By All I have to say is good luck with this:
A complete ban on tobacco in the military is needed but would likely take about 20 years, according to a new Institute of Medicine study commissioned by the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
The ban is possible if the DOD begins to “close the pipeline of new tobacco users entering the military” and slowly cuts off supplies of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, the Committee on Smoking Cessation in Military and Veteran Populations found in its study, which was released Friday.
The DOD and VA asked the institute for recommendations on how to deal with smoking among servicemembers.
The study gives a bleak account of the health and financial toll tobacco takes on the military, which has nearly twice the smoking rate of the civilian population.
More than 30 percent of servicemembers smoke or use tobacco, though smokeless tobacco use is less certain. Those people are more likely to drop out of basic training, have poor vision, leave the service within the first year, get sick and miss work, according to the study findings.
The 15-member committee of doctors and health care professionals said the best way to reduce the problem is to eliminate it through a phased-in tobacco ban across the services. [Stars & Stripes]
There has been a steady flow of stories coming out over the years such as servicemembers who smoke are more likely to wash out of the service, that will probably ultimately lead to smoking being banned at some point. I find this interesting because smoking though I do not like it, is no where near the problem that drinking is. How many servicemembers have committed smoking related incidents compared to the number of alcohol related incidents like DUI’s? How many sexual assault cases has there been due to alcohol? How many physical assault cases has there been due to alcohol? How many work hours are lost every year to the Army due to leadership dealing with alcohol related incidents and servicemembers having to attend substance abuses classes? The list goes on and on and you see no one wanting to ban alcohol.
I will take a smoker over an alcoholic any day.
Here is GI Korea’s plan to addressing the smoking issue. The military has so many smokers because it is the easiest way to sham out of work. The laziest soldiers I know are all smokers who hide in the smoke shack and they hide there because the people in charge of them smoke to and are in the same smoke shack. Just about every soldier that I know of who gets into trouble is a smoker. There has been an on going effort in the military to have smokers go to a far off designated point to smoke. The smokers actually loves this because going off to a far off smoke shack removes them from work that much longer. What the army needs to do is limit the number of smoke breaks to one in the morning for 10 minutes and one in the afternoon for 10 minutes and implement a sign in and sign out roster to track it. If the soldier has to go through a lot of hurdles to take a smoke break that will cut the number of smokers because many of them smoke just to get out of work.
I’m not saying that everyone that smokes is trying to sham out of work because there are plenty of hard working people who smoke (usually older servicemembers); I’m just saying there are a lot of smokers who are shamming and the younger soldiers who do not smoke see this and start smoking simply to get out of work like the rest of the shammers.
5:47 pm on July 3rd, 2009 1
“The military has so many smokers because it is the easiest way to sham out of work. The laziest soldiers I know are all smokers who hide in the smoke shack and they hide there because the people in charge of them smoke to and are in the same smoke shack.”
It must be a universal phenomenon because I observed the same thing when I served in my country’s military.
Reply
7:25 pm on July 3rd, 2009 2
Civilians do it as well.
Reply
July 13th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I think if our troops want to smoke they should have that right! after all if it was not for them fighting for our country none of us would be free to smoke or go to the movies or anything else! We as American people should stand beside our Troops! Not take their freedom away! They are fighting for our freedom! They dont have any freedom when they are in Iran or Iraq!God Bless our Troops and their familys
Reply
7:33 pm on July 3rd, 2009 3
While smokers are paying for the additional health care needed, as well as paying for “childrens” health care )S-CHIP), via new federal and state taxes, non smokers continue to be dead beats who scam the system for benifits they do not contribute to. Obese spouses, diabetics, people with cronic health problems of every sort, both in the military and out, do not pay what smokers pay in additional taxes for health care. These people are dead beats.
The current trend to wipe out smoking in our lifetime, is equivelent to the anti-alcohol effort of the early 20th century.(prohibition). The prudes and narrow minded will get top billing in trying to establish a moral and heathfull society based on their view of what people should and should not do. It will not work.
The military is always prime for social experiments and congress will sell its soul for a vote, so it is possible for prohibition in the military of smokers. (at least until the next war comes). However as a long term solution it will fail. (Pssst, hey, I just got a big shipment in from Mexico, good turkish tobacco, want some?)
Reply
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I think the South Park episode “Butt Out” provides a good social commentary on the hypocrisy of a select few anti-smoking crusaders (Rob Reiner) who rail against the health impacts of smoking while at the same time indulging in other self-destructive habits (obesity). Personally I dont smoke and I dont care who does, lazy people exist in all walks of life, it is just up to the NCO’s in the military to jerk their ass into gear.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
When I was in the military smoking was allowed everywhere, and many smoked. I don’t remember any ’smoking’ slackers.
