One of the Joint Chiefs must be a closet smoker.

I mean, finally, a bit of pushback against social engineering by the Congress.

WASHINGTON — Congressional efforts to limit or even stop men and women in the military from smoking cigarettes or using other tobacco products could create a major morale problem for front-line troops.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff see it coming and hope to get out in front of it.

Last week, during the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing on the fiscal 2015 defense budget, the panel’s chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., questioned the discount prices for tobacco products sold within the Defense Department. “We spend $1.6 billion a year on medical care of servicemembers from tobacco-related disease and loss of work,” he said.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, responded, “We’ve asked a lot of our men and women in uniform, and we lead an uncommon life by choice. But all the things you’re talking about are legal, and they are accessible, and anything that makes anything less convenient and more expensive for our men and women in uniform, given everything we’re asking them to do, I’ve got concerns about.” (emphasis mine-XBrad)

First, I’m pretty biased here, as I am a smoker. And I understand that it does add a lot to the costs military health care. 

But lets be honest, it’s not a genuine concern for the health and well being of troops that’s motivating Congress here. Dogooders care more about being seen as doing good than actually accomplishing any good. What’s the point of being the moral elite if you cannot force your choices upon the unenlightened serfs?

Of course, it’s only a matter of time before the anti-smoking forces win this victory. And then there’s the Class VI store next…

12 thoughts on “One of the Joint Chiefs must be a closet smoker.”

  1. So smoking pole is okay but smoking a cigarette or cigar is a “No Go” ?
    $1.6 billion seems like an oddly specific number. Are 21 y/o servicemembers developing lung cancer? If so, maybe it’s from the burn pits, shitty environment were we work, or possibly the asbestos they use on ships.
    Sometime I think I stay in just to see what kind of weird shit they’ll come up with next

    1. Stacey they cant even prove asbestos causes cancer much less anything else like tobacco!

      They have no idea what causes cancer except that its really a disease of the old. If younger folks get it its due to a gentic fluke not an environmental condition they were in except if it was HIGH DOSE RADIATION!

      As that’s the only thing ever proven to cause cell disruption and cancer!

      Hiroshima and Nagasaki is where that was proven.

      Radiation for all of us and please don’t laugh to hard……

      The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:

      Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 15 mrem

      Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) – 300 mrem

      Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) – 300 mrem

      Thyroid uptake study – 28,000 mrem to the thyroid

      Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

      Average Annual Total
      361 mrem/year

      Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

      Not quite 1 dental xray for a whole years smoking ehh!

      or

      Thyroid oblation – 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid /shrinking the thyroid

      Tobacco (If You Smoke, Add ~ 280 mrem)

      18,000,000 / 280 = roughly 64,000 years of equivalent years of smoking!

      http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/rp/f

  2. First, I’m pretty biased here, as I am a smoker. And I understand that it does add a lot to the costs military health care.

    The costs they claim are all made up! They spend that much for old age diseases as there are no smoking diseases. They cleverly took old age disease and renamed it tobacco related.

    The heaviest concentration of smokers anywhere is the veteran elderly population. Obamas Nazis in the VA have been abusing us veterans at every turn in their lifestyle war against everybody.

    Slim truth in fat figures

    A leading actuary has lampooned health lobby figures on the costs of smoking and obesity as being extravagantly inflated and based on suspect methodology.

    “The numbers are all over the place,” writes Geoff Dunsford in the September edition of Actuary Australia. And they are “big numbers” – the implication being that they are too big.

    “Obesity costs $58.2 billion,” he exclaims, “that’s around twice the cost of age pensions!”

    The sheer size of the numbers, argues the Sydney actuary, perverts government policy. It can lead to poor spending decisions. The credibility of the numbers from the health lobby is therefore critical to government policy.

    The press and the public have been led to believe that the costs to the system are higher than they really are so the government can “justify use of taxpayers’ money on measures to reduce its prevalence and prevention”.

    Dunsford looks at three public health issues: obesity, smoking and depression.

    1. “….obesity …. drains the national budget each year by $58.2 billion”, (Sun Herald report, March 13, 2011).

    2. “…smoking … costs our society $31.5 billion each year”, (Nicola Roxon, media release, April 7, 2011).

    3. “Depression-associated disability costs the Australian economy $14.9 billion annually”, (beyondblue website)

    In the first case, the newspaper story was based on an Access Economics report for Diabetes Australia titled, “The growing cost of obesity in 2008: three years on”.

    Access Economics estimated the cost of obesity to Australia at $58.2 billion. And sure enough, this enormous headline number promptly bobbed in the press.

    On Dunsford’s analysis, however, the figures are flawed, skewed by the “non-financial” estimates to make obesity seem a lot more costly to the taxpayer than it really is.

    more here

    http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/940320/slim-truth-in-fat-figures/

  3. This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  4. Twisting the stats reveals sensationalist agenda

    The ONS cancer registration statistics provide an excuse for the Daily Mail to wax hysterical and the BBC to promote plain packaging, writes Chris Oakley.

    It is that time of year again when the cancer statistics are released by the ONS and the mainstream media, spearheaded by the Daily Mail and the BBC, browbeat the public with the latest instalment of their miserable campaign to blame us for dying as a consequence of indulging in things disapproved of by the public health industry. Things that include eating, drinking, smoking of course and going out in the sunshine.

    The Daily Mail seems in absolutely no doubt that it is all our own fault, launching a broadside of terrifying statistics under the headline “Sharp rise in cancers caused by lifestyle: Alcohol, obesity and legacy of sunshine holidays are to blame, warn experts”. It seems to have struggled to find anyone who can be reasonably described as an expert so we are subjected to quotes from “charity” spin doctors with a final word from an evangelical nutritionist representing the scientifically challenged World Cancer Research Fund telling us that “80,000 cancer cases a year could be prevented in Britain if people ate better, kept to a healthy weight and exercised more”.

    We would of course expect better of the BBC whose headline “Sharp rise in skin and liver cancer across England” is less sensational and a more accurate reflection of the main points in the ONS report

    .http://www.thefreesociety.org/Articles/674/twisting-the-stats-reveals-sensationalist-agenda

  5. JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.

    http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409

    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  6. Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one.

    Here’s my all-time favorite “scientific” study of the the anti-smoking campaign: “Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths,” Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

    You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute’s wesbite, Cato.org. This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.

  7. Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all.

    Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year.

    He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn’t one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking.

    If we did the same the world over we would get the same answer.

    Remember this story from last year:

    B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

  8. You are the flat earth believer here!

    Climate change

    second hand smoke

    3rd hand smoke

    1st hand smoke

    No proof to back up any of those claims none!

    Its junk science on its head,Insanity bundled up to look oh so real and no names of the claimed dead not even an address…………..

    FCTC GAG ORDERS TO KEEP THE PEOPLE QUIET and have no debate the same as banning commenters…………

    fctc gag order guidelines

    11. The broad array of strategies and tactics used
    by the tobacco industry to interfere with
    the setting and implementing of tobacco control mea
    sures, such as those that Parties to the
    Convention are required to implement, is documented
    by a vast body of evidence. The
    measures recommended in these guidelines aim at pro
    tecting against interference not only by
    the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by o
    rganizations and individuals that work to
    further the interests of the tobacco industry.
    12. While the measures recommended in these guideli
    nes should be applied by Parties as
    broadly as necessary, in order best to achieve the
    objectives of Article 5.3 of the Convention,
    Parties are strongly urged to implement measures be
    yond those recommended in these
    guidelines when adapting them to their specific cir
    cumstances.

    http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_5_3.pdf

Comments are closed.