Ban on Tobacco Urged in Military

reply to post by jd140


I edited for a better source actually. This is more recent. Sorry about that. 1994

[edit on 11-7-2009 by projectvxn]

You ask me to pull up information about this. I pick up an article based on these studies, and then I pull up an actual study upon your request. And when the study refutes your assertions you attack it?

Try absorbing the data, see what it tells you rather than rejecting it because it doesn't conform to your view.

reply to post by projectvxn


Ok so instead of 23 years ago you post one thats 15 years ago.

Does my 50's era article still count?

reply to post by jd140


You didn't post anything. And no your fifties era article does not count. It is false information and it is a VAST consensus that smoking is, in fact, bad for physical performance overall. One guy you know does not a study make.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn


I believe I gave that one guy as an example and I also gave my over all personel expieriance.

You want to deny the military something because of 15-23 year old data. I don't smoke, but as long as it is legal we should be able to enjoy the same things your skinny butt is allowed ot enjoy. I believe we give up enough personal comforts that you enjoy on a regular basis without having someone who doesn't have a clue about the military try and dictate how he feels we should live.

Maybe instead of jumping on a bandwagon to restrict one of the few comforts we have you should just sit back and accept the fact that since you aren't effected by this ban you should sit this one out and let those it will effect say whether they support it or not.


This is my last post as I see that you are a anti smoking fanatic.

Health smealth.....It just seems they want to blame tobacco for all the war injuries and bad health that a lot of soldiers suffer from later in life.
Its easier to blame tobacco rather than any biological agents the soldiers may have been exposed to during their tour of duty.
Blame the soldiers smoking habit rather than pay million dollar compensation payouts for exposure to biohazard materials.
Just another cover up where Tobacco is the scapegoat.

reply to post by jd140


Hehe. I'm not anti-smoking. I'm for a fighting force that can be as close to 100% effective as they can be within reason. I'm actually a smoker sir.

Secondly, this is a discussion forum. You asked for sources and you got them. Refute the data or take your ball and go home when your assertions are challenged, it matters little to me.

You have no clue what I know and don't know or what I have done and not done. So please keep the personal stuff out. You and I are not the subject of this thread.

reply to post by jd140


Does the amount of time really matter? that was just ONE Scientific Journal. Here's more:

DTIC.mil PDF document:
Physical Training and Exercise-Related Injuries: Surveillance, Research and Injury Prevention in Military Populations

American Journal of Epidemiology:
Cigarette Smoking and Suicide: A Prospective Study of 300, 000 Male Active-duty Army Soldiers

NIH.gov
The Effect of Cigarette Smoking on Musculoskeletal-Related Disability

These articles are very recent.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn


This obsession you have with smoking being the evil of all ills is ridiculous.
We are talking the MILITARY here, where they are exposed to things a lot MORE TOXIC than tobacco ever will be.

reply to post by Flighty


I dont know where they get off. And you're right. Have them go thru withdrawals so that they go crazy and shoot just for the hell of it. Let them take MY cigs away and i will be prone to shooting too.

ALCOHOL KILLS.

You know, i just know they are going to make it impossible for any of us to smoke.

It will be an illegal substance and we will be down in our basements BREAKING THE LAW.



They're trying to break us ALL down.

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by projectvxn

 

This obsession you have with smoking being the evil of all ills is ridiculous.
We are talking the MILITARY here, where they are exposed to things a lot MORE TOXIC than tobacco ever will be.

When did I make the assertion that smoking is the root of all evil? And yes we are talking about the military. I'm talking about health effects. Backed up by real science. I took a position supported by the data and my personal experience as a smoker.

I don't think smoking should be illegal. But for the sake of maintaining a healthy and effective fighting force smoking in the military, as backed up by several decades of research, is detrimental to the performance of our fighting forces. Therefore it is my opinion that the military use the wording of the Uniform Code to restrict smoking to all military personnel. If it affects performance it increases the chances of death or injury in training and in the field. And since smoking carries psychological effects in the form of withdrawal symptoms(Sometimes minutes or hours after having smoked), it can be detrimental to the concentration and effectiveness of a soldier and could put the soldier and his/her fellow soldiers at risk. These are legitimate scientifically based concerns and because of this I feel my position is justified as much as yours.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by projectvxn]

"Go take out that sniper on the hill boi, and put out that DAMN cancer stick!"

"But sir, there is no cover between here and..."

"I SAID you WILL TAKE OUT THAT SNIPER, now MOVE!"

"Well if I am going to die sir, may I have one last smoke before I go? You see, if I have my smoke, it will calm me down if and when I get in a position to fire on him, sir. Without it, I am probably going to miss and he will kill me."

" BOI, did your momma...."

Whizzzz....POW~ crack heard off in the distance.

"SIR? Are you...? Oh NO, they got the Sarge! MEDIC!!!!!!" (finds cover, lights ciggy, sights em in. Easy..Easy...POW!)

"Don't worry Sarge (wounded), I got him for you. I just gave that dude a cig the other day...We were in town, and he was in plain clothes and I was telling him that you hate smokers and and...oh nvm."

MEDIC: "Awe man, Sarge is..."

whizz, ricochet...another crack in the distance....

MEDIC: "Whoa, just missed me... Ahhh, you got another smoke?"

Another smoking gun....

