skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Keep Selling Tobacco On Navy Bases And Ships, Says Rep. Hunter

Smoking Sailor
Enlarge this image

Above: Smoking Sailor

Congressman Duncan Hunter of San Diego County wants to put the kibosh on the Navy's plan to ban tobacco sales on ships and exchanges.

According to the Military Times, Hunter sponsored an amendment attached to the $601 billion defense bill that would...

....[forbid] defense officials from enacting “any new policy that would limit, restrict, or ban the sale of any legal consumer product category” on military installations.

As Home Post reported in March, Navy officials are considering a ban on the sale of tobacco products on ships and exchanges as a way of improving the "culture of fitness" in the service. As Navy Secretary Ray Mabus wrote in a 2012 memo:

“Tobacco use is the most avoidable public health hazard in the Navy and Marine Corps."

But smoking is a pleasure for the "battle-hardened" sailor or Marine, Hunter argued to his colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee Thursday morning, and troops are adults who should be allowed to decide whether or not they want to buy a known carcinogen.

No word on whether it's a pleasure for the taxpayer who must foot the bill when said sailor or Marine gets lung, mouth, lip, nose, sinus, larynx, throat, or esophageal cancer.

Hunter's amendment passed the House Armed Services Committee 53-9. Yay?

Comments

Avatar for user 'AudreySilk'

AudreySilk | May 9, 2014 at 2:11 a.m. ― 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Leaving aside the debate over alleged "cost to taxpayers" which has been argued to be highly inaccurate or the number of studies that conclude it's the healthiest among us that ultimately cost society the most, I ask this instead...

For argument's sake, at what price freedom? Is there a price cap on our right to be left alone to enjoy a legal product -- this one or any other? When did our country turn into an economic tyranny -- that if someone is alleged to go over some arbitrary figure that their freedom is rescinded?? And for those who defend our freedoms yet!!

Such nonsense this "cost to taxpayers" argument is. It's all a wash, one way or another in the end, Childless adults pay for children's services (e.g. school tax), working people pay for non-workers' welfare benefits of all stripes. The fat person allegedly pays for the smoker and the smoker allegedly pays for the fat person. Smokers are federally taxed to pay for Childrens Health Insurance Program (hey, if you cared about "the children" then why don't you smoke?). And on and on. Assuming too that no one remarkably has private insurance.

Want to gripe about who pays for who? Then let's talk about the system itself and reform THAT. "Paying for another" is a health care coverage problem, not a one by one dissection of this thing or that thing.

But to use that argument -- especially where service people are involved -- is a disgrace. Right, point out that "said sailor or Marine gets... cancer" (MAYBE but not as likely as you think) but never mind said sailor or Marine getting killed while in service. THIS is how the hysteria over smoking has morphed into lunacy.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'harleyride1978'

harleyride1978 | May 9, 2014 at 9:21 a.m. ― 7 months, 2 weeks ago

No word on whether it's a pleasure for the taxpayer who must foot the bill when said sailor or Marine gets lung, mouth, lip, nose, sinus, larynx, throat, or esophageal cancer.

Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table 3.15.1.1M) *†‡

Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/cancersbyageandrace.aspx?Gender=Male&Count=false&Population=false&DataType=Incidence&RateType=CrudeType&CancerSite=All Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'harleyride1978'

harleyride1978 | May 9, 2014 at 9:27 a.m. ― 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Then after you've completed your 20 years of active duty and some anti-smoking progressive runs you down while smoking you cab still donate your lungs to some deserving soul!

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

( | suggest removal )