I don’t understand the suddenly new mantra that “smokers are lazy” and go out of their way to avoid work. I suspect perhaps new rules that do not allow smokers to smoke in common areas anymore may have much to do with the perception.
Take the rules away and all is equal. Unfair and unequal treatment feed false perceptions.
Reply
July 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I will have to agree that a lot of smokers are lazy (atleast appear to be) After serving my country for 7 years and smoking the whole time I can remember countless times when I went to the smoke deck and some one was already there and was still there after i finished my smoke and still there when I came back over an hour later. There is no way they will be able to ban smoking totally. Best case senerio is that it will be limited. At my job now I am allowed a smoke break nolonger then 5min every 2 hours and that includes time to walk to the pit. It is enforced. from 8-5 that 10, 12, 2, 4 then however many you can fit in over lunch. I know for sure I would have hurt some people if I could not have had my smoke. I would like to see someone work a 36+hour day deal with whiny officers and the general bull of immuture kids and then have someone take your best stress reliever away. People are going to get hurt or worse.
7:42 pm on July 3rd, 2009 4
Unless it’s from obesity, diabetics do not belong in the same category, which is people who do it to themselves. Huge, huge difference. An apples/oranges comparison. If you know any type-1 diabetics you’ll know what I’m talking about. Diabetics deadbeats? Absurd and illogical.
While alcohol in moderation has some documented health benefits, smoking does not. Additionally, those who pay taxes to any program that helps with their medical care do in fact contribute.
Banning smoking wrong, but sore are your primary arguments for why it’s wrong.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Smokers are targeted for additional taxes because of the health risks. People who are obese usually have diabetes as well as other problems associated with being significantly overweight. They pay taxes, but so do smokers. Why are obese people allowed to go scot free when others (smokers) have to pay a premium?
Alcohal in moderation is not the issue. Alcohal abused is, and costs the country much more than that of tobacco.
The primary argument is if smokers are to be singled out for healthcare reasons, shouldn’t all other healthcare risks be equally assessed?
Reply
7:49 pm on July 3rd, 2009 5
Sore so are
Reply
10:50 pm on July 3rd, 2009 6
Great! We’ll have a military just like Adolph had. The few, the proud, the nazi’s! By the way, ALL OF THE OLDEST PEOPLE ARE OR WERE…..DRUM ROLL…..SMOKERS! There ARE benefits of nicotine! Over the past decade, new research has taught us more about how nicotine affects the brain and the body. Some of it is good news — for example, a lower incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in smokers. Research has pointed to a compound called acetylcholine as the reason. Nicotine is structurally similar to acetylcholine, a naturally-occurring compound that serves as a neurotransmitter. Nicotine binds to nerve receptors and makes nerve cells fire more frequently. In one study, a group of Alzheimer’s patients were given nicotine patches, while another received a placebo. Those with nicotine patches maintained their cognitive abilities longer and sometimes even recovered lost cognitive function. A follow-up study indicated that nicotine may also boost cognitive abilities in elderly people who aren’t suffering from Alzheimer’s but who are experiencing the typical mental decline associated with old age.
A 1982 study revealed that patients with ulcerative colitis had fewer flare-ups when taking nicotine. However, side effects proved nicotine to be a poor long-term treatment.
In 2000, a study performed at Stanford revealed surprising results about nicotine’s effects on blood vessels. Contrary to popular opinion, the study showed that nicotine actually boosts the growth of new blood vessels. The discovery may lead to new treatments for diabetes. Many people with severe diabetes experience poor circulation, which can lead to gangrene and ultimately, limb amputation.
Reply
10:56 pm on July 3rd, 2009 7
Smoking may not be the best thing for you, but it is certainly NOT the worst! All of the numbers cooked up for deaths by smoking are computer generated numbers, there’s never been a death certificate stating death from smoking. All of the smoking related illnesses were concocted by big pharma, you know, makers of the nicotine patch and gum. Tobacco is the competition. Any illness can be said to be related to just about anything and if told enough times will be believed as fact. FORCES.ORG is a good place to find out the truth of this scam!