S+F

Most likely started by some civilian who never put on a uniform, or it's some pencil pusher in a uniform that has only discharged a weapon at basic. This is just ridiculous, if they are putting their butts on the line out there and if they want a drink and cigarette then I think they've earned it. I'm really getting tired of this anti smoking agenda. We all know the dangers of smoking by now, if I want to destroy my own body then that's my right. I think our service people are doing fine whether they smoke or not.

What?Dont these idiots know that they are going to have a hard enough time getting new recruits after the Iraq debacle without this kind of bull?If these brave service people are willing to risk their lives for their country i say let em smoke!

reply to post by projectvxn


There are a lot of things that are detrimental to performance. Alcohol, high fat foods, chemical exposure, sex, gambling, etc... Alcohol can be banned, we can engineer a food paste that's healthy, eliminate chemical use, ban sex, and ban gambling. That would make for a more efficient fighting machine.

It's all political correctness gone awry. Once the busy bodies are finished with tobacco they'll go after something else because they (to put it bluntly and untactfully) have to have something to bitch about.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
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.

First of all I understand an appriciate your Simpson's reference.

Secondly, you are completely right.

It has always been sheer idiocy that our American soldiers can go to war and take a bullet and lose their lives, at the age of 18, but they were not allowed to drink alcohol which might damage their health, until they were 21.

Just add this smoking ban to the pile of idiocy. Now they can't drink or smoke because it's bad for their health, but they can get shot at any time and die, isn't that bad for their health?

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by projectvxn
You want to deny the military something because of 15-23 year old data. I don't smoke, but as long as it is legal we should be able to enjoy the same things your skinny butt is allowed ot enjoy. I believe we give up enough personal comforts that you enjoy on a regular basis without having someone who doesn't have a clue about the military try and dictate how he feels we should live.

Maybe instead of jumping on a bandwagon to restrict one of the few comforts we have you should just sit back and accept the fact that since you aren't effected by this ban you should sit this one out and let those it will effect say whether they support it or not.

I completely agree.

This is one thing to calm the nerves, bond with your team, and remember a simple comfort of home which soldiers and madmen have enjoyed for countless years.

To say it's bad for them but gunfire and IED's are fine, is bull#.

If we are so worried about our soldiers' health, we shouldn't be sending them to die in a war.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by BaronVonGodzilla]

Our troops should be allowed to smoke. They are dying for our rights. Its not as dangerous as getting hit with a bullet. But everyone should try to quit ..they are bad for you .... I quit, 3 years almost, feel great.

This is a perfect example of the shallow power drunk mindset of military logic.

If you won't change we'll beat it into you!

Well, get a number, wait in line. Not going to work because we are after all dealing with biological lifeforms, not metal you only heat and beat into submission. Humans are not steel and Kevlar machines you gas up, oil and throw into battle.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances in the public apothecary. The withdrawals are worse than Heroin's. The actual backlash from such a sanction would be devastating for the military, like pulling the eyeglasses off a driver who is already barely staying on the road at the high speeds they push these good men and woman to drive themselves.

Most of these people are not given coping mechanisms in dealing with the conditions of stress and isolation, let alone the horrors of the constant fears of attack from insurgents, IEDs or being dropped in a hostile culture where they are not liked or trusted. The stress is life-changing for these young people. Not for the good either. A chaplain can't help. A field therapist would just be, like the chaplain only trained to get them back into battle or boot them over to non-critical duty if they can't help them.

PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) is what most bring home from the theater of war. These are real sometimes life debilitating illness and psychological issues that hurt them, their family and society for the loss of such otherwise productive special people who gave their young lives to defend what is left of our freedoms. God Bless them.

But, only now is the military even recognizing such. And, only to deflect a shot over their bow of common sense. Or lack therein.

Nicotine is one of the most interesting psychoactive substances known to biochemistry and Psychopharmacology because it can change it's role according to it's users need.

If you are stressed it acts as a calmative and relaxant. If you are tired or otherwise depressed it can act as a stimulant and fatigue-fighting agent.

I could say more, but don't want to sell this substances use, because it is also so addictive that people will kill themselves to keep it in their bloodstream. Duh?

Without coping mechanisms in the fields of battle, many more would take damage to their emotional and psychological being.

PTSD is worse than a nicotine addiction in that we can deal with the physical reality and the biochemical implications of substance addiction. Psychological damage is another thing entirely.

I'll wager the military will slowly put their tail between their legs and back off when they realize the complexity, and in fact, the impossibility of dealing with the resulting reality backlash and officials insufficient knowledge to deal with the resulting problems this will bring.

I am all for some of the military spending to develop a treatment or safe methodology to apply to their people in uniform and the public in general. Sure! PLEASE DO!

Do it after we find that beating people into submission is archaic, ignorant and of no real value for anyone but our enemies. What they want to do is good. How they do it is not recommended, and there are other considerations they will have to be aware of.

ZG

This is the most absurd concept I have ever heard of. There is no chance in hell they will take cigarettes away from trained soldiers. It will never happen.
If anything they should be passing out cigarettes and Xanax to those soldiers that are not on active combat duty. It certainly didn't hurt soldiers in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2 to have cigarettes.
If i'm not mistaken, the Red Cross use to hand out cigarettes in some of the earlier wars. Interesting thread, though.