SoundTravelin Radio  

Show Notes

• Archived Blog Post

  Date / Time: 7/14/2009 9:36 PM UTC

  Proposed Smoking Ban in the Armed Forces: Let the Truth Be Sold!
  

  I would hope this proposal by the Pentagon has every Army tent, political science class, and dinner table engaged in fierce discussion, as a lot of established and proposed policies stand to be either challenged or bolstered by the measure, and for my part, I'm fairly positive it has my WWII-veteran and 3-pack-a-day-smoker grandfather spewing a string of artful profanities and vulgarities which I shan't attempt to re-create even within the confines of this blog's sometimes world-weary tone. However, I hope everyone recognizes the significance of this proposed ban and the particular relevance it has to our society as we wrestle with a national deficit of over a trillion dollars, a costly and unsuccessful drug war on citizens, two devastatingly expensive overseas wars, low military recruitment, the growing cost of health care and unsustainability of the current overall system, and to top it all off, some of the most polarized partisanship and political instability we've seen in years. At first glance this ban may seem irrelevant if you're a non-smoker, especially next to other news, but the issue is worth examining, and we shouldn't be afraid to ask prudent, practical questions of it as this one affects all of us.
  
  For those of you who don't know, the Pentagon has recently proposed banning any and all tobacco use (not strictly smoking; I just figured that would get everybody's attention easier) in all branches of the armed forces based on a study commissioned by both it and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The study found, not surprisingly, that tobacco use impairs military readiness and, as we all know, adversely affects health over the long term. Seeing as we're relatively strapped for cash as a country these days, and given the pentagon's responsibility for the health of its forces, it's understandable that they would at least explore the issue.
  
  So let's put this in perspective here, and to those of you who are already shouting, "This is America, and we should support the troops, freedom, country music, etc," let me politely interrupt you: shut up and hold your questions and rhetoric until the end if you would, please.
  
  
  First off, as a taxpayer who is fiscally responsible for the health care of those serving, I have EVERY RIGHT to INSIST that my dollars are spent in the most efficient way possible, and if it costs more to pay for treatment for a preventable disease such as emphysema, I shouldn't have to shoulder the extra cost. We all know tobacco use causes long-term health failure; why would we allow it among those who voluntarily waive their rights in exchange for my money and health care support? In the short term, according to the study (and as a former smoker, I can attest to this, though in all honesty I would neither consider myself nor the study as an expert in the matter, as chemicals affect all individuals differently), tobacco use acutely impairs military readiness, presumably in the form of a cigarette-less soldier behind enemy lines craving nicotine and his alertness, endurance, focus, and reasoning abilities suffering as a result, or less plausibly, the so-called "nicotine buzz" being contradictory to maintaining a combat-level state of awareness. Ever the skeptic, I'm bothered by the study's vague terminology, scant published information, and reasoning, but as a health care professional, I can say with a no small amount of certainty that the proposal is medically valid, and again, as someone whose safety largely depends on the readiness and capabilities of the armed forces, I have every right to insist that they are run to the highest standards possible. The whole economy's having to tighten its belt; why shouldn't the military? Stop costing us money, jackass.
  
  
  Now, some of you will take issue with what I've just said, as it doesn't exactly embody the ideals of patriotism that we in America currently hold. For the conservative among you, I have one thing to say: capitalism. Get over it. You wanted the government run like businesses, allowing the exchange of Wall Street and Capitol Hill players back and forth from corporate boardrooms to legislative offices like sports stars going to whichever team pays them the most, and this is the result. Everyone wants to talk about socialism taking away their rights and money, but the reality here is that the government is simply functioning like a business; it can hire who it wants and sets the requirements and code of behavior for its employees, and so we are finally faced with with the beginnings of fascism, a predicament to which one doesn't arrive via socialist means, I'll tell you that.
  
  
  But wait, let's back up a few steps; did I not just bring up the voluntary nature of the military a few minutes ago? No doubt some of you see no difference in this proposal and say, public option health care (or to where the scare-leaders say such a policy would lead), but for those of you who haven't already figured it out, the fundamental difference between the two is that those in poverty would generally rather not reside there, whereas servicemen and women VOLUNTARILY join the armed forces and waive their rights upon doing so. They receive free health care, insurance for their families, decent pay and job training above and beyond what's ordinarily feasible for a young high school graduate, and in exchange, all they have to do is dress a certain way, shave daily, maintain their hair, body, and hygiene to military regulations, and if someone orders them to drop and give them 50, they're trained (and required according to their service agreement) to do so without question or complaint, be they push-ups or licks to get to the center of some CO's tootsie pop, so to speak.
  
