Obama, Pentagon Consider Banning Tobacco in US Military

[Pidesco]

Wait, are they banning soldiers from smoking even if they are off duty?

[213374U]

The study recommends requiring new officers and enlisted personnel to be tobacco-free

So, yeah. They want to enforce this as a character trait, not just something you can't do while on-duty.

[Pidesco]

That just means that newly enlisted soldiers and officers can't smoke. That's fine. They should be able to choose whoever they want.

[213374U]

That just means that newly enlisted soldiers and officers can't smoke. That's fine. They should be able to choose whoever they want.

Yeah, sure.

 

-You're a Democrat, so no, we don't like you.

-You're too ugly, so no, we don't want you.

-You're... umm... bah, I just don't like the way you look. GTFO

-etc...

[Gorgon]

What we are talking about here is a move to cut a few million off the whole budget.

 

 

I don't know how many cancer patients you can provide for with a few million, but I'd wager not very many. Certainly not as many servicemen as would be affected by smoking related illnesses, whatever that number is.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Gorgon

[Walsingham]

My point is that if you jeopardise the effectiveness of a military operation you don't just waste ALL the money you spend on it, you wind up costing yourself more money. People seem to have this mad imperial notion that our boys will always triumph. It's like living in Victorian England. Disasters can and do happen. So yes, compared with spending money on cancer care I think it's not worth it. And without any metrics for measuring the contribution of morale to effectiveness we can't sensibly debate the point. All I _can_ say is that the difference between the US Army, and the Argentine Army (1981 style) is not any one thing it's a mass of quite small things in concert. Trim this small thing, trim that small thing, and suddenly KAPOW the whole system collapses.

 

in any event, it seems the Pentagon agrees with me, because they've apparently made it clear that front line troops will be exempt.

[alanschu]

I imagine the goal of this would be to save on your tax paying money.

i already offered a very simple solution to this, btw.

 

taks

 

 

So given that the government doesn't seem keen on doing your solution, you'd rather they continue to allow the soldiers to smoke, while you foot the bill for their health care later in life? Seems odd.

[alanschu]

It's just that individual civil rights are assumed to be above business freedoms. That's why we have stuff like minimum wages, for instance.

 

I'm not a fan of minimum wage though. I don't think it's effective. I think it's the government intervening in such a way that it's detrimental to the economy all across the board (rich and poor).

 

 

The problem is that you have businesses arbitrarily dictating what their employess can and cannot do outside the job. You have, in effect, the business sector enforcing policy rules on the people, that extend past business practices into the private scope. Even elected officials would already have a hard time justifying measures to control what people do with their private lives so long as it's not a crime. The heads of private enterprises are not elected officials. Parallel legislation is bad, m'kay.

 

The thing is, if it's that big of a deal, people will not enforce the same policies that Weyco seeks to enforce, because they'll take serious hits to their labour force. THe people that stop working for Weyco due to this policy is some other business' gain.

 

 

The issue is not smoking specifically, but activity "X". Let's say, gaming. Or writing on message boards. Or full contact sports. Or any number of activities that may indirectly result in lost revenues due to decreased productivity, increased health costs, or whatever. Ownership of human beings is no longer to be practiced openly.

 

What's stopping these people from working somewhere else? I don't feel that this is a slippery slope. I highly doubt that every business in the world is going to enact such policies, because market forces won't allow it. While Weyco's policy may result in some people losing their job at Weyco, other insurance companies will gobble up these talented and experienced workers to work for themselves.

[213374U]

I'm not a fan of minimum wage though. I don't think it's effective. I think it's the government intervening in such a way that it's detrimental to the economy all across the board (rich and poor).

How so?

 

 

The thing is, if it's that big of a deal, people will not enforce the same policies that Weyco seeks to enforce, because they'll take serious hits to their labour force. THe people that stop working for Weyco due to this policy is some other business' gain.

 

[...]

 

What's stopping these people from working somewhere else? I don't feel that this is a slippery slope. I highly doubt that every business in the world is going to enact such policies, because market forces won't allow it. While Weyco's policy may result in some people losing their job at Weyco, other insurance companies will gobble up these talented and experienced workers to work for themselves.

