What is the USNA policy on Tobacco?

[mombee]

The ban on smoking in the military is going to happen, probably sooner than later. It would probably already have happened had it not been for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Navy already has all but banned smoking on ships. The powers that be, both military and congress realize that it does, in deed, affect readiness. Any dollar wasted on a retiree health issue caused by smoking is a dollar not spent on readiness.

 

[USNA'02]

The Navy already has all but banned smoking on ships.

I don't foresee smoking being banned anytime soon nor in the future. I don't think it's something they can legally do, I'm sure it would be considered some infringement of rights or prejudice against smokers if the choice was quit or get the boot.

It's something you cannot control - people smoke on shore duty as well as at sea. What happens when you work in a joint environment with other services that can smoke and with civilians that are allowed to smoke? You cannot manage it and not worth the time. It has been my experience that most of the Docs are smokers and they are the ones required to teach the smoking cessation courses that is required to be taken by all smokers or those that chew.

 

[mombee]

The legality issue does not hold water. Many tattoos, long hair on males, and pregnancy (at least until a few months ago), along with many other rules and regulations, are all 'illegal' at USNA and/or the Navy as a whole, but legal in the general population.

My comment about the Navy smoking 'ban' was in reference to the difficulty of smoking at sea. The ship usually designates one single location, a weatherdeck open to the elements, where smoking is allowed. It may not be such a big deal on a destroyer; however, on a carrier it may take 15 minutes or so just to get there. Additionally, many watchstanders cannot leave their duty station. Therefore, I would argue that just the nature of shipboard regulations causes smokers to commence a cessation program.

Now, back to buff81's concerns. A DoD wide smoking ban would probably have to be phased. I don't think smoking is a problem at either Plebe Summer or Enlisted Boot Camp. Commence the ban with those just entering the service and give current smokers a few years to kick their habit. If it was DoD wide, joint service would not be an issue. Ban smoking both in uniform and anywhere on federal installations, civilian and military alike. Make some sort of nicotine test a part of annual and reenlistment physical exams. Not too difficult. All it will take is a sympathetic Sec Def to listen to the Pentagon individuals who are already clamoring for it. Gates might be the one.

 

[STG3 Kline]

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, if you think the DoD is going to ban smoking/tobacco use, you are in for a major disappointment.

As for the health issue, thats why there are standards to which every sailor/marine/soldier is held to. It is up to every individual to make their own decisions reguarding their own health and abilities to perform. As long as they can meet/exceed all of the standards, they should be treated like adults and allowed to make their own choices. I'm sure on the DODMERB they don't DQ applicants if they report too much fast food in their diet (they didn't ask me about diet at all.)

P.S. I've never smoked, and never will. I just believe in having liberty in the choices I make.

 

[USNA'02]

There are certain standards and such that we in the military KNOW about before getting in and accept. A complete smoking ban in the Navy or across the DoD would most likely never and to tell a civilian they can't smoke is a whole bunch of more red tape one would have to go through.

Just b/c it takes them 15min to get to the smoke pit doesn't mean you should ban it - heck, they are at least getting some PT in going up and down ladders and such just to get to the smoke deck. Also, it's a very big tradition to have a stogie behind the pilot house w/ the CO every once and awhile. If you completely ban smoking that would mean the Skipper couldn't have his stogie during a long underway. I'm sorry, but I just don't see it happening. Let me guess, you think they should ban drinking next...haha!

Most people stop smoking underway anyway b/c they either run out of cigs or they just don't want to make the trek to the smoke deck, so what happens is they pick up dipping in the interim. It's just a vicious cycle - and what's wrong w/ an occasional "social" smoke when out with friends? You're asking that it be included in the drug test to make sure they aren't smoking...right, the government has bigger things at hand to tackle then getting the Navy or military to quit smoking.

 

[jennyp]

I agree with STG3 Kline. I am not, nor will ever be a smoker. As long as everyone in the fleet and at the academies meets/exceeds the physical standards, I do not believe we can "ban" otherwise legal activities. Are we going to ban Big Mac's next? Certainly they contribute to obesity and lack of readiness!

 

[mombee]

I just believe in having liberty in the choices I make.

When one raises their right hand, certain of those liberties might become restricted.

The military is a smoking culture. Almost twice the rate of the socio-economic age group of the general population. From 'smoke breaks' on patrol to deep discounted cigarettes in PXs, a cross signal is being sent. Attitudes need to change.

Is smoking really beneficial to a combat infantryman? We have all heard the stories of the WWII soldier who lit up and then took a round by a sniper between the eyes. Smoking also decreases night vision. If our enemy had IR capabilities, would that also be a factor? I think an argument could be made that smokers endanger the lives of their buddies.