Reply
July 13th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I wish I could agree with you on this but its just not true. While there is never going to be a death cert that says died from smoking, there will never be a death cert that says died from drug overdose. It will always the the symptom that is listed as the primary cause. If you died from lung cancr and you smoked for 1.5 packs for 45yrs then i would say that there is a 99% chance that smoking gave you the cancer. Your death cert will only say cancer or maybe lung cancer. Being a smoker my self have have no pity for a single that develops any smoking related illness because we all no what we are doing. Breahing hot ash and air into our lungs is bound to cause a problem
Reply
10:58 pm on July 3rd, 2009 8
In the news recently, Oregon now requires death certificates to say that the decease died from smoking related even if they die in a car accident if they smoke, live with a smoker, parents smoked, etc. Just exposure requires this. Anything to get those numbers up! How insane!
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
You are WRONG. The new Oregon law requires doctors simply to check “yes” or “no” as to whether or not smoking contributed to the death.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
“yes” or “no” as to whether smoking contributed to death. Not “yes” or “no” as to whether alcohal contributed to death. Or how about “yes” or “no” as to whether obesity contributed to death?
Nah, there couldn’t be a hidden agenda here could there.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Physicians in Oregon have been instructed to list every death as smoking related, even if a person died in a car accident. If they ever smoked, were married to a smoker or working in a smoking environment, their death in a car accident has some element of a smoking related death. It has something to do with some funding the state gets to combat the smoking epidemic.
NOTE: This is at the CDC !!!
Funeral Directors’ Handbook on Death Registrtion …..
The current death certificate contains personal information … 35. DID TOBACCO USE CONTRIBUTE TO DEATH? http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/hb_fun.pdf
Reply
July 5th, 2009 at 6:24 am
The CDC handbook only lists the question “Did smoking contribute to death?” It does not instruct the user to mark “yes” if the person smoked, regardless of the cause of death. Please provide a link to a credible source proving that “physicians in Oregon have been instructed to list every death as smoking related, even if a person died in a car accident” or I’ll have to conclude you’re lying.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:31 am
The CDC handbook only lists the question. It does NOT instruct the user to mark “yes” if the deceased smoked, regardless of cause of death. Please provide a credible source verifying your statement or I’ll have to conclude that you’re lying.
11:03 pm on July 3rd, 2009 9
The only thing bad about smoking is the other things they put in tobacco. Of course with FDA regulation coming, the FDA will only limit nicotine and not the harmful ingredients. You see, they really don’t want anyone to quit, just to use big pharmas brand that has a failure rate of 98% for 1 year or more and costs about $50 a pop. Can you see AA doling out alcohol to combat alcohol? Or Planned Parenthood giving out condoms with a 98% failure rate. They would all be shut down! For big pharma it is all about profit and the govt stands right behind them collecting taxes. Loose tobacco got a whopping 2,000% tax hike!
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
I have no problem with the FDA regulating tobacco, it should have been done 50 years ago when the dangers were first recognized, (leave it to politicians to screw up a soup sandwich). The first step should have been to restict children up to 18 years of age, the 19 years of age, then 20. And so on and so forth. Smokers would be allowed to buy cigarettes through the local pharmacy with a legal doctors presciption, with no extra taxes. End of problem.
Unfortunately politicians are involved and mega campain contributions are at stake. Consequently, billions in payoffs to states not to prosecute the tobacco companies, and billions in increased taxes on the smoking poor. (the majority ‘2/3′, who smoke are in the lower classes). Thank you congress for helping so many by doing nothing in their favor.
Reply
11:21 pm on July 3rd, 2009 10
This entire culture war can be traced right back to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which owns multi-millions of shares of Johnson & Johnson!
Reply
3:11 am on July 4th, 2009 11
“Obese spouses, diabetics, people with cronic health problems of every sort, both in the military and out, do not pay what smokers pay in additional taxes for health care. These people are dead beats.”
Smokers don’t live as long, so they certainly aren’t paying taxes as long as non-smokers.
On top of that, a link has been made between smoking and poverty, which would suggest that smokers pay fewer taxes because, on average, they earn less.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Smokers have been long noted as dieing early and not collecting social security taxes. Enriching those who do. (as well as saving the government billions of dollars).
Yes the majority who smoke (2/3) are of lower economic status. They may pay less in taxes because they have to pay so much more for their smokes. (more taxes do not help the poor)
My taxes on smoking (in florida and the federal government) went up $700 this year. I am addicted and on a fixed income, but it is for the ‘children’ so I will pay.
And what is your excuse for not paying $700 additional for the ‘children’? Are you another dead beat?
I think you are a do gooder who does no good to anyone, but feels good about raising the taxes on the poor. (its for the children).