The market forces, you say? They can counterbalance that by offering better hours/money or other benefits. And there are people that may be willing to give up on smoking or other activity because they really want (or need) the job. You can't go on without a job like you can go on without a shirt. So, no, it doesn't necessarily mean that Weyco will be losing anything by enacting these policies, and it's not like the job market now is experiencing a sharp demand for qualified professionals across the board. So until the situation you described comes to pass, we could very well find ourselves in a position where a majority (as in 50%+1) of employers control the private lives of their personnel. "And if you don't like it, we have this guy from India/Mexico/China here, that would kill to get your job".

 

What worries me is the increasing scope in which companies keep tabs on their employees' private lives. It's a pretty standard practice now to check online profiles, for instance. As long as I get the job done, they don't have a right to know (much less place restrictions on) what I do in my off time.

Edited July 17, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

Unfair practice from an employer does not simply result in people not chosing to work for them. Review recent What Have You Done Today for illustrations. That's why we have employment law.

 

You might just as well say that government should not enforce anti-fraud law because the market will simply stop doing business with them.

 

Incidentally, I presume you gentlemen would also like to take all the saturated fat and processed sugar out of soldier's diets, in addition to stopping them smoking and staying up late partying. That would all serve to reduce the insurance bills, what? I'm sure our squaddies won't mind.

[taks]

So given that the government doesn't seem keen on doing your solution, you'd rather they continue to allow the soldiers to smoke, while you foot the bill for their health care later in life? Seems odd.

yeah, odd. odd that i firmly believe in the government staying out of our lives, in the military or otherwise. no, not odd, just consistent. we have what we have, e.g., socialized medicine in the military, but that doesn't mean we should give up every other belief just because of this.

 

taks

[alanschu]

I'm not a fan of minimum wage though. I don't think it's effective. I think it's the government intervening in such a way that it's detrimental to the economy all across the board (rich and poor).

How so?

 

By creating an artificial lower cap on wages, you drive the cost of doing business up. Businesses either lay people off, or pass the cost onto the consumer by raising the prices for their goods/services. The result is inflation, which means that the minimum wage increase is no longer apply because the marginal cost of living has increased.

 

As an anecdote, I remember working for a small restaurant where I got paid minimum wage ($5/hour). The government was talking about raising minimum wage to $6/hour, and the owner was frustrated and asked "Is it better for me to employ 5 people at $6/hour, or 6 people at $5/hour?" Sure enough, when the minimum wage was raised, he could only afford to staff 5 people instead of 6. Sure I made more money, but I enjoyed my job less because I needed to work harder due the the fact that we were now short a person in the kitchen.

 

There's also the times that the minimum wage is pretty cosmetic. For several years Alberta was running in a boom economy, and the government kept making themselves out like heroes by raising minimum wage several times. Except that the job market was so competitive that even the ****tiest jobs were already several dollars per hour above the minimum wage, so it had no real effect on anything. Although now that we've slid into a recession, we're seeing more and more people being laid off. I only have anecdotal evidence, but I know a lot of food service industry managers that have had to let people go and cut back hours because of minimum wage.

 

 

The thing is, if it's that big of a deal, people will not enforce the same policies that Weyco seeks to enforce, because they'll take serious hits to their labour force. THe people that stop working for Weyco due to this policy is some other business' gain.

 

[...]

 

What's stopping these people from working somewhere else? I don't feel that this is a slippery slope. I highly doubt that every business in the world is going to enact such policies, because market forces won't allow it. While Weyco's policy may result in some people losing their job at Weyco, other insurance companies will gobble up these talented and experienced workers to work for themselves.

 

 

The market forces, you say? They can counterbalance that by offering better hours/money or other benefits.

 

So? That's all part of the value added by the company. People aren't entitled to the better hours/money or other benefits. But you'll still have companies competing for the labour market, and it's not like people that smoke is really all that niche of a crowd. Or the other things you mentioned. If someone feels that the better hours/money or other benefits are better than whatever rule the company wishes to enact, well then, that's their decision.

 

 

 

And there are people that may be willing to give up on smoking or other activity because they really want (or need) the job. You can't go on without a job like you can go on without a shirt. So, no, it doesn't necessarily mean that Weyco will be losing anything by enacting these policies, and it's not like the job market now is experiencing a sharp demand for qualified professionals across the board.

 

As a fresh graduate I'm well aware of the job market. On the plus side, the people working at Weyco have the luxury of actually having a job while they look for other work that suits their lifestyle better.

