cross-posted from: https://lemmit.online/post/5831395
This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/todayilearned by /u/GoCartMozart1980 on 2025-05-15 14:58:41+00:00.
Well, there are four reasons why even by modern standards that would have been a good idea.
- The last thing you want in an army is a bunch of soldiers with withdrawal
- A cigarette every so often is a good distraction from the horrors of war
- Non-smokers have something to barter with
- A mild stimulant like nicotine would be beneficial to a soldier
Can’t really imagine robbing a soldier of the ability to smoke in that situation. It’s not like their long-term health is being prioritized during deployment anyway so why keep up pretenses.
- You’ll probably die from a bullet before the cigarettes get ya
Also, nicotine suppresses your appetite. If soldiers are stuck living off of rations in trenches, many of them will inevitably end up wanting to snack. And a cigarette is an easy way to curb that urge.
It helps you shit.
Makes sense, Nicotine is a mild stimulant. We give soldiers meth today
Plus even if you don’t smoke cigarettes make convenient currency.
My grandfather traded a couple packs for a sword at the end of WWII
Do we? I feel like that’s urban legend territory
they’re used in the air force (US) mostly I think. I’ve read anecdotes discussing it on the aviation sub on reddit
“Go Pills”/Dexedrine.
Looks like it’s approved for pilots.
If you’re about the be killed at any moment ya don’t care too much about getting cancer in 20 years.
If you fought in a war, smoke the cigarettes that the government gave you and then survived. Can you sue goverment for lung cancer??
US police frequently kills people and gets away with it… What do you think?
