Pentagon health experts are campaigning to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates "to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property." This is based on a report by the Institute of Medicine, which focused on tobacco use in the military. The reasoning behind the move is that "tobacco use costs the Pentagon $846 million a year in medical care and lost productivity, says the report, which used older data. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends up to $6 billion in treatments for tobacco-related illnesses, says the study, which was released late last month."
The report found that "troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a 'stress reliever.'" Since that is the case, why would you want to take that outlet away from them? They defend our freedoms, why shouldn't they be able to make the choice as to whether or not they want to smoke? To save some money? How about killing just one pork program? Viola, there's the money for tobacco-related health care!
Of course, the anti-smokers also weighed in. "The military complicates attempts to curb tobacco use by subsidizing tobacco products for troops who buy them at base exchanges and commissaries, says Kenneth Kizer, a committee member and architect of California's anti-tobacco program.
Seventy percent of profits from tobacco sales — $88 million in 2005 — pays for recreation and family support programs, the study stays."
With that in mind, consider that maybe military personnel know what other military personnel want, and find ways to help each other out. They know their brothers and sisters in arms may smoke, so they took steps that would benefit the military community. That doesn't sound like a bad deal to me. Those who choose to smoke can smoke, and the money generated from that goes to help their families.
Instead of trying to figure out ways to keep service members from smoking, maybe the Pentagon and Washington should try to figure out ways to, I don't know, HELP THEM WIN THE WAR?
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment