Back when I was in the Navy on submarines, we were pretty sure that felons were treated better than us.
Tobacco use is as ingrained a part of military culture as battlefield discipline and, for better or worse, swearing. At least one in three servicemembers is a tobacco user of some sort, according to the IOM study. That number is, unsurprisingly, far higher among those who are actually engaged in combat operations.
It is already shameful that nineteen- and twenty-year-olds who are considered adult enough to lead men into combat as noncommissioned officers are legally unable to consume alcohol; whether these men and women consume cigarettes, cigars, and chewing tobacco because they help alleviate battlefield stressor because they simply enjoy consuming them, the ability to smoke a cigarette or “throw in a dip” is one which America’s servicemembers shouldn’t be begrudged.
Yes, tobacco has been proven to cause both short and long-term health problems – but are we really going to preach about the health benefits of their activities to Americans we pay (albeit poorly) to be shot at for a living?
The U.S. military is not a social Petri dish for use in engineering or experimentation. It has far greater responsibilities and concerns than whether or not its men and women, who continue to be the best in the world at what they do, engage in the safe and voluntary use of a 100% legal product.
kevlaw, do they currently allow alcohol on ships?
Where do they let you consume it?
My dad was in the Navy many years back, as was a cousin just a few years ago; I thought they had said it was a serious offence to get caught with a bottle on the boat (my dad is Mormon and dosent drink, but my cousin loves to booze and if anyone would be drinking on ship he would be the one) and it was strictly enforced.
I wonder if it depends on the specific situation, but I never knew alcohol was allowed on board.
Maybe tis different in the US then.
I know in Oz they’ve had to relax fitness and health requirements rather than being a position to increase them, because of recruitment issues.
So I cant see banning smoking being a very likely move here any time soon.
Oh btw:
“The US Defence Department says it will not ban troops from smoking in war zones, despite a report recommending a tobacco-free military.”
Otara
The armed forces are not a place/event. If you refused to go to Fort Bragg because someone, somewhere might be smoking on base, you’d be an idiot. Would a smoker who refused to enlist be an idiot because of the smoking ban? Of course, but I guarantee the ban would harm more than help recruitment, and right now that’s a no-go.
Can’t really argue with this line of reasoning.
“Men, I want you to take that hilltop. We’re going to sustain heavy losses, and I am not looking forward to writing your mothers, so try to use cover wh… Johnson! Are you smoking a cigarette? Are you crazy, soldier?”
Agreed, but couldn’t we use the same logic for banning women from the service? I mean, all else being equal, men are stronger, no?
I see what you all are getting at, but I think that this is just nanny state meddling. Is smoking bad for you? Of course. But these guys are adults and they are putting their life on the line every day. Why treat them like kids? If they want a smoke, then they should be able to have one…
Nicotine does NOT reduce stress, it increases stress. Now, of course if you are addicted, you feel less stressed when you get a new dose of the drug, but overall it does not reduce stress.
If a serviceman refused to serve because there was no smoking , he’d be as big of an idiot
Got any cites that it would “harm more than help recruitment”? Or just scare talk like the Tobacco industry spread about bars going out of business due to the smoking ban?
Proposal’s been abandoned, hasn’t it? Reality is my cite.
I dont have a cite any more than anyone can offer a cite recruitment will increase,.\
I just dont see how the compensating factors are here in the same way as they are with bars - I didnt go to bars frequently because of the smoke haze I did experience when I did go to them, but I dont see anyone not joining or rejoining the military because there were tons of smokers there. Maybe there was, but I consider it unlikely.
So I dont see a lot of non smoking people joining because smoking is banned, because it seems unlikely it would have been a major reason they didnt join in the first place.
Otara
With smoking rates in the general public down below 20%, the fact that more than 80% of people with debilitating mental illness smoke is extremely significant. It’s thought that this is a form of self-medication, and nicotine is currently undergoing clinical trials as an anti-depressant.