 

 

So until the situation you described comes to pass, we could very well find ourselves in a position where a majority (as in 50%+1) of employers control the private lives of their personnel. "And if you don't like it, we have this guy from India/Mexico/China here, that would kill to get your job".

 

This has always been a concern, and quite frankly I feel it's because people have quite the sense of entitlement, and are certainly irresponsible with their money.

 

 

What worries me is the increasing scope in which companies keep tabs on their employees' private lives. It's a pretty standard practice now to check online profiles, for instance. As long as I get the job done, they don't have a right to know (much less place restrictions on) what I do in my off time.

 

If part of their benefit program involves managing your health, then I think the lines become much more blurry.

[alanschu]

So given that the government doesn't seem keen on doing your solution, you'd rather they continue to allow the soldiers to smoke, while you foot the bill for their health care later in life? Seems odd.

yeah, odd. odd that i firmly believe in the government staying out of our lives, in the military or otherwise. no, not odd, just consistent. we have what we have, e.g., socialized medicine in the military, but that doesn't mean we should give up every other belief just because of this.

 

taks

 

So what do you think about the Weyco issue?

Edited July 17, 2009 by alanschu

[Gfted1]

we have what we have, e.g., socialized medicine in the military, but that doesn't mean we should give up every other belief just because of this.

 

 

It will be interesting to see what happens when we have socialized medicine for the entire country. Mass outlawing of everything unhealthy, which we should gladly accept as the "employer" has final say.

[alanschu]

Would you accept it (or even the fully socialized medicine) if the overwhelming majority of people wanted it?

[Gfted1]

Would you accept it (or even the fully socialized medicine) if the overwhelming majority of people wanted it?

 

 

Would I accept the mass banning of all unhealthy things because the majority wanted it? No, I would not. Tyranny of the majority and all that....we could basically crumble up the Bill of Rights and toss it in the can at that point.

 

Would I accept socialized health? Doesnt much seem I have a choice in the matter. Officials that will vote on the matter will have long ago cast their lot before the repercussions (voting them out of office) can take place. At that point its too late. Why do you think the urgent push to get this through the system? Its because Obama may only have one term to pull this off.

[alanschu]

I agree that there are issues with tyranny of the majority, and to be clear, I don't find the issue to be a clear one.

 

 

Is there any other solution to a Weyco-like situation though, than agreeing to empower the government to dictate how Mr. Weyers runs his business?

[Humodour]

It will be interesting to see what happens when we have socialized medicine for the entire country. Mass outlawing of everything unhealthy, which we should gladly accept as the "employer" has final say.

 

That certainly doesn't happen in any of the other 30 or so Western countries with universal healthcare, and I doubt America is that messed up that it would end up passing such laws.

 

In reality, when people try to ban things they deem 'bad', whether marijuana, video games, alcohol, fast food, porn on the internet, etc, it's generally because of the wishes of a group of naive parents or religious nuts who want to "protect the children", not because of some argument about a more efficient healthcare system.

[Humodour]

Its because Obama may only have one term to pull this off.

 

Obama will almost certainly have two terms - however, it's plausible the Republicans will win 2016 even if Dems are still doing well, as happened in 2000. a) the American public is extremely conservative about presidents, even when they suck pretty badly (though there is a breaking point), b) Obama is still polling around the same level now of favourability as he was when he was elected (i.e. really high), c) the American economy will be on the road to recovery by 2012 even under the worst case scenarios, d) whether or not Obama (or even a Democrat) is elected President again or not has little bearing on the House and Senate where these healthcare bills come from.

[Walsingham]

Er... we've had socialised healthcare for years and there's no more things banned over here than in the US.

[Gfted1]

Its because Obama may only have one term to pull this off.

 

Obama will almost certainly have two terms - however, it's plausible the Republicans will win 2016 even if Dems are still doing well, as happened in 2000. a) the American public is extremely conservative about presidents, even when they suck pretty badly (though there is a breaking point), b) Obama is still polling around the same level now of favourability as he was when he was elected (i.e. really high), c) the American economy will be on the road to recovery by 2012 even under the worst case scenarios, d) whether or not Obama (or even a Democrat) is elected President again or not has little bearing on the House and Senate where these healthcare bills come from.

