The US military would like to ban all tobacco use by its serving troops.
This would include soldiers in active conflict zones.
There is currently an acknowledgement that this is not workable in the immediate future, but it’s a definite goal within 20 yrs.
Do we think this is even close to be achievable? As the report suggests, smoking is linked to the macho warrior image, and it’s also an aid to keeping stressed soldiers on a more even keel.
Are there civil liberties issues here, or will it fail because of 1) troops’ objections and 2) the impossiblity of enforcing any ban?
Smoking bans have been implemented in prisons here, so I don’t see why the military would be any different. If they can force violent felons to stop smoking against their will, then they can do so with soldiers too – although, as always, they won’t be able to stop it 100%. I can tell you from personal experience that lighters and cigarettes are worth as much or more than illicit drugs in Kanadian prisons now, and are regularly hooped by inmates.
But those bans are (generally) in enclosed places and are there for the health of staff, in the case of prisons and nursing homes.
I could perhaps understand banning smoking from military property (incl. outdoors), but a patrol in Fallujah isn’t on US army property etc.
Is smoking allowed on US Navy ships? Presumably not submarines, but what about an aircraft carrier? Are there really 2,500 people who are all non-smokers for the duration of a voyage?
In addition to having better health overall. All other things being equal a non-smoker is in better physical condition than a smoker. And again, all other things being equal, someone in better physical condition will make a better soldier than someone who isn’t.
Also prevents other soldiers from suffering from the effects of second hand smoke.
The arguments are really no different from the arguments about banning smoking in other places - except that a) the military has even more interest in the fitness/health of their employees and b) the employees are less likely to have a ‘down-time’ where they are not employees (ie. you can’t smoke after work if you are on a submarine).
I don’t think the macho-ness of smoking applies to soldiers any more than it applies to pubs.
FWIW I served several years on ships and submarines (RN) and, while I remember clearly very heavy smoking on surface ships, I don’t remember whether it was banned on submarines and it is driving me crazy I remember that many of my fellow submariners were heavy smokers but I can’t recall them smoking on board.
Dunno about the RN but you can (or at least used to be able to) smoke on US submarines.
In some respects smoking on a submarine can make more sense than smoking in a surface ship (unless you are outside on the deck). A submarine has very capable air handling systems that can easily cope with cleaning the air. They have to. A surface ship would not have such systems (I don’t think).
I thought that submariners were given a bit more latitude (such as better food) since keeping a lot of guys cooped up in a metal tube hundreds of feet underwater can have unique stresses.
Whether the second hand smoke is a health hazard to others on the sub I do not know (i.e. instead of just having a standing haze of smoke everyone breathes the smoke is sucked up into the filtration systems immediately and cleaned).
Oh - and to answer the question in the OP. It’s absolutely workable. It’ll be very unpopular though.
Other proposals in recent history that might have caused an “Unworkable?” threat at SDBM:[ul]
[li]Women on ships (didn’t have 'em in my day. Still can’t quite grok how that works.)[/li][li]Gays in the military[/li][li]Banning alcohol on ships. (Unthinkable in the Navy I served in)[/li][li]Banning the watching of porn by minors (I can die for my country but not watch people having sex!?! - I had just turned 18 when they brought this one in)[/li][li]Fitness requirements for sailors (no kidding! The most feared Chief Petty Officer - a man by the name of Ten Bellies - on my first ship was kicked out of the navy)[/li][/ul]
I remember a situation on a submarine where smoking was explicitly banned (implying that it wasn’t at other times). My boat had four electrolysers (submarines manufacture oxygen from water) and three of them broke down at the same time.
They also banned exercise and made everyone who wasn’t actually on watch stay in bed. Sleeping is remarkably easy when there is not enough oxygen. A friend of mine managed to sleep for 51 hours straight.
Moral of the story - cleanliness is not the only consideration. The capacity to generate oxygen is finite. Even the capacity to clean the air is limited, especially on non-nuclear submarines.
“What happens when someone farts?” you might ask. “Breathe deeply til it’s gone!”
Another reason to have only nonsmokers in the military is that smokers generally have severe withdrawal symptoms if they can’t have their nicotine. A smoker who can’t get his fix in a combat situation is not a good soldier, and might be outright dangerous to any of his fellows.
It would delight prohibitionists with convictions of moral authority to the bossy bottoms of their nasty, greasy little hearts, and gratify the overweening self-righteousness from which such persons derive their sense of identity and self-worth.
I can’t speak for everyone who ever joined the military but I expected to give up quite a lot when I joined up. It’d probably make a difference at the margins but I expect it’d cause more significant problems among the old-timers and make them more likely to quit early.
Hasn’t the idea that cutting smoking cuts healthcare costs basically been debunked? Because anything that makes you live longer makes you cost more in the end?
True 20 years ago, maybe but now smokers are in such a small minority, that banning smoking would more likely increase recruiting, based upon the #of non-smokers who would not join due to smoking,and by the number of smokers who would join to quit.
A lot of us non-smokers will boycott places/events where there is smoking In fact, in CA, the smokers predicted most bars would go out of business due to the ban, but that did not happen. Sure, you lose a few but you gain back as many if not more.
I remember that many of my fellow submariners were heavy smokers but I can’t recall them smoking on board.