Tobacco Ills

There are a number of insights that one can gain from analyzing the effects of a public health problem, such as smoking tobacco, and the way this issue was handled in the armed forces. The article by Offen et al (2011), “Forcing the navy to sell cigarettes on ships: how the tobacco industry and politicians torpedoed navy tobacco control” elucidates many of these points. One of the most interesting facets of utilizing the Navy as a case study to understand how certain groups are able to subvert public problems and ultimately exploit them for their own monetary gain is that when this organization was considering banning tobacco smoking, the tobacco industry as a whole was able to propagate several arguments that were not related to health in order to ultimately preserve the sales and consumption of its products in this branch of the armed forces. 

There was a degree of brilliance in this shameless manipulation of what—for the Navy, at least—was a simple health matter and an attempt to preserve the lives and livelihoods of many of its soldiers who were smoking. In many other countries, the state simply owns the tobacco industry (Gilmore et al, 2012). In the U.S., the tobacco industry was able to turn such a legitimate concern into one regarding rights and freedoms which are an intrinsic part of the United States Constitution and which the country itself personifies throughout the rest of the world. Representatives on behalf of the Tobacco Institute and Philip Morris—one of the biggest tobacco sellers in the nation—claimed that a smokeless Navy environment “constituted “discrimination”, a denial of freedom of choice, and a breach of contract” (Offen et al, 2011). In addition to claiming that a smoke-free environment in the Navy curtailed the basic liberties that virtually everyone in the U.S. is guaranteed, tobacco industry representatives cited the fact that prior to the Navy’s motion for such an environment, there was no legislation that explicitly called for banning smoking tobacco in the armed forces. Finally, industry personnel noted that banning such products would inherently lead to illegal smuggling and selling of these commodities. 

There certainly appeared to be a correlation between the non-health related arguments of the tobacco industry and the strategies that lawmakers opposed to the smoking restriction were able to employ. This relationship is not wholly surprising, considering the fact that members of the tobacco industry are some of the most active lobbyists in Congress. Statistics indicate that these lobbyists contributed over four million dollars during the first three sessions of Congress during the 1990’s, in which the Navy’s proposed ban of smoking was hotly debated (Offen et al, 2011).

Specifically, legislators questioned the legality of such a move on the part of the Navy, since cigarette smoking has virtually always been allowed for people in the U.S. The concerns for the creation of a black market in which cigarettes would be bought and sold illegally were also raised by legislators when they confronted “Rear Admiral Commander John Kavanaugh” (Offen et al, 2011) regarding the implementation of the proposed ban. It is quite interesting to note that there were no issues related to health that were utilized as a strategy on the part of these lawmakers. 

Perhaps one of the most convincing strategies they utilized related to the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Panel of the House Armed Services Committee. This particular organization is responsible for leisure activities and maintaining morale for the Navy. It is funded by the sales of products on ships. Therefore, the substantial reduction in funding that this organization would receive due to the banning of tobacco products could adversely affect the Navy as a whole, since there would not be sufficient funds for this organization. Legislators noted this point in the hearing with Kavanaugh as well.

The most applicable lesson learned from this article regarding the overcoming of political obstacles to other health initiatives that might be related to public health problems such as climate change, HIV, or obesity is to follow the money. Whoever has the most money in terms of lobbyists and in terms of representing the interests of political parties will eventually get their way. The article by Offen et al. (2011) is an excellent example of this fact, in which private interests of the tobacco industry was able to supersede safety concerns in one of the most powerful, eminent branches of the U.S. Government—the armed forces. There are many tobacco companies that are transnational and exert a global influence (Lee et al, 2012).It was able to do so largely by buying off politicians legally, in the form of funding millions of dollars into the campaigns and agendas of certain politicians and Congressmen. 

Therefore, it is highly advised that whoever is attempting to overcome policy related to any other public health problem should take the same approach. As powerful as the Navy is as a branch of the armed forces, it was less powerful than the extremely well-funded politicians who represented the interests of the more powerful (meaning better funded) tobacco Industry. The film Thank You For Smoking emphasizes this. Examples of such politicians include Owen Pickett and Representative Ortiz, who were able to surmount the red tape surrounding the proposed smokeless environment in the Navy by getting the President (George Herbert Walker Bush) to change the language of the Defense Authorization Act, which simultaneously required sell of tobacco products on Navy ships and gave direct control of ship stores to the Morale, Welfare and Recreation department (Offen et al, 2011). This department, of course, was partial to the concerns of the tobacco industry. Groups attempting to change legislation regarding other public health concerns must attempt to be as well funded as the tobacco industry. 

References

Gilmore, A.B., Fooks, G., McKee, M. (2012). “A review of the impacts of tobacco industry privatization: Implications for policy”. Global Public Health. 6 (6): 621-642.  Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3225958/

Lee, S., Ling, P., Glantz, S.A. (2012). “The vector of the tobacco epidemic: Tobacco industry practices in low and middle-income countries”. National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3332051/

Offhen, N., Arvey, S.R., Smith, E.A., Malone, R.E. (2011). “Forcing the navy to sell cigarettes on ships: how the tobacco industry and politicians torpedoed navy tobacco control”. American Journal of Public Health. 101 (3): 404-411. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3036696/