Whose Side Is Tobacco Control On?

Less than two weeks ago, one of America's most prominent anti-tobacco extremists (and I don't use that term lightly, as you will see below) was disappointed about Islamic State relaxing their terrorist activities a tad against an oppressed people.

Oh, cripes. Are #cigarettes being played as torches of freedom against ISIs? http://t.co/sHEiFOwfTV
— Ruth Malone (@MaloneRuth) September 23, 2014

Forget beheadings of innocents, genocide of non-Muslim populations, female genital mutilation and a scant disregard for human rights - this woman is irritated that the extremists have allowed an incredibly oppressed community the tiny freedom of being able to smoke!

Now, incredibly, she is also disappointed that the bullying of US soldiers - who risk their lives for her and her equally ungrateful colleagues - is being resisted.

Taxpayers tired of subsidizing tob profits & hurting servicemembers' health, but Big Tobacco wants military market http://t.co/KWULodoClb
— Ruth Malone (@MaloneRuth) October 8, 2014

She is referring to this.

Congress and the Defense Department are mulling over a potential ban on selling tobacco products — cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco — on military bases and ships in an effort to curb high smoking rates, but critics argue the move would be unfair to service members who already are making significant sacrifices. 

the issue is facing opposition from Congress. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), a Marine reservist who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, has inserted an amendment in the House-passed defense authorization bill that would block the department from banning tobacco sales at exchange stores. 

“It’s not curbed for anybody else. Why pick out the folks who choose of their own accord to fight for their country and serve their country, and punish them?” Hunter said in an interview. “Leave us the hell alone — we’re out here fighting for your freedom, and you’re taking away ours.” 

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey expressed concern about the restrictions at a June hearing on Capitol Hill. 

“We lead an uncommon life by choice,” Dempsey said. “But all the things you’re talking about are legal and they are accessible and anything that makes anything less convenient and more expensive for our men and women in uniform, given everything we’re asking them to do, I’ve got concerns about.”

Quite so. Ruth Malone, however, doesn't like all this democratic process stuff, preferring instead the ISIS "do as we say or we'll kill you" approach, and is pretty pissed off that they've temporarily ditched it. I guess she's picked whose side she's on in the civilisation versus vile barbaric extremist terrorism debate, eh?

The language the Medusa-mop employs is something to note too. Attempting her fraudulent industry's now predictable and boringly clichéd Neanderthal mantra of burbling "Big Tobacco" before spouting bollocks, she can pretend there is taxpayer "subsidizing" of industry profits going on here, but it would be a lie (what a surprise!).

The cigarettes on sale are discounted by the outlets selling them, and on government property that's the government - you know, the ones who apply a huge sin tax to the products - and if they decide to forego the taxation they have applied it's not a subsidy to tobacco companies, it's just the US government not stealing as much money from their armed forces as they do from everyone else. The people being subsidized are the troops who deserve to be for risking their lives, an admirable gesture which is coming to an end thanks to pressure from the likes of Malone.

Regardless of how this fight ends, there’s at least one tobacco policy change likely to be enacted: an end to a 5 percent discount for tobacco products at military exchanges. The Navy already has stopped such discounts at stores located on Navy and Marine bases.

Of course, Malone herself is also 'subsidized' by her government. I wonder which the US public would be most happy about receiving benefits from their tax receipts? Armed forces who risk their lives fight disgusting terrorists, or someone who admires terrorist policies and is hell bent on deliberately making the lives of armed forces personnel more difficult?

Hmm, whaddya think?