US Army falsely claims "Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as smoking tobacco"

[Bill Godshall]

US Army falsely claims "Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as smoking tobacco." and "tobacco jeopardizes the military by reducing the overall performance of the Soldier" in promoting abstinence-only for smokeless tobacco.
Great American Spit Out / Tobacco Cessation - Public Health Command

 

[TomCatt]

"
Tobacco jeopardizes the military by reducing the overall performance of the Soldier.

Common concerns are military readiness, war fighting ability and overall work performance. To combat smokeless tobacco use, several organizations, to include the American Academy of Otolaryngologists, have developed similar campaigns such as “Through with Chew” in conjunction with the Great American Spit Out. “Through With Chew,” a one week smokeless awareness campaign, also occurs in February and has a website that provides a variety of additional tools that help with putting a stop to smokeless tobacco use.

"

Ok ... if "Tobacco jeopardizes the military by reducing the overall performance of the Soldier"; how does it do this. How can you have a section heading like that and then have nothing in that section which deals with the heading?

 

[Vocalek]

"
Tobacco jeopardizes the military by reducing the overall performance of the Soldier.

Common concerns are military readiness, war fighting ability and overall work performance. To combat smokeless tobacco use, several organizations, to include the American Academy of Otolaryngologists, have developed similar campaigns such as “Through with Chew” in conjunction with the Great American Spit Out. “Through With Chew,” a one week smokeless awareness campaign, also occurs in February and has a website that provides a variety of additional tools that help with putting a stop to smokeless tobacco use.

"

Ok ... if "Tobacco jeopardizes the military by reducing the overall performance of the Soldier"; how does it do this. How can you have a section heading like that and then have nothing in that section which deals with the heading?

"How can you...?" If the goal is to obfuscate, then you use the classic propaganda techniques. I believe the technique described below fits this situation.

Propaganda Techniques

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

Propaganda Techniques

This page also includes some examples of faulty logic and other types of errors.

Recognizing Propaganda--Guide to Critical Thinking--Academic Support

If you are going to continue to monitor news stories, legislative action, and even scientific publications on the topics of smoking, tobacco, and e-cigarettes, I highly recommend learning all the classic propaganda techniques so you and easily identify when somebody is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

 

[James]

Is it ignorance or malicious propoganda, I wonder?

 

[Vocalek]

Well, if it is ignorance, then we have to believe that someone intelligent enough to reach the level of officer in our military was never taught how to build a paragraph, using supporting ideas for the topic sentence.

 

[bobthesalesclerk]

Everyone smoked in WWII and we kicked the crap out of those Australians!

sent from my Ice Cream Sandwiched Gtablet

 

[Uncle Willie]

Everyone smoked in WWII and we kicked the crap out of those Australians!

sent from my Ice Cream Sandwiched Gtablet

As a Veteran myself, I admit most of us smoked, but I don't ever recall going to war with Australia ..

 

[JW50]

As a Veteran myself, I admit most of us smoked, but I don't ever recall going to war with Australia ..

Perhaps the Public Health Command would say you don't recall it because you smoked. Then again, perhaps the Australian soldiers were smoking too and they don't recall the war either. But I don't recall what the outcome was in the war with Sweden. I'm thinking I'd feel more comfortable with a soldier with a bit of nicotine in his system than one in a cold turkey, jittery state with his hands on a trigger.

 

[bobthesalesclerk]

As a Veteran myself, I admit most of us smoked, but I don't ever recall going to war with Australia ..

1st things first thank you for your service. Both of my grandfathers served in WWII.

2nd It was right after we took over Old Zealand...

Anyway...


I agree with the above comment. I would rather have a soldier with nice in his system than going through withdrawal.

sent from my Ice Cream Sandwiched Gtablet

 

[James]

It's a bit of a change from the past. In the World Wars they used to say "We can't win the war without cigarettes" and "cigarettes are as important as bullets."

 

[rolygate]

The Allied forces issued cigarettes as part of the serviceman's allowances.