Reply
July 13th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Being a smoker this may sound strange coming from me. I am all for raised taxes up 500% so long as the extra revenue goes to healthcare and education. I also think that yes because smoking does cause some illness that we should be paying more in health care from our jobs. I’d say double. If we want to be stupid enough to do something that we know could very well cause our deaths then the general population should benifit from it.
Reply
6:35 am on July 4th, 2009 12
“Civilians do it as well.”
Only if they get unlimited smoking breaks. Rather than trying to weed out smokers, the military should, as GI suggested, restrict breaks for any reason, just as most other employers do.
“Obese spouses, diabetics, people with cronic health problems of every sort, both in the military and out, do not pay what smokers pay in additional taxes for health care. These people are dead beats.”
Your statement contains many inaccuracies. First, people with individual health insurance pay much more for pre-existing conditions. Second, some diseases or conditions are not caused primarily by behavioral choices. Not only Type I, but some type II diabetics owe their disease primarily to genes that caused reduced beta cell function. 80% of diabetics are overweight, but people assume that overweight causes the diabetes and not the other way around. Long-term research studies are finding that some people show high blood sugars and insulin resistance before they start putting on weight and eventually get the full-blown disease. In plain English, the prediabetic condition encourages the weight gain, which causes the disease to progress. A majority of obese people never become diabetic because their pancreas can churn out loads of insulin to maintain normal blood sugars.
Anyone who wants to understand the causes of obesity must watch this presentation by science writer and author Gary Taubes: http://www.dhslides.org/mgr/mgr060509f/f.htm . It will change your understanding of weight gain and obesity. Veteran science writer Taubes spent a year doing nothing but pouring over all the research he could find, dating from the mid-1800s to the present and spanning the globe. If you think obesity is simply a matter of overeating or if you are trying to lose weight, you must watch this presentation. I’d also recommend reading his most recent book, Good Fats, Bad Fats.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Correction: Good Calories, Bad Calories
Reply
5:43 pm on July 4th, 2009 13
Teadrinker says “Smokers don’t live as long, so they certainly aren’t paying taxes as long as non-smokers.”
The average age of death for a non-smoking male is 70 years.
The average age of death for a smoking male is 71.9 years.
You see, smokers experience less stress, for one thing.
In 2006, Duke scientists found that people with depression who were treated with nicotine patches reported a decrease in their depressive feelings. The results were perhaps not surprising for a drug associated with imparting a “buzz.” However, the research also showed a direct link between nicotine and an increase in the release of dopamine and serotonin, two vital neurotransmitters. A lack of dopamine or serotonin is a common cause of depression.
The variety of conditions being studied reflects the excitement felt in the scientific community for the potential of nicotine: anxiety, depression, Alzheimer’s, Tourette Syndrome, ADHD, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and schizophrenia.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Link, please, to the data regarding average age of death. Interestingly, when I did a search using the terms smoker non-smoker average age death male 70 71.9, I found no links to data, but the first link was to comments you left on an Australian website. You get around, don’t you? Is leaving pro-smoking comments on websites a job or a hobby? On the Australian website, you linked to Forces.org, whose own data contradicts your assertion that smokers have a slightly longer lifespan than non-smokers: http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol8.htm
Reply
5:49 pm on July 4th, 2009 14
Michael J. Fox would like to have more studies done in regard to nicotine and Parkinson’s Disease.
All of this propoganda regarding smoking was begun by the RWJF! If you look at a package of cigarettes, no longer does it have a surgeon general’s warning that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health. It now says, Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide. Why? This report was based on an EPA study that was ruled null and void by a federal judge because it was not true. The results were paid for and decided before the study was even done. IT IS ALL FOR PHARMACEUTICAL GREED AND PROFIT!!!
Reply
5:54 pm on July 4th, 2009 15
I don’t think there is necessarily a link between smoking and poverty. I am not poor. I think the link is between smoking and freedom.
Reply
6:22 pm on July 4th, 2009 16
“(Smokers) are more likely to drop out of basic training, have poor vision, leave the service within the first year, get sick and miss work, according to the study findings.”
The misrepresentation here is one that the researchers themselves were almost certainly aware of and then deliberately chose to cover up in order to strengthen their argument against smoking. That misrepresentation is the deliberate ignoring of the high correlation between smoking and drinking. Drinkers, particularly heavy drinkers, are MUCH more likely to also be smokers. And heavy drinkers are probably FAR more likely to “More than 30 percent of servicemembers smoke or use tobacco, though smokeless tobacco use is less certain. Those people are more likely to drop out of basic training, have poor vision, leave the service within the first year, get sick and miss work…”
So yeah, smokers show those characteristics, but they probably have almost NOTHING to do with the fact that those people smoke: the cause is far more likely to be drinking. But by choosing not to correct for the co-correlation in their study the researchers are able to advance the argument for more smoking bans in the military.
