You ask me what we need to win this war. I answer tobacco as much as bullets. Tobacco is as indispensable as the daily ration; we must have thousands of tons without delay.

General John J. Pershing, 1917

Introduction

America’s 2.1 million military servicemembers are the cornerstone of our nation’s national security. From the halls of the Pentagon to our bases abroad, it is servicemembers who are tasked with the responsibility of defending American interests, often in dangerous and uncertain conditions.

In this era of increasing geopolitical volatility, it is critical that we take the physical readiness and health of our military seriously. Are soldiers operating in peak condition in the field? Are we taking the steps we need to ensure that servicemembers remain healthy over the long term? Are we maximizing—in the words of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth—the lethality of our soldiers?

This report considers one important area where established Department of War (DOW) policies may actually be working to hinder readiness: the blanket ban on tobacco. While a categorical policy may have been sensible at its inception, this report lays out the case that DOW policy should distinguish between combustible and non-combustible delivery. Indeed, the rising popularity of oral tobacco products such as dip, chew, snuff, snus, and nicotine pouches changes the calculus of costs and benefits. The report argues that DOW should reconsider its policies to allow servicemembers to use smoke-free tobacco products and assess whether they could play a role in helping servicemembers transition away from cigarettes and other combustibles. This policy matters, particularly given that up to 37.8 percent of U.S. military servicemembers use tobacco or nicotine in some form.

The report lays out the existing DOW policies and contrasts them with the realities of usage on the ground. Then, it applies the harm reduction case to DOW, highlighting the research that suggests the readiness benefits of transitioning to smoke-free products. Next, the paper lays out other considerations in favor of smoke-free products, with an emphasis on how smoke-free products are favored in the unique environments in which servicemembers often operate. The paper concludes with some observations about what the rise of smoke-free—in particular, oral—tobacco products among servicemembers suggests about the importance of “folk” pharmacological innovation in defense.