• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Pentagon urges a ban on tobacco for our Military

IanHummel

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
884
http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009...9-smoking_N.htm
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.

The study by the Institute of Medicine, requested by the VA and Pentagon, calls for a phased-in ban over a period of years, perhaps up to 20. "We'll certainly be taking that recommendation forward," Smith says.

A tobacco ban would confront a military culture, the report says, in which "the image of the battle-weary soldier in fatigues and helmet, fighting for his country, has frequently included his lit cigarette."

Also, the report said, troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a "stress reliever." The study found that tobacco use in the military increased after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Barack Obama | Robert Gates | Institute of Medicine | Kenneth Kizer
Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said the department supports a smoke-free military "and believes it is achievable." She declined to elaborate on any possible ban.

One in three servicemembers use tobacco, the report says, compared with one in five adult Americans. The heaviest smokers are soldiers and Marines, who have done most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the study says. About 37% of soldiers use tobacco and 36% of Marines. Combat veterans are 50% more likely to use tobacco than troops who haven't seen combat.

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

Along with a phased-in ban, the report 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 says.

The military complicates attempts to curb tobacco use by subsidizing tobacco products for troops who buy them at base exchanges and commissaries, says Kenneth Kizer, a committee member and architect of California's anti-tobacco program.

Seventy percent of profits from tobacco sales — $88 million in 2005 — pays for recreation and family support programs, the study stays.

Strong leadership could make the military tobacco-free in five to 10 years, Kizer says. President Obama, he says, could set an example for the military by ending his own smoking habit once and for all. Last month, Obama said he is "95% cured" but "there are times when I mess up" and smoke.


It's unfortunate that things like this are even brought up. We've all seen nothing but heartfelt thanks from the troops day in and day out for the cigars that are donated to them by shops, manufacturers, message boards, and individuals.
 
Bullets pose a larger health risk I think. Leave the troops the F*ck alone.
 
Maybe you guys aren't aware of how cigarette manufactures conspired in two world wars, the Korean war and Viet Nam, to addict GI's to nicotine. You can look it up.

Doc.
 
Good thing nicotine isn't addictive. Most studies point to the habit of smoking being the thing that is difficult to break, since nicotine doesn't "technically" fit the criteria for addiction. Of course, there are always those who want to change the rules.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/addictiv.htm

Edit to add: If someone is willing to go and fight for their country, knowing they might die in the process, they should be able to enjoy a smoke. They should also be allowed to have an alcoholic beverage. I think it's sick that at 18 you can die in service of your country but you can't have a beer legally (but that's another issue entirely).
 
Good thing nicotine isn't addictive. Most studies point to the habit of smoking being the thing that is difficult to break, since nicotine doesn't "technically" fit the criteria for addiction. Of course, there are always those who want to change the rules.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/addictiv.htm

Edit to add: If someone is willing to go and fight for their country, knowing they might die in the process, they should be able to enjoy a smoke. They should also be allowed to have an alcoholic beverage. I think it's sick that at 18 you can die in service of your country but you can't have a beer legally (but that's another issue entirely).
Horse shit it ain't addicting. That's just nonsense and not even worth addressing.

Doc.
 
Doc, your comment urged me to do a little more research. It seems that the DSM IV has updated their definition of addiction since I was in college and I was out of the loop. It does fit the current criteria.

Source:
DSM-IV Criteria for Substance Dependence (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) A maladaptive pattern of substance abuse, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:
(1) Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
(a) A need for markedly increased amount of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect.
(b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.
(2) Withdrawal, as defined by either of the following:
(a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance.
(b) The same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.
(3) The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.
(4) There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use.
(5) A great deal of time is spent in activities to obtain the substance (e.g. visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (e.g. chain-smoking), or recover from its effects.
(6) Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use.
(7) The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (e.g. current cocaine use despite recognition of cocaine-induced depression or continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption).


Goes to show, you're out of a given field for a while and you forget to check on updates and changes. Thanks for prompting me to do a bit of digging into my old passion.