The Germans prohibited cigarettes and did not issue them to servicemen.

They lost

Looking at North Rhine - Westphalia they are at it again, with e-cig bans.

 

[Charlz]

They are specifically talking about chewing tobacco. Chewing tobacco is only one step lower than smoking it on the harm reduction scale.

 

[Petrodus]

US Army falsely claims "Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as smoking tobacco." and "Tobacco jeopardizes the military by reducing the overall performance of the Soldier" in promoting abstinence-only for smokeless tobacco.
Great American Spit Out / Tobacco Cessation - Public Health Command

I'm surprised that we won World War II
considering the high percentage of our troops who smoked tobacco.

 

[rolygate]

They are specifically talking about chewing tobacco. Chewing tobacco is only one step lower than smoking it on the harm reduction scale.

I'm not an expert on smokeless tobacco so please take this as statement made by a tyro in this area - but I have been given to understand that smoking is still four times more likely to cause mouth cancer than the most 'dangerous' form of chewing tobacco.

In addition, it can't cause lung cancer or affect lung performance. It may have a marginal to small effect on cardiac or vascular fitness, which might impact endurance sports performance after years of use, but not short events. (Or 50-mile route marches in full battle order but not firefights - if you prefer.)

The Snus data shows that ad lib use over decades has a risk so little greater than totally quitting that it is statistically insignificant. The real question is, how much more dangerous than Snus is chewing tobacco? It appears to be far safer than smoking, and have zero impact on pulmonary fitness, so from a soldier's point of view (like a baseball player's) it is far better than smoking. Plus a large supply can be kept in a tin, useful when deployed. And no smell or lights at night to give you away. The Army should be promoting it not restricting it. It is close to being the perfect tobacco alternative - though Snus would be better.

If I ran the Army I'd have Army Snus in the PK. It makes a hell of a lot of sense.

 

[JW50]

They are specifically talking about chewing tobacco. Chewing tobacco is only one step lower than smoking it on the harm reduction scale.

Perhaps the case on someones scale. However, what the OP was commenting on was not the attack on chewing tobacco but the unsupported claim that "Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as smoking tobacco." My common sense would suggest that the statement that "Smokeless tobacco is as harmful as smoking tobacco." is not true. Without some form of proof, it seems almost ridiculous to suggest that chewing tobaccos "28 carcinogens" (even if that is true) is the equivalent to the carcinogens, toxic chemicals, tars, etc. of smoked tobacco taken into the lungs.

 

[TennDave]

Problem is, whether the army is right nor not (and they aren't), once you sign up for duty, the army owns you...you've sold your body and soul... So, whatever they say goes if you're enlisted. It's a shame, but the way it goes....just my opinion.

 

[TennDave]

I'm surprised that we won World War II
considering the high percentage of our troops who smoked tobacco.

They sent them tobacco in their food rations- to keep them alert and ready!!
The army is to blame for addicting to many of our youth to tobacco to begin with.

The Gov giveth and now the Gov taketh away. :wink:

 

[Charlz]

The OP has it big and bold and sensational in the headline followed by sentences in quotation marks. But the linked article only says that it is dangerous, contains carcinogens and is known to cause various mouth and throat cancers. That's true. Where's the article of the Military claiming it's as bad as smoking? That's nowhere in the article posted unless I missed it.

 

[JW50]

The OP has it big and bold and sensational in the headline followed by sentences in quotation marks. But the linked article only says that it is dangerous, contains carcinogens and is known to cause various mouth and throat cancers. That's true. Where's the article of the Military claiming it's as bad as smoking? That's nowhere in the article posted unless I missed it.

I think you are right. I could not find that quote either.

 

[dlsw]

Well, if it is ignorance, then we have to believe that someone intelligent enough to reach the level of officer in our military was never taught how to build a paragraph, using supporting ideas for the topic sentence.

Thank you!!! Spoken like a true Engish teacher.