Time's Thompson Gripes That U.S. Law Requires Navy Ship Exchanges to Sell Tobacco
Given the sacrifices that U.S. sailors and Marines make to serve our country, it hardly seems right to me to force them to go for months on end aboard surface ships without the right to light up a smoke.
But I'm not Mark Thompson.
Today the Time magazine staffer dusted off a convenient but recently-ignored liberal media bogeyman, Big Tobacco:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓While the Navy has banned smoking on submarines, it can't do that aboard surface ships, where most of its sailors go to sea. That because, according to this fascinating article in an upcoming issue of the American Journal of Public Health, the tobacco industry convinced Congress to mandate the availability of the cancer sticks aboard ships. In other words, tobacco must be sold on ships -- it's the law. The corollary: the Navy can't stop selling cigarettes aboard, something it has been trying to do for decades, without Congress changing the law.
No surprise here: it was collusion between the tobacco industry and lawmakers from tobacco-friendly states -- puffing on Big Tobacco's campaign contributions -- that made this happen 17 years ago:
The [relevant] amendment did not contain obviously pro-tobacco language, but merely revised the applicable section to replace the word ‘‘may'' with ‘‘shall,'' thus reading: ‘‘(c) Items Sold. -- Merchandise sold by ship stores afloat shall include items in the following categories...'' and listed ‘‘tobacco products'' as one among many items that must be made available.
Almost as insidious as small-cell carcinoma.
Meanwhile, in 2006, Senate appropriators decried tobacco use by service personnel. Smoking has been growing among members of the military, and plays a role in the Defense Department's skyrocketing health-care costs. "Tobacco use costs the Department of Defense hundreds of millions of dollars every year in medical costs and lost productivity," they wrote in their report accompanying the 2007 defense-spending bill. "The Committee urges the Department to expedite the availability of tobacco use prevention and cessation programs to all personnel."
Is this a great country, or what?
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Okay
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 5:53pm.
So what is the cost? Health premiums have been skyrocketing (according to the article) but beyond health issues what is the cost to the taxpayer? Isn't the complaint of nanny state opponents that the taxpayer shouldn't be required to pay for the vices of others?
Yes we should not pay for
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 6:22pm.
Yes we should not pay for another's poor choices. But, people are going to do what they do; they will make choices in their lives ... some good and some not so good. I myself am an virulent anti-smoker. I feel that these brave men and women will smoke and make poor choices whether or not the Navy sells tobacco or not. I personally want the men and women who protect the USA happy and satisfied so they can do their best when it counts.
Have you ever smoked?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 6:48pm.
I recently picked it back up again after 7 years off, and I'm loving every minute of it.
But I can feel the effects taking a toll and it ain't good. As far as I can tell there isn't a single health benefit of smoking, but we all know about the bad stuff.
Now I'm not about to tell anyone what they can or can't put in their bodies, but bear with me for a moment - isn't the presence of tobacco a negative effect on the health of a soldier? As a non-smoker I can run a pretty good distance, but as a smoker I'm good for about a block. Now my physical condition is not relevant to my job, but a soldier should be in better shape than the average citizen.
So it's okay for you....
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 6:57pm.
but not okay for a member of the Armed Forces?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
PaP---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:02pm.
A good point, but the ideal infantryman is late teens-early twenties, and the deleterious effects of smoking would likely not kick in until a bit older. Having been a forty year plus smoker, I know the cumulative effect is bad, but I have heard of those who smoked all their life without getting cancer, some without even suffering the annoying attendant coughing spells. Anomalies, likely. That said, I always enjoyed smoking, and I am jealous of your habit. Enjoy, but keep a weather eye out. MDGeorge Burns
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:34pm.
Never saw him without a cigar. Then again we know of people who've died from second hand smoke, so I guess it's simply a matter of luck (or invincibility - I'd like that myself). Even as far back as college I remember gasping for air on a hike up a mountain, roughly 2000 ft in elevation so I've never had the luck. But to each his own. I love my coffee with a cigarette, and I like my alcohol with a cigarette--hell, who am I kidding, anytime is a good time for a smoke.
