USAT’s Pathetic Pic At Story About Proposed Military Tobacco Ban
Call it “Yankee Imperialist Corrupts Impressionable Iraqi Youth”:
Am I supposed to believe that USA Today had no other more relevant pictures they could have used? The fact that they went back to an AP file photo from 2007 is pretty strong evidence that USAT’s page-fillers were looking to make a point.
Here are selected paragraphs from the related report by Greg Zoroya:
Pentagon health experts are urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property, a change that could dramatically alter a culture intertwined with smoking.
Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon’s office of clinical and program policy, says he will recommend that Gates adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.
The study by the Institute of Medicine, requested by the VA and Pentagon, calls for a phased-in ban over a period of years, perhaps up to 20. “We’ll certainly be taking that recommendation forward,” Smith says.
A tobacco ban would confront a military culture, the report says, in which “the image of the battle-weary soldier in fatigues and helmet, fighting for his country, has frequently included his lit cigarette.”
Also, the report said, troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a “stress reliever.” The study found that tobacco use in the military increased after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.
Far be it from me to deny soldiers risking their lives for their country a bit of stress relief. But apparently the perfumed princes at the Pentagon can’t put themselves in the shoes of combat soldiers and imagine that for some of them a smoke break might be a useful tonic in very difficult situations.
Besides, a graphic at the USAT’s story shows that tobacco use by all veterans, at 22%, is barely higher than that of the entire population’s 20%. And guess what? If you take into account the fact that men greatly outnumber women in both the active military and veterans’ ranks, that 2% difference probably disappears. This American Lung Association Fact Sheet estimates that 17.4% of women smoke. So it appears that smoking is no more of a problem in the military than it is in the country as a whole.
So what’s the point? I’ll leave that to readers to think through and perhaps comment upon.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the point was to say, “see how bad the Iraq War was was, it made our soldiers smoke deadly tobacco!”
That said, I think “perfumed princes” was a bit harsh. Sure, those at the Pentagon are not on the front lines, but they work hard and have to make tough decisions are are an important part of defense too.
But I agree that they should leave the soldiers alone about smoking, well intentioned motives or not, it’s not their business.
P.S. The dirty secret of tobacco is that while liberals in government rail against it, they will never ban smoking or fully cripple the tobacco industry because they cynically use tobacco taxes to fund all their idiotic programs and bullcrap political largess.
Comment by zf — July 10, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
FYI
Tobacco sales on federal property, e.g. at the Base Commissary, are only subject to applicable federal taxes.
I.e., they’re free from the huge State taxes applied to tobacco.
Getting tobacco sales banned from sale on military (i.e. federal) property is a big revenue state for State government.
No way to tell if this is a motivating factor for those urging this policy change or if its simply an unintended but related consequence of the policy change.
Comment by Cornfed — July 11, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
An additional thought: The Base Commissary revenues contribute to MWR (Morale Welfare and Recreation) activities for the troops and their families. Loss of the revenue stream from tobacco sales would impact MWR funds.
Someone would need to do the research and the math:
(a) Total annual Commissary Sales in Continental US (CONUS).
(B) Percent of commisary funds that are from tobacco sales.
(c) Percent of Commissary Sales that go to MWR funds.
Or maybe limit it to WPAFB for one Ohio location’s impact. Also research the Ohio Sales tax on tobacco, in order to calculate the WPAFB sales that would now likely become taxable Ohio sales.
Other fun with numbers could use the number of military personnel at WPAFB. Would be interesting to find out if the MWR dollars reduction per military family household would be meaningful or small. I’ve no idea.
Comment by Cornfed — July 11, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
Instead of skimming, I re-read the USA-Today and related Fox articles; and see that some of my comments above are partially addressed.
The end of the USA Today article has some data on MWR funds from tobacco sales: “Seventy percent of profits from tobacco sales — $88 million in 2005 — pays for recreation and family support programs, the study stays.”
The USA Today article erroneously says that tobacco products are subsidized. They are not subsidized; they’re just cheaper because Federal property is not subject to State taxation. It should be noted that depriving customers at Base Exchanges of tobacco deprives both the military member and others allowed to shop there. Well, they’re all military dependents; so, they may cost the military in health expenses; yet only the military member could be subject to life-style rules, I think, due to individual rights.
The Fox article has a possibly valid (constitutionally valid) restriction: “Any tobacco use while in uniform should be prohibited,” the study said.
A related argument could be discussed about the sale of magazines like Playboy on Federal Property. What consumer rights does the military member retain, despite volunteering to be in the military? What consumer rights do adult dependents (spouses) retain?
In sum, two distinct ideas for consideration:
- The consumer rights line of thought
- The “Follow the Money” lines of thought about impacts to State tax revenues, to federal MWR funds, to federal health expenses.
A complicated debate.
Ref: “Any tobacco use while in uniform should be prohibited,” the study said.
Comment by Cornfed — July 11, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Meant to get back sooner on this one. Thanks for the thoughts.
Someone (lost link) noted that cigarettes are a really great icebreaker with the people in the countries where we are fighting and/or defending, and this a great source of intelligence from those who open up as a result of being offered a smoke. The average person wouldn’t know that. Apparently the Pentagon doesn’t either, or worse (a frightening thought) doesn’t care.
Comment by TBlumer — July 13, 2009 @ 12:40 pm