Outside Influencers on Military Tobacco Use

While a significant portion of smokers in the military are younger, lower enlisted personnel, higher-ranks and officers also tend to indulge but at much lower numbers (Jahnke, et al., 2010). Recognizing the health and combat-readiness issues which are negatively impacted by tobacco use, some Tobacco Control Officers and installation commanders sought to limit or, in some cases, eliminate tobacco use by military personnel on their posts (Jahnke).  To combat the growing anti-smoking efforts, the tobacco industry increased lobbying efforts toward government oversight committees aimed at not only maintaining the status quo of tobacco customers throughout the military, but they actually worked to increase their customer base by promoting smokeless tobacco products (Peterson, et al., 2007).

Touting cigarette smoking as an accepted part of military culture, tobacco companies rallied together to combat attempts to reduce access to their products and, ultimately, formed a coalition with significant congressional influence.  The coalition promoted tobacco use by service members as a means to better cope with the demands of the military—“that in the stressful environment of war, ‘the positive effects [of smoking] offset the negative’” (Smith, Blackman, & Malone, 2007). Other arguments to combat tobacco opposition came through the accusation that the military switched from accommodating all soldiers to accommodating the non-tobacco users at the expense of users, in effect reducing the moral service members would need to effectively engage in combat operations (Naphtali Offen, et al., 2011).

In hand with the tobacco coalition, lawmakers who opposed the tobacco restrictions for military personnel prevented increases in prices of tobacco products sold in commissary and exchange stores and also blocked attempts by installation commanders to prevent tobacco promotions. Directive 1010.10 set standards on tobacco control minimums, but such limitations were often largely ignored by the higher-ups as a result of congressional pressure on the tobacco control advocates.  Efforts to reduce or eliminate funding for military programs, passing laws preventing the establishment of stricter tobacco control policies, and even intimidating advocates through public scolding undermined the efforts which were intended to reduce tobacco use or simply provide a healthier environment for those service members who did not consume tobacco products (Offen, 2011).

The lessons learned from the political obstacles faced by anti-tobacco advocates are rather unique, in that the government—and congress—has ultimate control over the military and those serving.  Public health issues geared toward the general public rather than the controlled organization of our military will likely not have the manipulation factor which prevailed in tobacco use and the military. Nonetheless, public interest groups face opposition from lobbyists and congressional interests regularly, and such challenges can apply to other issues such as obesity, HIV, climate change, or other health problems. The most effective means by which to combat such opposition would be through public education.  Because congressional representatives are elected through their constituents, public attention and education on the impacts of public efforts, along with the stances which their representatives take and promote, will assist in levelling the playing field with respect to reducing the impact of lobbying coalitions. When attempting to reduce the impact of organizations which seek to promote their products, whether those products are particular foods or even energy firms, coalitions are typically formed and presented as Political Action Committees (PACs).  The strength of PACs can be similar to that which the tobacco companies formed and, to protect against the impact such coalitions can have on public issues, oppositions require collaboration and public awareness which can only be achieved through cooperation among groups with similar interests.

References

Jahnke, S. A., Haddock, C. K., Poston, W. S., Hoffman, K. M., Hughey, J., & Lando, H. A. (2010 February 12(2)). A Qualitative Analysis of the Tobacco Control Climate in the U.S. Military. Nicotine Tob Res, 88-95.

Naphtali Offen, B., Sarah R. Arvey, P., Elizabeth A. Smith, P., & Ruth E. Malone, R. P. (2011 March; 101(3)). Forcing the Navy to Sell Cigarettes on Ships: How the Tobacco Industry and Politicians Torpedoed Navy Tobacco Control. Am. J. Public Health, 404-411.

Peterson, A., Severson, H., Andrews, J., Gott, S., Cigrang, J., Gordon, J., . . . Martin, G. (2007 Dec;172(12)). Smokeless Tobacco Use in Military Personnel. Mil Med, 1300-5.

Smith, E. A., Blackman, V. S., & Malone, R. E. (2007; 16(1)). Death at a Discount: How the Tobacco Industry Thwarted Tobacco Control Policies in US Military Commissaries. Tob Control, 38-46.