Regarding smoke break time: how much of that is caused by regulations that have forbidden the provision of decently ventilated work areas where smokers and nonsmokers could work happily and comfortably together?
And military folks might be interested in knowing that a year or two ago there was an American Antismoker who told those sending care packages to our troops in Iraq that they should NOT send tobacco products as it would be bad for the troops’ health while they were wandering the friendly streets of the Middle East. After reading that article I wrote a letter to the editor where I suggested the Antismoker in question be boxed up and sent to the trenches where he could share tales of his efforts with the troops in question on a personal level.
I think the end result might have benefited us all.
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Reply
6:24 pm on July 4th, 2009 17
The ending sentence of my third paragraph SHOULD have read: And heavy drinkers are probably FAR more likely to “drop out of basic training, have poor vision, leave the service within the first year, get sick and miss work…”
- MJM
Reply
7:02 pm on July 4th, 2009 18
Guys who are arguing for the health benefits of smoking: there’s no way your going to convince me that putting smoke in your lungs is a good thing. On the other hand, the argument that it is a cost to society has been shot down as well, as it costs less money for a smoker who dies early despite the costs of smoking related illnesses.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
So you would agree that non-smokers should be required to pay an additional $365 on their yearly federal income tax, plus whatever their state charges for smokers. You sound like it would be the only fair thing to do. (Its for the children you know)
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Yes, and if all smokers quit, who will they target next?
Reply
July 5th, 2009 at 12:03 am
I would bet if everyone’s property taxes went up 2,000% like the tax on loose tobacco, we would hear a very different story. After all, not everyone is an owner. I can hear them screaming already, myself included, but I already pay for SCHIP now thanks to the nazi brigade.
Reply
7:22 pm on July 4th, 2009 19
No one wants to convince you that smoking is good for you, but one does wish to convince you that it is one’s own choice, and not the governments or the big pharmaceutical companies that sell their own nicotine! Nicotine itself is not harmful, it is the additives that the FDA allows this is harmful.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Smoking is not good for you. Anyone who believes that is mentally retarded. Neither is obesity, or not exercising properly, unsafe sex, or any harmful lifestyle. But only smokers are required to pay the government for their choice. Are you a deadbeat who imposes your lifestye on others, so they can pay your taxes?
Reply
July 5th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Some states and localities have proposed taxes on sugary beverages and snack foods to try to force the obese to pay for their choices. Unfortunately our government actually promotes unhealthy eating by handing out $16 billion in agricultural subsidies that prop up corn, wheat, soy, and other cash crops used to fatten livestock and make the flours and oils used in so many processed foods. My taxes are actually paying for other people’s unhealthy food choices.
As for unsafe sex, it isn’t possible to tax that because there is no product clearly associated with it.
Reply
7:23 pm on July 4th, 2009 20
Marleneb is clearly a troll just making things up.
Google and 20 seconds;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/yourhealth/2006-06-11-male-lifespan_x.htm
“But Kruger agrees biology need not be destiny: “We can control behavior. We can do things that are good for our health.”
Thing one: Don’t smoke. A recent Norwegian study showed that 41% of male heavy smokers were dead by 70, vs. 14% of non-smokers.”
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Funny how anti-smokers as opposed to anti-smoking resort to name calling. Maybe you won’t see the difference.
Reply
7:25 pm on July 4th, 2009 21
More gibberish; the FDA just got control of tobacco this year. Meh.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Gibberish? And the FDA shouldn’t have gotten control 50 years ago? Why is that? Do you smoke? Are you paying your fair share for the ‘children’ of this country? Ot are you another deadbeat who likes others to pay while you skip out on whats fair?
Reply
July 5th, 2009 at 6:55 am
You have to try not to read that in the obvious context. Since the FDA just in the past few months began regulating tobacco, the FDA is not responsible for the content of tobacco previous, as the troll implied above.
It’s an odd notion that it’s only “fair” that others should pay for the problems related to your self-inflicted addiction.
