Despite Cancer, Butler Against Smokeless Tobacco Ban

Once again, our elected representatives have decided there’s something rotten in Major League Baseball, and they want to do something about it. On February 15, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) wrote an open letter to Bud Selig and MLBPA head Michael Weiner calling for a ban on chewing tobacco:

The use of smokeless tobacco by baseball players undermines the positive image of the sport and sends a dangerous message to young fans, who may be influenced by the players they look up to as role models.

The Senators noted that smokeless tobacco (or “spit tobacco,” as crusader Joe Garagiola, Sr. prefers to call it) has been banned in the minors since 1993, and called for a ban to be inserted into the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, before the current one expires in December. Their call for prohibition comes shortly after Tony Gwynn‘s cancer diagnosis and Stephen Strasburg’s resolution to quit dipping, which inspired Craig Calcaterra to issue a declare his wish that it be banned. (Could it be that Dick Durbin reads HardballTalk?)

But Durbin and Lautenberg would need players who are voluntarily willing to agree, for the first time ever, to ban a substance that is neither illegal nor a performance-enhancer. And they may find that more difficult than they imagine, even among players whom tobacco has hurt the most. After having been a heavy tobacco chewer in his early career, Brett Butler was diagnosed with oral cancer in 1996. “I probably went through a can every 2 or 3 days,” he told me. “I was getting it straight from the factory when I got to the majors.” He has been outspoken about the possible harms of chewing tobacco, but he has no sympathy for a ban. “I’ve used it as a platform to promote not using chewing tobacco,” he says. “But at the major league level I think we should be free to do what we want.”

The most tireless advocate against chewing tobacco in baseball has been Garagiola, who likely would prefer that it simply be illegal. He chairs NSTEP, the National Spit Tobacco Education Program, which works with baseball players from Little League to the Major Leagues to educate them about the harms of chewing tobacco. In April 2010, Garagiola testified in support of a ban to Henry Waxman’s Congressional Energy & Commerce Committee. Waxman has long been interested in oversight on baseball; in 2008, he held steroid hearings on the Mitchell Report in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. So he was a sympathetic ear. As Garagiola testified:

I would like to see the Major League players agree to the terms of the Minor League Tobacco Policy, which bans Club personnel from using and possessing tobacco products in ballparks and during team travel… in the bigger picture, this is an uphill battle because smokeless tobacco is not just a baseball problem; it is a problem for all of society.

Brett Butler got diagnosed with cancer when he was 38, a year after hitting .300 and leading the Dodgers to a division championship in the strike-shortened 1995 season. He hit .265 through the first month of 1996 and had a tonsillectomy, during which time, the L.A. Times wrote, doctors found “a tumor the size of a large plum.” Four months of hell followed: “Thirty-two rounds of radiation. They cut me from my earlobes down to my clavicle, took out two of my lymph nodes, I went from 162 pounds to 142 pounds, and the doctor said I wouldn’t play again,” he told me. “You think you’re going to die. When you get cancer, automatically you think you’re going to die.” He came back to the field that September and played one more season with the Dodgers, then retired to spend more time with his family.

Butler is a devout Christian and conservative, and he rarely minces his words. He’s open about the effects tobacco had on his body: “It almost ate my gums away at the bottom… you could see down almost to the root of my tooth. I had to have a transplant of tissue down there when I quit.” The radiation treatments destroyed his saliva glands, so Major League Baseball allowed him to carry bottled water out to center field with him in 1996. But his opposition to a ban is visceral. But he compares the choice to dip tobacco to the choice to drink to alcoholism or eat to obesity, saying he strongly believes in personal choice and personal responsibility; otherwise, he said, “you have government running everything.” The current manager of the Triple-A Reno Aces, Butler is very consistent: he doesn’t like the minor league tobacco ban, either.

I don’t agree with all of his beliefs, but the civil libertarian in me agrees with his opposition to a major league tobacco ban. Chewing tobacco is a legal substance, is not a performance-enhancing drug, and has no real second-hand side effects other than disgusting spit. Baseball’s drug policy currently has three categories of banned substances: drugs of abuse (like cocaine), performance-enhancing drugs (like anabolic steroids), and stimulants (like amphetamines). Tobacco is extraordinarily unhealthy, but it isn’t any of the above. (It is a stimulant, but it’s a legal one, like caffeine.)

It’s also on the decline, thanks to the minor league ban, MLB claims. But no decline is permanent, and the ban is an attempt to address a real public health issue. Over the same time span as the minor league ban, teenage tobacco use had a relative peak in 1997 and then fell for a decade. But a recent study by the University of Michigan found that smoking has begun to rise again in the past year, and smokeless tobacco usage by youth has been rising for the past several years. This is an unfortunate trend if it continues, and it shouldn’t be ignored. Nor should the effects of baseball players as role models, as Brett Butler says: “You’ve got a lot of players in every aspect of athletics, saying I don’t want to be a role model. Well, the bottom line is, you are.”