Edit to clarify: The definition of Tolerance was the thing in question. While nicotine clearly fit enough other criteria to be addictive, the semantics of Tolerance was what caused the issue. Tolerance used to be defined by a change in the internal chemestry of the neuron, that is no longer the case.
 
You body can become addicted to any drug that is becomes used to. I get headaches in the morning if I don't have my coffee.

About the bans: to each his own.
 
Doc, your comment urged me to do a little more research. It seems that the DSM IV has updated their definition of addiction since I was in college and I was out of the loop. It does fit the current criteria.

Source:
DSM-IV Criteria for Substance Dependence (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) A maladaptive pattern of substance abuse, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period:
(1) Tolerance, as defined by either of the following:
(a) A need for markedly increased amount of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect.
(b) Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance.
(2) Withdrawal, as defined by either of the following:
(a) The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance.
(b) The same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms.
(3) The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended.
(4) There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use.
(5) A great deal of time is spent in activities to obtain the substance (e.g. visiting multiple doctors or driving long distances), use the substance (e.g. chain-smoking), or recover from its effects.
(6) Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use.
(7) The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (e.g. current cocaine use despite recognition of cocaine-induced depression or continued drinking despite recognition that an ulcer was made worse by alcohol consumption).


Goes to show, you're out of a given field for a while and you forget to check on updates and changes. Thanks for prompting me to do a bit of digging into my old passion.

Edit to clarify: The definition of Tolerance was the thing in question. While nicotine clearly fit enough other criteria to be addictive, the semantics of Tolerance was what caused the issue. Tolerance used to be defined by a change in the internal chemestry of the neuron, that is no longer the case.
I personally don't put much faith in the DSM,(Diagnostic Summary Manual, for those wondering) whether it agrees with me or not. I started out with DSM I. It was about a half in. thick. How thick is it now. :whistling: In my experience, it was used to pigeonhole people.

Doc.
 
I personally don't put much faith in the DSM,(Diagnostic Summary Manual, for those wondering) whether it agrees with me or not. I started out with DSM I. It was about a half in. thick. How thick is it now. :whistling: In my experience, it was used to pigeonhole people.

Doc.

I agree. When I looked at the most recent DSM when I was in college it was about 2 inches thick. Unfortunately it is the "best" (and I use the term very loosely) thing out there for a standard of measurement.

Still... Nothing beats experience.

Cheers!
 
Maybe you guys aren't aware of how cigarette manufactures conspired in two world wars, the Korean war and Viet Nam, to addict GI's to nicotine. You can look it up.

Doc.

One of the things that finally pushed me to quit---and led me to cigars instead---was when that memo was made public about the heads of all the big tobacco companies getting together to talk about altering nicotine levels in their products in order to increase their addictiveness.

Because, think about it---the average habit is a pack a day. And you just have to know, if that memo existed, there had to be ANOTHER one that didn't see the light of day: the one with the actuarial tables determining that a pack a day habit maximized the amount of money they got from a customer before the product killed them. ???

Bastiges. :angry:

That said, the military needs to stop and think about where it gets most of its recruits. These are country boys we're talkin' here and they ought to just leave 'em be.

~Boar
 
It would appear that combat is just as responsible as subsidized pricing. I suppose we should ban combat as well. "Sorry we can't defend you right now, we're trying to quit."
 
As someone who lives next to a U.S. Army base... It was announced that 2011 is the last year that DOD and Military members will be able to buy cigarettes and other tobacco products on post.

So they will all be driving off base to get their fix. Stupid is as Stupid does.
 
Why don't they just leave these guys alone. They are fighting and dying, even for those pinheads with these crazy ideas. If they are worried about death and health issues, they ought to order the world cessation of munitions that are dangerous to one's health. Let these guys and gals relax in the manner they see fit. Hey, I don't like cigarettes any more than the antis. But I'm not about to tell the guy/gal who may catch the next deadly incoming because I don't like the way they relax.
 
Top