Reply
July 5th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
It is only “fair” that other people who have habits that contribute to health issues pay their share as well. Obese people, people with HIV/aides, alcoholics, or people who drink alcohol. These are all self inflicted deseases in one form or another. Does every person who drinks become an alcoholic? No. Does every one who smokes die at age 50 of lung cancer? No. If you are overweight, drink, or have unprotected sex, you should be paying for your share as well. Otherwise you are a deadbeat who points the finger at others , but are not willing to see your own reflection in the mirror.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Those that purchase alcohol (I do on occasion) pay a tax above sales tax (unless buying on a military installation, of course). If that’s not enough for you, oh well. A non-alcoholic drinking is not a “desease” [sic] and it not an addiction like nicotine actually is. You’re angry b/c you’re addicted to tobacco and don’t want to deal with the cost that is now being transferred to that group of previous “free loaders,” we all get it. But non-smokers are not responsible for the collective cost of smokers, increasingly. You don’t have to get over it, and I don’t care either way; I don’t smoke, and I don’t care if they cost $100 a pack.
7:34 pm on July 4th, 2009 22
If you don’t want to smoke, don’t. Don’t push your agenda on others who do, very simple really.
Reply
July 5th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Now if only smokers could stop pushing second hand smoke on people who don’t want it.
Reply
July 5th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
And nothing is more abhorant and a poor example of health than “fat” people at the beach (or anywhere else for that matter). Constantly stuffing their faces at most any KFC buffet, or any buffet going up and filling their plates three and four times. They should have sitting places away from normal eaters so we don’t have to watch their gluttony.
Reply
7:51 pm on July 4th, 2009 23
http://www.douglassreport.com/dailydose/dd200906/dd20090628a.html
Reply
8:07 pm on July 4th, 2009 24
As a non-Smoker supporting an Army unit in Korea I have to say they get away with a lot worse then taking numerous smoke breaks. There have been times when we needed to work on equipment and ALL my guys were in another useless training class telling them that because they are between the age of 18-25 and male that you are going to commit sexualy assult unless they go to this class. While I don’t want them smoking around me, the Army needs to give them a break! The President does it why should they be able to get away for a couple of mins.
Yes, there are those who abuse that few mins. but it’s up to their leadership to enforce and punish as they see fit.
Reply
8:08 pm on July 4th, 2009 25
The conversation frequently turns to a comparison of alcohol and cigarettes.
I propose they are not in the same category.
The vast majority of drinkers use alcohol to make a social situation a little more fun.
They drink to feel better.
Nobody smokes to feel better. They smoke to NOT feel bad.
…meaning the majority of smokers are like the minority of alcoholics in relationship to their addiction.
That is an important point to consider when debating the merits of smoking.
Reply
July 4th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Wrong. You need to read up on alcohol related deaths on the highway, destroyed families, health care costs treating alcohal related deseases.Etc , etc. I think you will find the cost much higher than smoking. While you’re at it look up the costs of obesity, as well as HIV/aides.
I smoke for the children. Because I am addicted and am tired of freeloaders having me pay for what they don’t want to.
Reply
8:19 pm on July 4th, 2009 26
Chickenhead wrote, “The conversation frequently turns to a comparison of alcohol and cigarettes. I propose they are not in the same category.”
Chickenhead, I strongly agree. My posting on alcohol use was not intended to compare the two but rather to point out how the research was probably deliberately skewed to give an antismoking result by ignoring other activities/factors that correlate with smoking.
This kind of futzing around with research in order to produce the “proper” results that are wanted by those performing it isn’t at all uncommon in the antismoking area. Take a look at Jacob Grier’s May 27th column and aftercomments at:
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html
and you’ll see a case where the researchers applied for a half million dollar grant by basically promising to produce results that would support ban efforts. They then studied the economic effects of bans on the bar and restaurant industries and very deliberately combined their data in such a way that it completely hid the absolute decimation of bar employment.
News stories about that piece of “research” have now been read by millions of people, and outside of a few thousand folks who’ve seen the facts on the internet boards virtually no one knows what a lie the “no harm to bars” argument is.
Read the Grier column and comments and realize that a *LOT* of the “news stories” you read on smoking bans and the “deadly threat” of wisps of secondhand smoke are exactly the same: regurgitated press-releases based upon research designed for a political purpose rather than to find out facts.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Reply
8:21 pm on July 4th, 2009 27
P.S. You can see about half dozen other studies “dissected” in the Stiletto that you can read at:
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html
– MJM
Reply
8:25 pm on July 4th, 2009 28
Tobacco is IN the same food group as potato, tomato, green pepper, cauliflower, chili’s, egg plant and other foods. They ALL contain nicotine AND are served in every restaurant and school cafeteria. Are those the next ban and high tax items?