  Hell, you can't even be openly gay in the military, and regulation of servicemen and women's bodies, sexuality, and by extension of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, their right to free speech, already practiced by the armed forces isn't too far off from what the Pentagon is proposing with this ban. Admittedly, none of those currently serving could have possibly been aware that this measure would be proposed, but it should be noted that the study recommends "phasing out tobacco use over a 5 to 10-year period." Fair enough. That would give smokers enough time to exit the military if they chose to continue their habit, although they should NOT be eligible for further health benefits under the current system.
  
  
  Now, it's fairly easy for me to be on my fiscal and ideological high horse in dealing with this issue, but it would be dishonest to whine about the cost of tobacco use while ignoring the cost of enforcing a ban on such, and I can think of no better example to which I can compare this than the disastrous War on Drugs.
  
  We've all heard the rhetoric surrounding it, and the many fallacious justifications for continually wasting taxpayer money in this manner, but the most applicable here is proponents of the War on Drugs' assertions that mind-alterants MUST be controlled, or the populace will face devastating ER expenses from uninsured addicts overdosing. I'll not go into the outright stupidity that breeds this school of thought, nor will I point out that the prohibitionists are frequently the same people who oppose public option health care, seemingly blind to the fact that the two positions grossly contradict one another, but let's at least hold them accountable to their claims:
  
  Currently, drug overdoses comprise just over 16% of all ER visits, and one-third of this total is attributed to legal, non-psychotropic prescription drugs such as warfarin, insulin, and digoxin. Further, another third is made up of accidental overdose of prescription opioid painkillers such as OxyContin and hydrocodone. Based on this data, it would seem that less than 6% of all ER visits are due to overdose of heroin or illegally-obtained opioids, and it should be further noted that an estimated 21% could be prevented with proper education and information in using CPR and opiate antagonists such as naloxone among opiate users or pain patients. This figure is smaller than one might expect, but that's due to the fact that 45% of deaths attributed to heroin overdose also listed alcohol as a primary cause, and benzodiazepines such as Xanax (alprazolam), Valium (diazepam), and Klonopin (clonazepam) were partly responsible for a separate 23%. Honestly, how do the pharmaceutical companies keep up with such rampant demand and a thriving black market for their wares?
  
  In light of this, it is our generation's duty to pose to the Pentagon the same question for which our parents lacked the vertebral integrity and testicular fortitude to ask of Ronald Reagan: how much will your proposal cost, namely, what's the cost-to-benefit ratio for us as taxpayers? We want to see some figures! This was what the proponents of the War on Drugs failed to deliver: a little math and an honest look into both sides of the question. To make the same mistake again would be stupidity of the highest order.
  
  
  That's all well and good, but what of the feasibility of enforcing such a measure? Aside from the potential cost, what of the manpower and hours necessary to keep an otherwise legal stimulant out of the armed forces? What are you guys going to do, search every care package sent overseas and develop methods of chemically testing soldiers to determine whether or not they've used nicotine? We've asked you for the cost, now what of your METHOD??
  
  I've taken to likening this situation to abortion prohibition or gun control; we might have ideological reasons for supporting either, but the reality is that it's simply not practical to enforce a ban on them. Hopefully, life experience teaches us that a product's legality has little to do with demand for it, or more precisely, has little bearing on whether or not someone chooses to use it. Personally, I'd rather my tax dollars not be spent ferreting out every rusty coathanger and bathtub in a city, nor do I think it's reasonable to ask officers of the law to sniff out homemade zip guns or smuggled-in firearms as they already have their hands full arresting non-violent 16-year-olds with 2.3 grams of weed. Again, this can be related to the War on Drugs, but on that I've already said my peace, and will do my best not to jump on the soapbox again about it.
  
  
  The interesting thing about this issue is that, pass or fail, it will force us to re-examine already established policies. For example, if it is decided that we can't legally or ethically dictate that aspect of soldiers' lifestyles, how will that hold up for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Can we honestly tell soldiers they can smoke, but not disclose their sexual orientation while their heterosexual peers flaunt sexual exploits? There's constantly talk about lowering morale in the field, but I think it's reasonable to assume that depriving soldiers of an addictive substance to which they are already accustomed to and already associate with preferable job performance might at least have some sort of effect on morale. Smokers and soldiers, you know better than I the possible effects of this, and don't need me to go into further detail.
  
