying that if you start with the conclusion, it's not a scientific study.

It wouldn't hold up to a peer review.

I am suggesting that the 80% could possibly have other causes as well as smoking, such as chemical exposure. And it looks like there is no control group in the study (in this case, non-military patients), which further taints it. What if smoking in non-military patients only account for 50% of the cases of pulmonary issues.

The results of the study would most definitely prove that smoking is a huge cause of pulmonary issues... but if they're going to be throwing out hard percentages as fact, it needs to be able to withstand scrutiny.

[dflprincess]

37. During WWII the packages the Red Cross sent the GIs included cigarettes

I don't know when they stopped the practice.

I just can't get over the irony of it being decided that smoking is apparently more dangerous for the military than fighting two unnecessary, endless wars with never ending cycles of deployment. Do the people who come up with this crap ever listen to themselves?

[Igel]

36. Well, since we want a healthy military and cost savings ...

We should require that all people in the chain of command, from the lowly private to the CiC, not smoke, only eat healthy, ensure proper precautions during sex, exercise regularly, running at least two miles a day four days a week. No trans fat for them, they must limit their intake of alcohol and red meat, and have a regular sleeping schedule. They must not be more than 3 lbs overweight, or their exercise regime kicks into a higher gear.

This must include the president, the vice-president, and the speaker of the house, as well as all members of the armed services committees.

If they fail to live up to their requirements for any reason (apart from national emergency), there's a punishment to be meted out, with the punishment related to the responsibilities of the job. Privates get a slap on the wrist, members of congress and above are immediately detained and sent to a camp where they're put on the proper regime until it's sufficiently internalized that they can resume their duties.

After all, we need them healthy, and if they aren't they can't do their jobs and they cost us, the taxpayer, money. Of course, the same will have to be implemented in the event of a national health plan, since we don't dare waste money on smokers, the overweight, or sofa sloths. Right?

[KoKo]

15. That seems fair...n/t

[Warpy]

17. Smoking cuts endurance and that can be fatal for a soldier under stress

but declaring that smoking is now forbidden in the military is just plain stupid, especially in a war zone.

This is one of those things that should be accomplished slowly and with the knowledge that some addicted soldiers are simply not going to be able to quit.

It makes a great deal of sense to get them off cigarettes. It's beyond stupid to try to do it by decree.

Support quitting stateside. Don't punish anyone for continuing the addiction.

[ohio2007]

21. Taliban 'freedom fighters' are heavy tobacco and pot smokers.

just saying, they do some crazy stuff at night. Digging holes in the road.

They gotta be high

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fndgXQwPlRc&feature=player_embedded

As long as tobacco is sold over the counter in this country
there is no need to demand they stop while people who barely can afford it are smoking two packs a day

[Warpy]

24. Right, but as health policy for the military

it needs to be discouraged and smoking cessation programs supported.

The Taliban aren't crazy. When you have no weapons to fight an enemy, sometimes the best you can do is slow him down by breaking his axles in holes in the road.

[AndyTiedye]

18. I Detest Tobacco, But Our Troops Are Under Enough Stress Already

The thought of adding nicotine withdrawal to the mix is truely scary. :scared:

[tomm2thumbs]

19. a lot of folks I know picked up smoking while serving in the military - for what it's worth

my dad included - who died from lung cancer. But the same can be said of actors on movie sets, students cramming for exams during finals, etc. So I can see both sides, but I bet the tobacco companies love their troops smoking - it helps create new & lifelong customers on a daily basis - and the military retirees get free medical treatment for life so we do all foot the bill.

[BeHereNow]

20. I smell the Pharma Cartel behind this one... Troops used as Lab Rats, AGAIN

I'm willing to wager any amount of money that the
pharma cartel has some new drug it wants to use our
troops as lab rats for a new stop smoking drug...
BHN

[mitchum]

29. I think you may be correct, BHN

[MadMaddie]

22. Ridiculous

This goes too far...the military did the right thing. For pete's sake we ask too much already and to even consider stop letting them smoke....

[Psephos]

25. Don't Ash, Don't Tell n/t

[chill_wind]

28. Insane that it (ban) was even contemplated under said conditions n/t

[Vidar]

30. Glad they abandoned this stupidity.

[Lost Jaguar]

34. If I was a dogface ...

...who just climbed into the back of a Chinook after being extracted from a hot LZ, I'd want a nail real bad. If you don't want smoking in a combat zone, let's not have any combat zones.

[Boddingham]

38. Great. It is okay for them to smoke on government property, but not me?

I am sick of this fucking shit where the military gets rights superior to mine. I am a smoker. I think I should be able to smoke anywhere I fucking want to.

[U4ikLefty]

39. Smoking in a war zone? Dont they know that stuff can kill ya?!?