I have to wonder which other lobbies have fought (and won) to have their products sold on board.
Can't say, PaP---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:44pm.
that I place much credence in the reports of deaths from second-hand smoke.But don't you at least feel bad
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:45pm.
When you smoke around others? Or your dog (if you have one)? At least people can walk away, but the dog is too dumb to understand.
"Having been a smoker", PaP---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:11pm.
I don't smoke anymore. When I did smoke, I was considerate of others (even liberals), and I didn't smoke in the house or our vehicles. We have eight dogs (three outside and five inside), and though I love the animals, since they are "too dumb to understand", I figured it would have been a waste of time to ask them if my then smoking habit bothered them reference possible second-hand smoke.Sorry about that
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:25pm.
I must have misread. By the way, PaP sounds a little gross. 8 dogs, that's a lot of jowls to feed. Any chance you had to quit smoking in order to feed the family? All joking aside I'm envious, and as much as I love to smoke it's time to quit. I'll get back to you on that point.
Pickles and Peppers---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 10:01pm.
No problem, as the phrase "having been a smoker" is a tad ambiguous as far as interpretation of the currency of the habit. It is beyond torturous to attempt giving up something you enjoy: so good luck. Reference PaP; yeah, could be considered a bit gross, so I will go with Pick. If, however, you turn out to be a liberal, I may shorten that to Pee. :o)In that case
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:14pm.
I will keep my political alliance to myself for now for fear of pissing off, well anyone.
So Pick is cool, Pee ain't great, but as long as you don't stick an "r" before the "i" I think we can be decent to one another.
I'd also like to add that I just dug out my old prescription paperwork from the last time I quit smoking. I didn't think a political forum would lead me to that, but maybe it's time once again to turn into a repeat quitter. Take her easy, dude.
Perhaps you could trouble yourself to provide us with a list....
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 8:57pm.
...of the names of people who have actually died due to second hand smoke.
You would be the first to do so, if you are able.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Would you like social security numbers as well?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:03pm.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/11/25/study-people-die-worldwide-seco...
Now you know Fox wouldn't post this story if it lacked validity.
Not buying it, PaP
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:21pm.
"This helps us understand the real toll of tobacco," said Armando Peruga, a program manager at the World Health Organization's Tobacco-Free Initiative, who led the study.
And concerning Fox News, I don't watch it, as I get my news from the Internet and the radio.
As such, given your statement concerning same, I am starting to get the idea that you are a plant.
And around here, that is much worse than a mere troll.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Now what's wrong with Fox?
Submitted by Pickles and Peppers on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:29pm.
I'd have been crucified had I posted the story from any other news outlet. Needless to say the topic is being distorted by second hand smoke discussion. Now this ain't no global warming conspiracy, but I'm fine walking away with my integrity intact.
Ain't buying it, PaP---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:18pm.
regardless of who posted the story. It is full of "approximately", "about", and "may". It throws contradictory figures based on a study and premises, not facts.Pickles and Peppers---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 6:06pm.
Well, PAP, the prime opposition most conservatives have against the nanny state is that we do not want to pay for things that perfectly healthy drones, i.e. welfare slugs, do not want to obtain by the sweat of their own brow.Perspective
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 6:09pm.
If a soldier who could lose his life defending this country wants to light up, or drink a beer, or eat a twinkie, I can live with it.
What about Playboy or Penthouse?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:02pm.
it's been ages since I've been in a PX, but I remember you could get those magazines and a few other of the same kind at the base exchange. Aren't they as bad for your mental health, with loads of second-hand sexist consequences, as cigarettes are for your and your neighbors' lungs?'
I mean, you know, besides lowering health-care costs by banning cigarettes, shouldn't the military also be doing all it can to rectify the oppressive social choices people make?
It seems to me
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:52pm.
that the presence of Allauha Akbar being shouted is more dangerous to a soldier than a cigarette.