A smokeless tobacco ban might indeed help these players’ health, and it might even have an influence on the health of young baseball fans who may have been inspired to dip because their favorite players did. But you could make the same arguments for an alcohol ban. Even the best-intentioned policy has unintended consequences, as this country learned from its previous attempt at an alcohol ban — in this case, one of the most salient consequences is that the players, even nonsmoking cancer survivors among them, would reject such a ban en masse. There’s simply no chance that the Players Association would ever agree to a tobacco ban, and as long as tobacco is a legal substance that does not affect how well someone plays baseball, a tobacco ban is simply not something I can support.

I’m glad the Senators are baseball fans. I hope they’ll just go back to rooting for the home team.





Alex is a writer for The Hardball Times.

110 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Corey S.
13 years ago

It’s fine if MLB wants to ban tobacco. It’s not fine if Congress acts to ban its use in MLB.

They should focus on curing their spending addiction before worrying about grown men using legal substances.

OTerry
13 years ago
Reply to  Alex Remington

I believe (and somebody please correct me if I am wrong) that because of the Anti-Trust Exemption from the US Supreme Court, Congress has much more investigative power (and perhaps the responsibility to conduct oversight) over MLB, than if it was just a regular business or organization. This is what gave them the authority to conduct some of the PED investigations, among other things. I’m not sure if it gives them the ability to dictate rules to MLB.

DavidCEisen
13 years ago
Reply to  Alex Remington

I agree with OTerry. If MLB wants antitrust regulations, it needs to deal with Congress. At the same time, Congress isn’t legislating baseball’s rules, so there is no issue here whatso ever. MLB has every right to ban chewing tobacco if it chooses to. If players want to chew, they can play in another league.

DavidCEisen
13 years ago
Reply to  Alex Remington

And they aren’t dictating any rules, they are petitioning the MLB to consider changing them.

Patrick
13 years ago
Reply to  Alex Remington

OTerry,

No, there’s no legal relationship between that exemption and the interactions between congress and MLB. That exemption comes from a court decision, not a specific law passed by congress.

In practice… It gives them some control, because it means that MLB benefits from the tacit approval of a legally questionable decision. (Ask Craig Calcaterra about the anti-trust exemption baseball has. It appears to be a load of hooey.)

Congress could, theoretically, take action to remove that exemption, either directly (passing a law), or indirectly, by somehow driving a challenge in the courts. So, MLB finds it in their best interests to pay a bit more attention.

You get the idea.

TK
13 years ago
Reply to  Alex Remington

Congress could probably ban “the use of smokeless tobacco during baseball games.” Baseball is a part of interstate commerce and the law would only have to have a “rational basis” because it’s not discriminatory against a protected group.

Congress does have power through the antitrust exemption. It would be similar to speed limits. Congress can’t tell Ohio to lower their speed limit to 55, but they can tell Ohio that they’ll give them transportation funds if they lower it, but won’t (as much) if they don’t.

There are probably a lot of other ways. These things aren’t as simple as many of you are saying.

Jeff
13 years ago
Reply to  Corey S.

I’m not an expert on this area of law, but I believe that it is less a direct power to regulate but more leverage, with the stick being the antitrust exemption.

If Congress lifts the exemption — which it could do at any time for almost any reason without violating the law — it could jeopardize MLB’s financial circumstances.

So Congress says “do [x] or we’ll lift the antitrust exemption.” It’s not that Congress has the direct power accomplish [x], but instead the fact that Congress has the direct power to lift the exemption – it creates the leverage, or if you prefer, allows a level of coercion.

DavidCEisen
13 years ago
Reply to  Jeff

I think the MLB is making out very well on the deal. If they don’t want to deal with congress they could operate in the free market. No coercion is involved.

Patrick
13 years ago
Reply to  Jeff

D’oh! I just posted the same thing as Jeff here, just above.

@3_2count
13 years ago
Reply to  Corey S.

Members of Congress do stuff like this all the time to businesses and organizations calling on them to enact some reform or something. It’s just that when they do it for sports leagues it gets noticed more to sports fans than, say, something the wanted a tech company to do (remember the calls for Twitter to postpone their maintenance when the Iranian protests were going on followed by the actual postponement?).

This has no legal binding power but is a signal that these members of Congress think it is important enough to get media coverage for it.

gonfalon
13 years ago
Reply to  Corey S.

I wish there was such concern about Congress and spending back in 2003, before the idiots in charge borrowed money to pay for the invasion of a country that didn’t attack us and passed another round of tax cuts because “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”