USAF Air Force Instruction (AFI) 40-102 "TOBACCO USE IN THE AIR FORCE" 26 MARCH 2012

[MacZapIt]

The new (updated) USAF Air Force Instruction (AFI) 40-102 "tobacco USE IN THE AIR FORCE" 26 MARCH 2012 has been published.

In this AFI the following statement is made:

"tobacco includes, but is not limited to, cigars, cigarettes, electronic-cigarettes ("e-cigarettes"), stem pipes, water pipes, hookahs, and smokeless products that are chewed, dipped, or sniffed."

If you are a "vaper" and work on, reside on or visit an Air Foce installation - according to this AFI - you will not be permitted to vape anywhere but a designated SMOKING AREA....right next to users of the product that we are trying to stay away from!

VAPERS - we need to stand up - LOUD & PROUD and send our message up the chain of command. Let them know that we are more productive being able to vape at our desk/in our work-center!

I have already sent an email questioning how an electronic cigarette with no tobacco whatsoever can be considered as TOBACCO. What if the e-juice contains no nicotine at all (0mg)....Is that still tobacco?

Get your voice heard - up the chain......

-DAVID A. HAUGHT SR., TSGT, USAF (RET)

 

[Vocalek]

If they believe that the reasons smokers need to be sent to a designated area to smoke is because second-hand smoke (SHS) endangers the health of non-smoking bystanders, what evidence is there that the non-smoking bystanders that vape to maintain their smoke-free status are somehow immune to the effects of SHS?

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

Incorrect. SMOKING is the leading cause of preventable death.

B. Comparison of risks from ST use and smoking The established health risks associated with ST use are vastly lower than those of smoking. In the past 25 years,almost 80 peer-reviewed scientific and medical publications have acknowledged the differential risks between the two tobacco products (see Additional File 1).

In 1980 Michael A.H. Russell and co-workers proposed that powdered nasal snuff might serve as an effective substitute for cigarettes because it delivers nicotine effectively without the risks of tobacco combustion [4]. This article was cited shortly thereafter in a brief letter in the New England Journal of Medicine [5]. Russell et al. published followup studies on nasal snuff in 1981 [6] and on an oral ST product in 1985 [7]. Lynn Kozlowski, a prominent American smoking and nicotine addiction expert at Penn State University, noted in 1984 and 1989 that smokeless forms of tobacco conferred fewer risks to users and therefore might serve as effective substitutes for cigarettes [8,9,127].

Starting in 1994, University of Alabama at Birmingham researchers Brad Rodu and Philip Cole provided a quantitative assessment of the difference in risks for the two products. Using established risk estimates from accepted sources, Rodu and Cole documented that ST use confers only about 2% of the health risks of smoking [10-12]. In addition, they established that the average reduction in life expectancy from long-term ST use was about 15 days, compared with a reduction of about 8 years from smoking [11].

http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-3-37.pdf

So if smokers who switched to snus or chewing tobacco have to go stand in the smoking section to use the products, does it not stand to reason that some of the health benefits of having switched are erased by their exposure to SHS?

Tobacco use degrades the state of military readiness and the health of military personnel.

Incorrect. Nicotine improves memory, the ability to focus attention, to concentrate, and to perform boring tasks. Taking away nicotine degrades the state of military readiness and the health of military personnel.

2.2.10.1. Executive Order 13058 and 41 CFR 102-74 establishes that it is the policy of the executive branch to establish a smoke-free environment for Federal employees and members of the public visiting or using Federal facilities.

Correct. A "smoke-free environment" and a "tobacco-free environment" are two different things. This is akin to having a rule against drinking alcoholic beverages and then prohibiting the drinking of all and any liquids.

Is there a way to complain when military leadership is needlessly endangering the health and lives of service people?

 

[rolygate]

Presumably the Secretary of the Air Force would be surprised to learn that all AF personnel test positive for nicotine; and that attempting to eliminate it would destroy the ability of the AF to operate since a large percentage of personnel would become sick.

It's quite funny when incongruous social trends are applied to the military and act to reduce their effectiveness. They seem to have forgotten that in WW2 all Allied service personnel were freely allowed to smoke and many were encouraged to do so with free supplies. Axis personnel were actively discouraged from doing so and in some cases prohibited. They lost.

Although it may seem facetious to use the comparison in this way, there is more to it than meets the eye:

- The health effects of smoking are hardly of any importance to young, fit men and women

- Morale and alertness are of some importance in the services

- People serving their country aren't morally uplifted by finding out they are working for the stupid and the unreasonable

- If modern methodology can be applied to existing practices, everyone benefits

 

[kristin]

Tobacco use degrades the state of military readiness...

Maybe they aren't "ready" because you sent them off to a remote corner off the base instead of letting them stay at their post with a smoke-free alternative and ready to act?

 

[kristin]

- The health effects of smoking are hardly of any importance to young, fit men and women

I can see how excessively inhaling smoke could cause shortness of breath and decreased stamina when trying to do demanding physical work (I know it did that for me), but there definitely is no way to translate that to smoke-free tobacco products!

 

[DC2]

Is there a way to complain when military leadership is needlessly endangering the health and lives of service people?