Okay I have to chime in on this one...
Submitted by QMCS on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 8:57pm.
This article is a bit misleading, the Navy tried to ban smoking in the early '90's, banned it on 2 ships and all of the training bases. It totally sucked azz. Finally some civilian contracters that had to get underway on the carrier that was smoke free brought a lawsuit against the navy for banning a legal substance. Long story short, congress amended the law to force the navy to allow smoking onboard ships and installations.
For all you nonsmokers, let me say this.....We were old enough to go get our asses shot off but were to irresponsible to drink....We smoke outside on a weather deck away from all the non smokers and have to put up with dipship officers that put the smoking lamp out for no reason except to be a total pain in the azz. Well heres a newsflash for you, taking a break and having a smoke is a really good way to break the tension when you know some SOB might decide to put a missile into your ship at any given moment.
sheesh it just never ends..........
Wheels
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:54pm.
When I was on my first ship (78-80) there were very few places you couldn't smoke. Every compartment had about 20 ashtrays in it.
When I read this headline and considered the recent repeal of DADT, I thought of an old saying I used to hear. When the Navy first started to talk about smoking being bad and the possibility of restricting smoking areas, I used to hear the old timers say this:
"One of these days it'll be legal in the Navy to s**k a d**k, but not smoke a cigarette."
It almost is.
Unlike the Royal Navy, alcohol is forbidden on US Navy ships
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:02pm.
These guys are putting their asses on the line for all of us each and very minute they are out there. The stresses involves are not a little significant.
If they want to spend some time chillin' and smoking, then so what?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
forbidden alcohol
Submitted by Agnostic on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:14pm.
Just don't come down to Engineering birthing after hours when the 'punch' comes out.
We hit swells between Cuba and the Va Caps and is sounded like a wedding with everyone banging on glasses as the bottles rolled back and forth in the coffin lockers.
Agnostic,
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:24pm.
LOL - Okay, I should have said "officially" forbidden.
My bad.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
If these jackasses are really
Submitted by ant on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:18pm.
If these jackasses are really worried about the health and medical costs of our military personnel, why, I must ask, have we insisted on tying both hands behind our back and in effect prolonged a war on terror against a 7th century enemy that would have ran screaming in terror if we had done the right thing and threw everything we had at them from day one?
The dems have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory since the start and have insisted we withhold dropping the hammer on our enemies while giving them a leg up at every opportunity, but I'm supposed to believe they're concerned for the health of out troops. B-effin-S!!!! Stressed out, gay rights, rationed bullets, rights for the enemy, "hands-off" the pirates, no smokes, and if MO has her way, a miniscule amount of protein in their diet. Yeah, they care.
More liberal nanny state
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 10:44pm.
More liberal nanny state garbage. You didn't give a shit about me or my fellow service members when we were in Vietnam so don't start now. Unless you have been in combat STFU moron.
A couple of years ago
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:27pm.
when we had the smoking ban debate here in Illinois I pointed out this bit of ugliness.
I would say how much it pains me to think that we watch our willing soldiers go off to war to fight the scum of the earth in order to protect and defend all that is good and decent in this world. We witness them fight and die for Freedom itself.
And then when they come home, we see them banned from sitting on a barstool while smoking a cigar or cigarette and talking to the rest of us about what they saw and what they did.
It could not be any more backward than that.
I said at the time that the ban would make its way to peoples' homes and it has. It started with Nursing homes, yes that is their home, and it has grown to apartments. It has even grown to banning smoking outside now.
We must stop this madness. Private property rights are being ignored and Individual Liberty is being usurped. Enough is enough! Check that, too much is too much.
Now someone once asked me to name one good thing about having a cigarette. I responded like this. When I have not had a smoke for several hours, it is a very, very good thing when I have one. ;)~
But...
Submitted by dmntd1 on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 1:07am.
I thought the liberals wanted the government to keep their hands off of our bodies.... so long as our lungs aren't part of our bodies?
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.