Reply
July 5th, 2009 at 7:00 am
I can see how the number of deaths from smoking tomato and egg plant would prompt you to ask about a ban on those items. Right.
Reply
10:22 pm on July 4th, 2009 29
I’m sure they will end up banning the dreaded vegetables too. This nannying has got to stop. I hear they want to ban pets on airplanes in Canada now, some people have allergies. Now that there is a new drug for alcoholism, big pharma is going after alcohol like they did smoking when they came up with new drugs. It’s all about pharmaceutical greed and the public has become their spokesmen. People can be so “misinformed”. But they like to sit back and watch their dirtywork, pitting people against other people, it’s great for their bottom line.
Reply
1:23 am on July 5th, 2009 30
Gerry,
Patience, Grasshopper.
I did not jump into the Cost to Society aspect.
I simply commented on a psychological aspect of smoking versus drinking.
People smile after the refreshing joy of a cold beer. People stop frowning after getting their smokey treat.
Only serious alcoholics are angry without a drink.
Smokers act more like crackheads, cokewhores and heroin junkies when they don’t have a smoke.
Hide the cigarettes and get an ass-beating.
For the reasons you pointed out, as well as others, I am hesitant to advocate an unworkable Prohibition/War on Drugs-style ban… or even an unreasonable tax that makes it more inviting for criminal enterprise.
Like littering, car seats, drunk driving or recycling, I would rather the government work through social engineering… and simply discourage the next generation from getting hooked… while allowing all the current smokers to happily die off like the laudanum users of a couple generations ago.
And if a large segment of society can be successfully weened from laudanum, reducing the desire to smoke must be possible.
As I am not a smoker, I am happy that it is disappearing from confined spaces and public places… yet I certainly do not support government intrusion into small businesses such as with smoking bans in bars. Unlike airplanes and shopping malls, there is enough competition in many small businesses to allow choice for those wishing to avoid second-hand smoke.
I should say that, right now, my bar is probably the only non-smoking bar in Korea. All smokers must go outside. The girls love it (about 80% of the customer base is Korean college girls) and the guys don’t mind. In fact, guys that don’t know each other will strike up a conversation on a smoke break and buy drinks for each other when they return. I was surprised at the lack of complaining.
Don’t worry, Gerry. Even if they ban cigarettes or raise the tax, it won’t affect your supply. It will just be another profit center for “gangsters” or “terrorists” just like everything else that is illegal yet widely available.
Reply
1:37 am on July 5th, 2009 31
Chickenhead wrote, “Smokers act more like crackheads, cokewhores and heroin junkies when they don’t have a smoke.”
Really? So I’m assuming you’d have no problem being locked up on a flight with fifty or so such folks for a time period equal to them missing five or ten of their regular “doses” eh? Personally I’d prefer to take the flight with deprived smokers, but maybe we could compare notes after touchdown.
The comparison to crackheads is a bit better than the one last week to “rabid animals” :
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/07/smoking-booth-concept-uses-wall-of-air-to-make-smokers-feel-like-real-people/
although not as creative as Sir George Godbar’s likening having a smoker in the house to having a lice infestation 30 years ago. You remember Sir George? The one who ran the WHO conference back in 1975 that determined that the best way to reduce smoking would be to convince nonsmokers that THEIR health was being threatened by smoke? Yep. One and the same. Cheery sorta guy.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Reply
2:22 am on July 5th, 2009 32
Michael,
“Really? So I’m assuming you’d have no problem being locked up on a flight with fifty or so such folks for a time period equal to them missing five or ten of their regular “doses” eh?”
Reading Comprehension Quiz:
ChickenHead said: “Smokers act __________ crackheads, cokewhores and heroin junkies when they don’t have a smoke.”
a) the same as
b) exactly like
c) more like
answer:
???? ??o? (?
Reply
2:36 am on July 5th, 2009 33
OK… don’t quite see the problem here. So you’re saying you’d be alright locked up in a plane for a day or two with fifty or so folks “who act more like crackheads, cokewhores and heroin addicts?” missing their fixes?
Did I misunderstand?
MJM
Reply
2:38 am on July 5th, 2009 34
Actually, I stated that a bit backwards. I’d be the one in the plane with the smokers. You’d be with the crackheads, cokewhores, and heroin addicts… with the idea being, if I understood your original post correctly, that we’d each have an equally friendly flight in the sky…
- MJM
Reply
7:59 am on July 5th, 2009 35
Hmmm…
I don’t recall saying anything about wanting to be on a plane with smokers or junkies… although a couple days on a plane full of cokewhores (presuming I had a good supply) is rather alluring… and would make a hell of a letter to Penthouse.