  Again, if it is decided that we should not require soldiers to be tobacco free, how will that affect our view of health care and tobacco use among civilians? In America, tobacco-related illnesses account for 20% of all deaths, while those resulting from coronary heart disease due to poor diet/obesity comprise a surprising 25%, so based on that data, what are we going to do, ban soldiers from eating fast food? As long as we're so interested in their safety, why don't we just go ahead and order them to stay out of the line of fire while we're at it, or are we only concerned with their well-being as long as we look at it as protecting an investment? Ever wonder why there are ejection systems in all of our fighter jets? It's not because the government has any reservations about sending a serviceman or woman to his or her death; rather, it costs over $2 million to fully train an active-duty fighter pilot, and as such, the Air Force doesn't take their lives lightly.
  
  
  On the flip side, if the measure were to pass (assuming it's fiscally sound), while it might be beneficial for the taxpayer, the country, and the soldier in question who must quit smoking, it does raise serious rights-violation questions. Even though servicemen and women waive their rights upon entering the military, they're still theoretically entitled to all basic American rights (unless you're gay, of course).
  
  I'm also curious as to how the government would implement the draft again should they feel the need to. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see the the use of selective service, but it does raise the question of how they would go about doing so if the need should arise. In order to NOT go through with the measure, the Pentagon will need to prove that it will cost LESS to enforce the ban rather than pay medical expenses that result from smoking or suffer the financial drawbacks that could result from lower recruitment, and it is my hope that in the examination of this issue we realize that perhaps this is the same litmus test we should give ALL hair-brained policy proposals before just taking politicians at their word. Come on guys, read what I just said; it's sad that we even have to remind one another of this from time to time.
  
  Undoubtedly, some may use this debate as yet another reason to NOT implement public option health care; that's a different argument entirely, but the point is nonetheless valid. Conveniently overlooking (as some of you definitely will) the fact that members of the armed forces voluntarily choose their position while people often don't choose to be poor or without health care (regardless of how much Boss Limbaugh claims to know that in reality, they're perfectly content to live in destitute conditions supposedly on the dime of the hardworking, Christian, white taxpayer), it raises serious questions as to what will be acceptable should we all end up having a financial interest in one another's health care. Again, this is a story for a different time, as we already DO pay for health care shortfalls that result from the uninsured.
  
  
  The reason I took the time to write this post, stupidly long though it may be, is that I believe this measure to be extremely important and relevant to the issues we currently face; while it might seem fairly insignificant or mere conspiracy-theory fodder, the fact is that many ideas, policies, and forces of establishment stand to be either challenged or augmented by the outcome of this proposal. Hopefully, I've managed to attend to at least most sides of the argument, but I have one burning, not-so-easily answerable question: who really stands to gain from this ban? The taxpayer? Possibly, but not if it costs more to enforce the ban, becoming in effect another failed and costly domestic war on the citizens of the United States. Besides, it's not that the government displays all that much interest in our well-being; if they did, I wouldn't be worried about the health challenges I currently face. How about the military? Not likely, since they'll bear the brunt of the backlash in the form of increased spending (but not on defense or training) and decreased recruitment, and it just seems unlikely that a force that is 1/3 made up of smokers would push to ban something they already use and is traditionally associated with the stressful conditions military life affords.
  
  What about the government? It may not seem likely that they stand to gain from this proposal, but considering that all tobacco products are available to military personnel TAX-FREE instantly gives the proposition a much darker tone; if anything, the government stands to lose the LEAST in this venture, as they won't be out any tax dollars over it. In the U.S., we pay a fairly heavy "sin-tax" on tobacco from which the armed forces are exempt, and adding this fact to the debate complicates things mightily.
  
  
  What sort of precedent might enacting this measure set, however? Suppose we perform a study that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that religious beliefs and practices make a soldier less effective, since all major religions (supposedly) advocate non-violence as a pillar of their respective faiths. Suppose it shows that religion makes a soldier less attached to his country or CO and more so to his god; do we not run the risk of disloyalty in the ranks if this is the case? Perhaps it might make a soldier more judgmental, reactive, and prejudiced on the battlefield, when what we really need are focused, analytical and intuitive fighters in order that we might achieve victory. My question is, supposing all of those hypothetical results turned out to be true, would we support the requirement that all servicemen and women be atheist? You can't be gay or a smoker, so why would we allow, say, Christians?
  
  So if you made it all the way to the end of this post and know of something I've left out or some aspect of this twisted mind-labyrinth I have yet to address let me know and we'll look into it. Peace!
  • Tags:
  • Smoking
  • Ban
  • Military
  • Pentagon
  • News
  • Permalink