 

Hmm, not quite:

 

AP-GfK Poll: Great hopes for Obama fade to reality

 

Jul 21, 3:49 PM (ET)

 

By NANCY BENAC and TREVOR TOMPSON

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - That was fast.

 

The hope and optimism that washed over the country in the opening months of Barack Obama's presidency are giving way to harsh realities.

 

An Associated Press-GfK Poll shows that a majority of Americans are back to thinking that the country is headed in the wrong direction after a fleeting period in which more thought it was on the right track.

 

Obama still has a solid 55 percent approval rating - better than Bill Clinton and about even with George W. Bush six months into their presidencies - but there are growing doubts about whether he can succeed at some of the biggest items on his to-do list. And there is a growing sense that he is trying to tackle too much too soon.

 

The number of people who think Obama can improve the economy is down a sobering 19 percentage points from the euphoric days just before his inauguration. Ditto for expectations about creating jobs. Also down significantly: the share of people who think he can reduce the deficit, remove troops from Iraq and improve respect for the U.S. around the world, all slipping 15 points.

 

On overhauling health care, a signature issue for Obama, hopes for success are down a lesser 6 points.

 

Add it all up, and does it mean Obama has lost his mojo? Has yes-we-can morphed into maybe?

 

"I think it's just reality," said Sandy Smith, a 48-year-old public relations worker from Los Angeles. "He's not Superman, right?"

 

Indeed, it's not unusual for approval ratings to slide once presidents actually get to work. They're pulled down by things going on in the real world, by people who don't agree with the ways they're addressing problems, by criticism from political opponents.

 

In Obama's case, the problems he's confronting domestically and internationally are legion, and his ability to blame them on his predecessor is fading. Challenges still abound in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unemployment, at 7.6 percent in January, hit 9.5 percent in June and is expected to keep rising well into next year. Almost 4 percent of homeowners with mortgages are in foreclosure, and an additional 8 percent are at least a month behind on payments - the highest levels since the Great Depression.

 

The president is deep into the debate over how to overhaul the nation's health care system, and people are nervous about how their own insurance could be affected. Obama's critics are accusing him of conducting a risky "grand experiment" that will hurt the economy and could force millions to drop their current coverage.

 

It's all taking a toll on expectations. The number of people who think it's realistic to expect at least some noticeable improvement in the economy during Obama's first year in office dropped from 27 percent in January to 16 percent in the latest survey.

 

There's been slippage, as well, in how people view the president personally, although he's still well regarded. About two-thirds now think he understands the problems of ordinary Americans, down from 81 percent in January. Sixty-nine percent think he's a strong leader, off from 78 percent before the inauguration.

 

"He doesn't know enough about any of this," says Michelle Kelsey, a 37-year-old student in Breckenridge, Mo., who gives Obama a three for leadership on a 10-point scale. But then again, Kelsey says, "Nobody could have done better."

 

"I just feel like people haven't given him enough time. It's going to take longer for the economy to come around."

 

It's not just Obama who's feeling the drag. Approval of Congress - already low - has gotten lower, slipping 6 percentage points to 32 percent.

 

Overall, the number of people who think the country is going in the wrong direction hit 54 percent in the latest AP-GfK poll, up from 46 percent in June.

 

That's not necessarily surprising. In years past, the public has tended to be more pessimistic than optimistic about the country's future. Recent exceptions have been short-lived, at the start of the Iraq war, after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, after the capture of Saddam Hussein and late in the Clinton administration.

 

Perhaps most troubling for Obama may be where he is losing ground. His approval rating was down 9 points among Americans overall but 20 percent among independents. Similarly, the increase in those who think the country is headed in the wrong direction came mostly from independents and Democrats.

 

Dissatisfaction among independents grew disproportionately on Obama's handling of a range of issues, including the economy, taxes, unemployment, the environment and more.

 

Independents are "the ones to watch," according to Professor Robert Shapiro, a Columbia University expert on public opinion. "The Republicans were more pessimistic from the outset. The Democrats are going to be more resistant to negative information."

 

Overall, Obama still can feel good about a 55 percent approval rating, Shapiro said, but "the fact that it is on the downswing is something to be concerned about. That's going to affect how members of Congress, and in particular people in his own party, may respond to him."

 

The AP-GfK Poll was conducted July 16-20 by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. It involved interviews on landlines and cell phones with 1,006 adults nationwide. The survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.