Which in turn needlessly endangers the lives of every person protected by that military...

This attack on nicotine by the Armed Services actually threatens and endangers all of us.
And that, in turn, must somehow be able to be challenged legally.

Any military experts have any insight into how this can be legally challenged?

 

[DJ_Kalee]

Mines not a electronic cigarette or e-cig it's a PV.

 

[kristin]

Mines not a electronic cigarette or e-cig it's a PV.

Nice try, but that's like saying "It's not soda, it's pop."

Unfortunately, their definition of tobacco products says "Tobacco includes, but is not limited to..." which makes it pretty easy for them to include "a PV."

 

[ratedPG]

Perhaps this is just another example of oxymoronic "military intelligence." It wouldn't be the first time decisions were made without full information. (Please, no one take this as military bashing or political haranguing. I love the military. Semper Fi!)

It sounds like the typical misinformation about the nature of PVs due to the unfortunate "e-cig" moniker. Everyone's been there until they learn better, including all of us. I hope with more information by some well-placed individuals, directed to the right people, the misunderstanding will be cleared right up.

Maybe.

 

[tommy2bad]

Yeah but the people giving the information have an agenda that requires them to lie. The USAF is a branch of Gov and Gov policy is anti tobacco, used to be anti smoking but it's moved on.

 

[Vocalek]

I highly recommend reading this essay by Christopher Snowden. Here is an excerpt:

While I see the 1983 conference as a turning-point, the wheels had of course been turning throughout the 1970s. Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri has recently been going through the documents to show the particular influence of Sir George Godber - who was Britain's Chief Medical Officer from 1960 to 1973. Godber was a fervent anti-smoker at a time when such views were unfashionable and was regarded by his peers as one of the leading lights - arguably the leading light - of the global anti-tobacco community.

In his thorough review of the various World Conferences on Smoking and Health, Di Pierri identifies what he calls the 'Godber blueprint' which anti-smoking activists have followed ever since. This involves the denormalisation of smoking and the criminalisation of smoking everywhere outside the home. Even today, most anti-smoking groups would not publicly call for such a draconian approach and yet, as Di Pierri shows, Godber was advocating these hard-line policies as far back as 1975 and his peers were agreeing with him.

I have written about the slippery slope before, most recently with reference to John Banzhaf. Indeed, Velvet Glove, Iron Fist is - as the title suggests - all about the slippery slope. Few outside the anti-tobacco circle would have agreed with the Godber blueprint in the 1970s. Many would have found it fanatical, excessive and illiberal, which is probably why we didn't hear much about it at the time. And yet we have moved much closer to Godber's final goal thanks to a gradual softening-up of the public accompanied by a little voodoo science.

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2009/12/godber-blueprint.html

 

[TennDave]

Yeah, I think the "Voodoo Science" has a lot to do with it today.
It's gut-wrenchingly absurd that when we live in such technologically advanced times, unscientific propaganda still has a way of influencing the masses... and truly sad...

I am thinking up a letter to send to Democrats (I know- we are suppose to be bi-partisan) as I have voted that way in the past....but am appalled by their direction in controlling the lives of so many... If/when I get finished, the crux of the letter will be how they have been deceived and that they are "smarter than that," to wake up to REALITY and don't punish those who have not been deceived. Hopefully it will be an educational letter and my views about and disappointment to how the Dems have taken a bad turn in the road to "liberation." It will include e-cigs but more than that- it has to. In an attempt to "provide for all citizens," they have squelched good sense and the very liberties that have made our nation great. Like others have stated, we are looking more and more like a totalitarian governed country, replete personal freedom and responsibilities... But in the end, the gov won't take on the responsibility...they just wont' be able to anyway- even if they tried....so I just wish they would quit trying so hard. Guess when it comes down to it it's really about where the money is and has nothing to do with us as people...So, that's the message- it's deep and philosophical but involves a few things including the joys of life, addiction, harm, no-harm...reduced harm....harm to each other, etc.... I'm lost for words now, so I know this will take awhile....but hoping it would be worth putting out there.

Any input would be appreciated.

 

[DC2]

I hope you post your letter when you finish it, as I definitely look forward to reading it.

You could even post it while in progress if you want some feedback.

 

[frosting]

I just hope the vapers who are in the Air Force bring up swiftly, and rightly so, they don't want to subjected to the 2nd hand smoke!! Wishing them the best of luck with this battle. The ignorance of such a decision uggh... Makes my head hurt.

 

[tonyg773]

This change in Air Force policy is the first negative response to PV's I have heard of for the military. Two years ago the US Navy Submarine Force went tobacco free and cigarettes were no longer allowed to be used on board. To cope with the loss during their many months at sea many smokers in the sub-force turned to PV's. Soon after the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, MCPON Rick West, issued a message allowing the use of e-cigarettes on board US submarines. The submarine force seems to be a testing ground for the Navy's desire to enact a tobacco free policy fleet wide. So far it seems they have embraced the use of PV's as an additional aid to help sailors kick tobacco. Hopefully this change in Air Force policy does not start a domino effect where all the services do the same.