It’s always possible that the insane are simply drawn to smoking. Would explain a lot about me. 
I was in the Royal (British) Navy. You were allowed to drink in the mess.
3 cans of beer a day for Junior Ratings.
Unlimited beer and 3 measures of Rum for Senior Ratings.
Unlimited everything for officers.
I never knew the limits to be enforced and many would drink 3 (UK) pints of beer at lunch and another 8 in the evening.
When we loaded supplies on board a large percentage was barrels and crates of beer.
The US Navy is famously dry and American sailors who came on board got absolutely shitfaced because:
a) they weren’t used to it and
b) they weren’t allowed to leave the mess if they had unfinished beer and
c) everyone else would make sure that they always had unfinished beers a-waiting.
So, it’s unthinkable that the Royal Navy would ban beer - they’d ban smoking long before beer - but still, beer is banned on US ships and people still join the US Navy.
Amazing!
Has it been abandoned totally, or shelved for the immediate future (which may amount to the same thing)?
The report on the BBC site noted that military planners were aware it’s a non-starter in the short-term but that as a 20 year goal it’s still viable.
The Royal Australian Navy allows 2 cans of alcohol or premix per day per crew member whilst at sea, but I am reliably informed that this isn’t followed particularly strictly as long as no-one shows up drunk for their watch.
A rather amusing statement. Both because the military has a history of being used just like that, with such things as ending segregation, and because the military’s collective addiction to tobacco was engineered in the first place. The military was in fact used to push tobacco on millions of American soldiers back in the day; it seems at least as justifiable to try to repair the damage.
So you think we should treat them as even MORE expendable ? “We want you to risk your life for America, and American tobacco companies !”
There’s no such thing as safe tobacco use, and given how addictive it is no such thing as voluntary use, at least after the first few. And the fact that tobacco will make them inferior soldiers IS the military’s concern.
Recollection of a somewhat similar situation in 1985 when I was on active duty in the US Navy - elimination of beards (except for medical reasons).
The reason given was it was difficult to obtain a good rubber to skin seal when donning gas masks, oxygen masks and fire fighting OBAs (oxygen breathing apparatus).
I had a beard at the time the word came down, it didn’t bother me much. But there were personnel who’d had beards throughout their entire Navy career and swore they would get out or retire before shaving off their beard; I’m sure not all carried their threat but I know a non-zero percentage did.
I would expect that a ban on smoking in the military could happen but it wouldn’t occur smoothly or easily or overnight.
"(bos’n pipe) “Attention all hands, the smoking lamp is out throughout the Navy.”
“Now hear this, all smokers lay to sick bay to pick up nicotine patches for the day.”
“Tobacco cessation class is now being held in Hanger Bay 1.”
“Captain’s Mast is now being held on the bridge for all violations of the smoking regulations.”
If starting today only non-smokers were recruited into the services, it would still take time for all of the current smokers to retire or not reenlist; what about the person who picks up the habit/addiction during the enlistment?
I was a smoker when I went into the Navy: I smoked during my 4 years of active duty and my 8 years as a drilling reservist and I passed every physical fitness test.
I refute your claim that as a smoker I was an inferior soldier(sailor) because smokin’ me met or surpassed the physical fitness standards/concerns that the military/Navy had in place.
No, you don’t. Tobacco impacts physical performance; passing a test just means that you passed the test, not that you were as good as you could have been without smoking.
Then again, not everyone in the military is a grunt racing across the street under heavy sniper fire and a dense mortar rain. I doubt a sonar guy on a submarine, or a desk jockey in the Pentagon has much need for superior physical fitness.
No, whether I could have been better or not is immaterial; I met or surpassed the standard that the Navy had determined for physical performance.
The Navy set the bar, they didn’t care if:
I was a smoker or not,
if I was 5’8" or 6 foot tall,
if I liked rock n’ roll or country n’ western music,
if my eyes were blue or green,
all that mattered was that I met or surpassed the standards of their physical fitness tests, and I did.