I do stand by my comment that smokers respond to a lack of cigarettes in a different way than drinkers respond to a lack of alcohol… and that way is closer to how addicts of hard drugs respond.
So, one quick question…
Are the smokers here complaining about the regulation of inhaling smoke or the regulation of ingesting nicotine?
Reply
1:48 pm on July 5th, 2009 36
Chickenehead, quite true in that I brought the analogy up, but I did so for a sound reason: I was trying to illustrate that your comparison was poorly and pejoratively based. And yes, alcohol and tobacco are very different animals in terms of addiction: alcohol is highly physically addictive while with tobacco the addiction is far more heavily psychological. Nicotine replacement therapy has something like a 95% failure rate but what kind of success rate do you think alcohol replacement therapy would have? If the “ingestion of nicotine” were the main component of smoking you’d see far less complaint from smokers than you currently do. It’s clearly an important component but it’s overplayed by the Antismokers.
I’m sure smokers (and their sympathetic friends) here are complaining about a number of different things. Please go back to see my initial post (#13?) and I believe you’ll find my complaint had mainly to do with the phony claims made about the scientific research supposedly supporting the ban. This is the area I usually focus on as it seems that MOST of the research supporting bans is deliberately distorted by ideologues and grant-seekers in order to produce the right sort of “desirable” results. Note: I am not speaking so much of research on the primary effects of smoking on the health of smokers themselves, but rather about research specifically pointed at the support of bans. See my earlier link to the Grier column/comments on the Klein study or visit the Rapid Responses to the Helena study in the British Medical Journal at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1
Start out with my two entries near the end: “Helena, 1000 Days” and “Independently Confirmed?”
Additionally I complain about the DeNormalization rhetoric used so freely in regard to smoking and smoking … which is where our current differences regarding drug comparisons came in.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Reply
5:10 pm on July 6th, 2009 37
In response to the IOM’s recommendations, the Military Health System launched a debate where people can share their opinions about the findings and whether the DoD can/should ban tobacco. Join the debate at http://bit.ly/PkgV9
Reply
1:52 pm on July 13th, 2009 38
Oh this makes a lot of sense! Gassholes kill human and all kinds of life and destroy the water supply and our Repupicans want to cause trouble by starting this crap!!! LETS STERILIZE THE BULLETS SO THEY DONT CAUSE INFECTIONS TOO!!! Autohaulism is a far more dangerous habit that cigarette smoking my friends!!!! I hereby challenge anyone in the world to a side by side comparison between a gasshole smoke vs cigarette smoke!
Just 6 minutes ought to do the trick and prove my point. I DARE ANYONE IN THE WORLD!!!!
Reply
2:16 pm on July 13th, 2009 39
As a smoker, I find it rather upsetting that instead of dealing with real issues that effect the troops lives, they want to stop people from smoking. Funny, I’ve yet to hear that some guy smoked a pack of smokes and killed someone by driving while under the influence of nicotine.
The problem they should be addressing is excessive drinking. More people die because of folks that drive drunk compared to smokers that are in the military.
Granted, smoking is not good for you, however it is legal. I so DO want to see the legal challenges as they try and prevent people from smoking in their own homes. How are they going to check the troops that live off base? Please US Armed Forces, open up that hornets nest. You can stop smoking on base, however the issue of the dorms and family housing is one that will bite them in the rear. Just how does one check and see if one is smoking or not, what is going to be the punishment for being caught smoking? Oh, the worms this can will let loose. Just wait for the fun boys and girls….
Reply
11:43 am on August 10th, 2009 40
ATTN: Director:
tobacco and drug education
Now used nationwide by over 1000 Health Departments and Schools
Featured on CNN Headline News…
Must see, very cool and educational
Life or Death Playing Cards
“tobacco and drug education people keep and use”
http://www.deathcards.com
For FREE, that’s FREE samples call,
Mickey Weedon
(805) 545-9625
Life or Death Playing Cards
P.O. Box 3134
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Reply
1:19 am on November 2nd, 2009 41
Hi,
Smoking doesn’t relieve stress. Stopping smoking can cause a lot of it. Banning smoking amongst soldiers would be wrong. It would treat them as second class citizens with fewer rights than civilians. Just treat them the same as anyone else.
There is some irony in the army getting like this. The army probably did more to increase smoking than any other organisation.Thank you…
[URL=http://www.pro-medics.com/e-cigarettes/]stop Smoking[/URL]
Reply