Smoking costs the VA 6 BILLION dollars a year. We have all heard the stories of the overcrowded VA facilities. Think of where that money could be better utilized. Think of how it would affect the waiting rooms if the problems of smokers went away.

Smoking costs the military in increased medical treatment alone, not considering lost productivity, which is also an issue, almost one billion dollars annually. It would have almost paid for the F-22 budget this year.

In WWII, we had victory gardens to contribute to the war effort. Smoking cessation is of the same magnitude. We owe it to our country and to the troops seeking VA assistance to help wipe out smoking in the military.

 

[bruno]

When one raises their right hand, certain of those liberties might become restricted.

The military is a smoking culture. Almost twice the rate of the socio-economic age group of the general population. From 'smoke breaks' on patrol to deep discounted cigarettes in PXs, a cross signal is being sent. Attitudes need to change.

Is smoking really beneficial to a combat infantryman? We have all heard the stories of the WWII soldier who lit up and then took a round by a sniper between the eyes. Smoking also decreases night vision. If our enemy had IR capabilities, would that also be a factor? I think an argument could be made that smokers endanger the lives of their buddies.

Smoking costs the VA 6 BILLION dollars a year. We have all heard the stories of the overcrowded VA facilities. Think of where that money could be better utilized. Think of how it would affect the waiting rooms if the problems of smokers went away.

Smoking costs the military in increased medical treatment alone, not considering lost productivity, which is also an issue, almost one billion dollars annually. It would have almost paid for the F-22 budget this year.

In WWII, we had victory gardens to contribute to the war effort. Smoking cessation is of the same magnitude. We owe it to our country and to the troops seeking VA assistance to help wipe out smoking in the military.

Well if you really believe that logic how about allowing soldiers and sailors to ride motorcyles? According to the Army Times: "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that motorcyclists are “35 times more likely than passenger-car occupants to die in a traffic accident,” according to the Medical Surveillance Monthly Report.
Military researchers decided to look at statistics for all active-duty service members who were hospitalized or who died in motorcycle accidents from 1998 to 2008. During that period, they counted 4,901 accidents. Of those, 1,757 were soldiers, a rate of 3.27 per 10,000; 1,339 were sailors, a rate of 3.38 per 10,000; 970 were airmen, a rate of 2.5 per 10,000; 781 were Marines, a rate of 4.02 per 10,000, and 54 were Coast Guardsmen, a rate of 1.31 per 10,000.
About one in six accidents resulted in death"
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/07/military_motorcycle_accidents_deaths_070609w/

Why not ban any use of motorcycles since it is clearly a health risk as well? Certainly we could make the same arguments about fat and cholesterol laden fast food. It would appear that we "owe it to our country" to ban these practices as well. I'm certain that we can find multiple examples of individual behaviors which lead to significant higher risk of death or long term health risks- why not ban those as well since we now "owe it to our country" to decide what individuals can do to themselves?
You either believe that at some point people have the freedom to make their own decisions or they do not. If you want to limit the ability of smokers to smoke in places that put others in danger (second hand smoke) or discomfort- fine. Want to charge smokers for the extra cost that they have incurred in the health system- fine- that's just charging them for the cost that they voluntarily incurred. But if you follow the logic summarized by Mombee- the logical extension is a cocoon with individuals allowed no latitude for making their own decisions outside the approved group think boundaries. We all gave up certain liberties when we went on active duty- but that doesn't mean that the DoD has the right or responsibility to steam roller service members rights because someone has decided to go on a personal crusade- in fact the opposite is true- soldiers retain their individual rights to the extent that they do not interfere with "good order and discipline" of the service.
I would opine that there is virtually no chance that Mombee's forecast of a completely smoke free military force is not on the way. They will educate folks, restrict it to make a very difficult individual choice to make but they are not going to ban smoking (and by extension smokers) from serving.

 

[mombee]

Why not ban any use of motorcycles since it is clearly a health risk as well?

I would almost guarantee you that if motorcycles caused 7 billion dollars of taxpayers money annually and that the recouping of same would benefit our soldiers and sailors, they would be banned.

soldiers retain their individual rights to the extent that they do not interfere with "good order and discipline" of the service.

There are many reasons for rules and regulations involving individual rights beyond "good order and discipline."

I would opine that there is virtually no chance that Mombee's forecast of a completely smoke free military force is not on the way. They will educate folks, restrict it to make a very difficult individual choice to make but they are not going to ban smoking (and by extension smokers) from serving.

