In The U.S. Army: A Class-Action Lawsuit Waiting to Happen, author Jeff Nall attempts to correlate the slanted advertising of tobacco companies with that of the US military. What a waste of bandwidth! Albeit, he makes a good argument showing that each of them overemphasizes the glamor without any mention of the dangers involved. However eloquently one argues the similarities, it is still impossible to concisely compare apples and oranges. While it cannot be established that smoking harms each individual equally, there is sufficient evidence to show that every smoker, if he or she smokes long enough, will be harmed in some way by smoking. The same could never be said for military service. Not every serviceman goes into combat, even in wartime. My own father spent all of his time in WWII in Alaska.
While choosing a certain brand of cigarettes over another is your choice, despite such choice, the general overall dangers involved with smoking have not lessened to a great degree. Not so with choices in the military. Those who choose to go into the infantry, artillery or armor branches likely understand that they are volunteering for combat duty should it become necessary. Those wanting to avoid combat choose different fields: intelligence, engineering, supply. Now, sure, in wartime, any service man or woman can become involved in a dangerous situation, but so are all civilians in the war ravaged area. Military personnel also can face risks in peacetime. Injuries in any workplace are common, even in the military.
The most marked difference between smoking and military service is tied to their respective benefits. What is the actual benefit to be gained from smoking? Although nicotine has a calming effect, it is not the nicotine that causes the problems with smoking. It is the delivery system. Besides nicotine, the delivery system injects a myriad of other substances into the system, many of which pose a much greater danger than the tobacco companies would ever let be known. Military service is a necessity and, for many, a duty to one's country. Everyone understands the risks. In this TV age, it would be unlikely than anyone has not been inundated with war movies since birth. There have always been many in this country, who, despite the risks, are willing to chance sacrifice in the service of their country. Sure, I agree that the commercials do glamorize military service to a great degree, but outlining all additional benefits to be received in military service is necessary to sustain a "voluntary force." This is a governmental function, and the government could cease all advertising and reimplement the draft, or, as is the system in some countries, could require national service by all of it citizens for a period of two years. However, according to my understanding of the Constitution, the government does not have the power to require us all to smoke two packs of cigarettes a day.
Posted by Tiger at April 13, 2003 01:11 PM | TrackBack