The goal of the US Navy of becoming smoke free by 2000 has thwarted by tobacco industries allies. The tobacco industries have persuaded their allies in the Congress to make а law that force tobacco selling in all naval ships. The militaries smoking prevalence rate is higher than the civilian rate by 50%. About 40% of this prevalence among militaries aged18 to 25 years, while 50% among the militaries who have been in the war zone. The tobacco use among militaries showed an increase in rate from 29.9% to 32.2% from the year 1998 to 2005. Availability of cheap tobacco for militaries at cheap prices, breaks of liberal smoking, availability and easily of accessing smoke areas all favor increase smoke rate among militaries. Smoking cigarettes results
…show more content…
Philips Morris and the tobacco Institute noticed that Navy Instruction privileged nonsmokers. Jim Juliana, Tobacco Institute counsel, considered tobacco restriction policy as а discrimination, contradict the liberty of choice, а violation of contact. Also, Juliana argued that by applying tobacco restriction policy, the militaries would smuggled tobacco abroad and use it illegally because Roosevelt is the considered the home as well as the workplace for militaries. Tobacco friendly politicians considered the inability to smoke abroad ship is а trauma for the crew. Representative John Tanner (D, TN) considered the restriction policy like someone banning а legal commodity and wondered if another commodity would come next such as lottery tickets or hair spray. The Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Panel staff member and tobacco industry ally, Will Cofer, contented that the policy would create а black market and cigarettes will be sell at inflated prices in Navy ships. The MWR Panel provide entertainment activities and sport programs to the sailors. The panel’s fund comes from the profits that earned from ship’ stores and by eliminating the tobacco sale, this fund will be reduced (House of Representatives, 1993) (Offen et al., …show more content…
The Congress used а variety of strategies to ban the tobacco restriction policy. А collaboration between the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Panel of the House Armed Services Committee, tobacco friendly politicians and tobacco industry allies to oppose tobacco restriction policy. The military complicity were clear when MWR Panel of the House Armed Services Committee opposed the restriction policy reasoned that tobacco sale revenue is the fund source for MWR Panel. The lawmaker had argued raise tobacco prices reasoned that will violate the law and diverge from congressional control. Some of the Congress representatives have considered the restriction policy contradicted the law in 1986. Some members from the Congress and the MWR Panel members were getting money from the tobacco industry (Offen et al.,
Philips Morris and the tobacco Institute noticed that Navy Instruction privileged nonsmokers. Jim Juliana, Tobacco Institute counsel, considered tobacco restriction policy as а discrimination, contradict the liberty of choice, а violation of contact. Also, Juliana argued that by applying tobacco restriction policy, the militaries would smuggled tobacco abroad and use it illegally because Roosevelt is the considered the home as well as the workplace for militaries. Tobacco friendly politicians considered the inability to smoke abroad ship is а trauma for the crew. Representative John Tanner (D, TN) considered the restriction policy like someone banning а legal commodity and wondered if another commodity would come next such as lottery tickets or hair spray. The Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Panel staff member and tobacco industry ally, Will Cofer, contented that the policy would create а black market and cigarettes will be sell at inflated prices in Navy ships. The MWR Panel provide entertainment activities and sport programs to the sailors. The panel’s fund comes from the profits that earned from ship’ stores and by eliminating the tobacco sale, this fund will be reduced (House of Representatives, 1993) (Offen et al., …show more content…
The Congress used а variety of strategies to ban the tobacco restriction policy. А collaboration between the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Panel of the House Armed Services Committee, tobacco friendly politicians and tobacco industry allies to oppose tobacco restriction policy. The military complicity were clear when MWR Panel of the House Armed Services Committee opposed the restriction policy reasoned that tobacco sale revenue is the fund source for MWR Panel. The lawmaker had argued raise tobacco prices reasoned that will violate the law and diverge from congressional control. Some of the Congress representatives have considered the restriction policy contradicted the law in 1986. Some members from the Congress and the MWR Panel members were getting money from the tobacco industry (Offen et al.,