Your double negatives kind of throw me but it seems you are agreeing with me. I am sure back at the turn of the last century when the military was transitioning from long hair, beards, and pony tails to shorn heads and no facial hair that there were the crusty old timers who said it would never work.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Guess you guys missed this in the news recently:

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/06/military_smoking_063009w/

(the bold print is mine)

Medical experts say they have a solution for the military’s increasing smoking rates:
Ban it.
And not just in basic training — stop selling cigarettes and chewing tobacco on post, stop with the discounts at the PX, don’t allow it in hospitals, and come up with a deadline when everyone should be smoke-free.
Why? It cost the Veterans Affairs Department $5 billion to treat smoking-related emphysema in 2008, and in 2006, the Military Health System spent about $564 million on tobacco-related costs.
That’s almost as much as the $611 million worth of tobacco military stores sold in 2005.
According to the Committee on Smoking Cessation in Military and Veteran Populations, in a report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, the math just doesn’t add up for an organization that depends on physical fitness from its employees.
It’s not just money. Smokers are more likely to drop out of the military before they fulfill their enlistment commitments; they have worse vision and night-vision; they don’t perform as well on fitness tests; and they miss more work.
On the battlefield, they bleed harder after surgery, heal slower after injury and are at higher risk for infection.
After deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan, smokers return home only to face a startling statistic: About half of them will eventually die from a smoking-related illness, according to the Institute of Medicine report. They face cancer, stroke, heart disease, emphysema and diabetes.
“These troops are essentially putting their lives at risk twice: once in service to their country and once in service to tobacco,” wrote Stuart Bondurant, chair of the committee. “Tobacco is a long-term engagement — it kills slowly and insidiously.”
Even the good news was mixed with bad: In 1980, 51 percent of the military smoked. That had dropped to 32 percent in 2005, but it has been going back up. In the VA health system, 22 percent of patients smoke.
Though the committee determined both the Defense Department and VA are doing some things right — such as anti-smoking campaigns and, for the VA, smoking-cessation programs — they’re far behind on other measures.
“DoD and each of the armed services have a stated goal of a tobacco-free military, but tobacco-control efforts have not been given high priority by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs or the individual services’ Office of the Surgeon General,” the report states. And, “The committee believes that DoD should not subsidize an activity that adversely affects military health and readiness.”
In other words, why are cigarettes cheaper on-post?
The committee acknowledged that the military and VA face special challenges: Troops tend to take up smoking when they deploy, and cigarettes are highly addictive. That means they’re less likely to stop when they get home. In fact, 50 percent of smokers attempt to stop every year, but only between 4 and 7 percent succeed.
And, people with depression or post-traumatic stress disorder are more likely to smoke.
“That is of concern, given the increased numbers of veterans returning from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD and the number of Vietnam veterans who have PTSD,” the report states.
The committee recommended:
• Making sure troops and veterans know that smoking-cessation programs exist.
• Making sure those programs are consistent and evidence-based.
• Making VA and military health-care facilities smoke-free.
• Banning smoking in military academies, officer candidate schools and Reserve Officer Training Corps programs.
• Eliminating the sale of tobacco at all military installations
• Setting a specific, mandatory date by which the military will be tobacco-free.

This was followed up with this:
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/07/military_gates_smoking_071509w/
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31927402/

The study, commissioned by the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department, recommended that the military start making incremental moves toward becoming smoke-free. The report by the Institute of Medicine suggested the services could start by banning smoking at military academies, then among recruits. It said the VA and Pentagon should eliminate use of tobacco on its facilities and the military should stop selling tobacco products at its commissaries.

Clearly the conversation has begun.

 

[bruno]

Mombee: Clearly had a typo and failed to delete "not" from "on the way". So to clarify: I completely disagree with you.
Maybe you could clarify- Name one UCMJ regulation restricting individual soldier rights and conduct which is not there primarily for the maintenance of good order and discipline? I assume you understand that the term is a catchall that is used for any actions which hampers the effective functioning of the military. Interestingly the reason they eliminated excessive facial hair was because Soldiers could not seat gas masks, hygiene concerns for soldiers in the field and a desire to present a uniform appearance. Clearly all direct cause and effect related to individuals ability to perform the mission.

Smoking in formations, smoking in crew spaces, smoking on patrol in a blacked out situation all could be construed as contrary to good order and discipline. If you can demonstrate that smoking on personal time significantly impedes the effective functioning of individuals or units on active duty- then banning it follows as a logical response. But- to use your thinking-Shouldn't we also ban Fast food and throw out soldiers because they have a craving for Double Whoppers, Jumbo fries and shakes? We all know that obesity and high levels of Cholesterol can lead to serious long term health issues which does and will cost the US $billions later on, and most commentators identify fast food as a serious contributor- so tell me what justification you have for not making all of those places that serve fast food off limits and targeting those military patrons???
Saving the VA, Health Insurance providers or the Social Security administration money does not seem to be a primary concern of the DoD and certainly is not a function of "good order and discipline. If the VA, HHS, SSA etc have concerns about the cost to provide care to current or former smokers then the way they should deal with that is by restricting benefits or significantly increasing the cost of benefits to people who engaged in harmful activities.
Of course it's so much easier to just order the Army to ban smoking on or off duty. Then the politicians get to look bold and decisive without actually facing many potential voters who might be offended if they were banned from making a legal personal choice.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

Perhaps they can't "ban" you from smoking/chewing but:
they can quit selling all tobacco products on military installations
they can ban tobacco use on all military installations in and outside buildings - including barracks and homes
they can ban tobacco use while in uniform
they can ban tobacco use while on duty
they can ban tobacco use on military ships and aircraft.

If you live on a military installation in the middle of nowhere or are out to sea on a Navy ship, you might as well quit.

 

[mombee]

Actually, it really doesn't matter what any of us think. From the looks of the post and links above, the wheels are already in motion. Sounds like both the Pentagon and Sec Def are willing to listen. Yes, it is all about money and since health care money is going to be on the forefront for a while, don't expect DoD not to be the lead guinea pig with new social issues. It won't be the first time. Interesting that they intend to commence it at the service academies. So I guess we are still on topic.

bruno, my definition of 'good order and discipline' goes more along the line of rules and regulations which, on the surface, appear to be so just for the sake of the rule. I would consider all personal safety regs to be outside the purview of 'good order and discipline'. The fact that one can be court martialed for getting sunburned.

As far as fast foods and the resultant obesity, hypertension, and cholesterol, these issues are already being addressed. Any or all will prove detrimental to retention and reenlistment.

 

[Kero]

Sunburn has nothing to do with personal safety its about readiness, Get a severe sunburn one day and then the next have to strap on a flight vest or kevlar and your ability to serve will be hindered, not to mention the risks of severe infection in the event of second degree burns.

 

[USNA'02]

so does this mean the Commander and Chief will stop smoking as well? I mean might as well lead by example. Will they ban smoking for members of Congress, doesn't the american all mighty tax dollar pay for their health care too?

Well, doesn't look like this "ban" is going to happen anytime soon - maybe 20yrs from now, when I'll have long retired.

I'm no smoker but having Sailors/Troops that smoke and especially in a war zone it is a good stress relief that's quick. After being on patrol all day long the last thing you want to do is "work out" and cigs help you calm down a little.

An option would be the e-cig http://www.crown7.com/ interesting...

 

[Zaphod]

so does this mean the Commander and Chief will stop smoking as well? I mean might as well lead by example. Will they ban smoking for members of Congress, doesn't the american all mighty tax dollar pay for their health care too?

There you go bringing logic into this again. How dare you?

I seem to have heard recently that the Pentagon (grew a brain cell or a backbone and) decided not to pursue the policy after all.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

^
The latest news that I have seen, I posted back in Post #32:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31927402/

Smoke 'em if you got 'em. The Pentagon reassured troops Wednesday that it won't ban tobacco products in war zones.Defense officials hadn't actually planned to eliminate smoking — at least for now. But fear of a ban arose among some troops after the Defense Department received a study recommending the military move toward becoming tobacco-free — perhaps in about 20 years.
Press secretary Geoff Morrell pointedly told a Pentagon news conference that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is not planning to prohibit the use of cigarettes, chewing tobacco or other tobacco products by troops in combat..............................

click on the link for the rest.

The plan is to do this incrementally - over 10-20 years. I am sure there will be a huge outcry when tobacco sales in Commissaries and Exchanges is banned.

tpg: Hopefully I am wrong, but you should not plan on remaining free of tobacco related health problems. many people have quit and found themselves sick years later. Perhaps in your case smoking made you healthier?

 

[LineInTheSand]

It won't happen. I don't smoke, use tobacco products or drink often, however at this time banning the use, especially of units overseas.....would not be a good situation.


Who knows maybe we would have to adapt "the beatings will continue until morale improves" to...

"Fraggin's will continue until the Smokin' resumes."

 

[Zaphod]

Perhaps in your case smoking made you healthier?

I've never so much as taken a puff from a cigarette. If you added the number of times I tried a pipe and the number of cigars I've smoked in my life, you'd still have fingers left over.

I just don't think that we as a society should be jumping down the throats of people who choose to do something that is legal, nor do I think something should be illegal just because it's harmful.

But hey, we're in the age of nannyism, so let's ban everything that's dangerous. It's for the children...

 

[Soylent]

I've never so much as taken a puff from a cigarette. If you added the number of times I tried a pipe and the number of cigars I've smoked in my life, you'd still have fingers left over.

I just don't think that we as a society should be jumping down the throats of people who choose to do something that is legal, nor do I think something should be illegal just because it's harmful.

But hey, we're in the age of nannyism, so let's ban everything that's dangerous. It's for the children...

Amen. Just because we lose certain liberties when we "put our right hand up" (as quoted from another poster) does not mean that they should all be for the taking.