State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3365
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby lukpac » Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:22 am

penquin wrote:Technically marijuana is more illegal than cocaine. (The Federal Gov't allows for medical uses of cocaine, but not marijuana). Not exactly sure how crack fits into that picture.


Perhaps on a federal level. But clearly not the case at the state level in many cases.

penquin wrote:I don't foresee any states trying to push for a "medical tobacco" exemption if/when tobacco is actually banned. Do you?


I don't see tobacco ever actually being banned.

penquin
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1056
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm
Contact:

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby penquin » Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:29 am

lukpac wrote:Perhaps on a federal level.


Exactly.

But clearly not the case at the state level in many cases.


Doesn't matter. ObamaAdmin is still raiding homes/clinics and arresting folks for it...regardless if it is "allowed" by state law or not.

I don't see tobacco ever actually being banned.


From what I understand, people said the same thing back-in-the-day about cannabis. How the heck could a plant, with so many wonderful uses, be made illegal?

Looking at past history, as well as current conditions, it seems that it is only a matter of time before tobacco is banned. Especially if marijuana is re-legalized...gonna need something for those DEA agents to do, and tobacco has been vilified enough for most of America to accept the idea.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby wack wack » Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:52 am

penquin wrote:
I don't see tobacco ever actually being banned.


From what I understand, people said the same thing back-in-the-day about cannabis. How the heck could a plant, with so many wonderful uses, be made illegal?


Tobacco will never be banned because white people use it. Marijuana prohibition had very little to do with it's properties, benefits or costs.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby Stebben84 » Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:43 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:$50 a month doesn't seem that bad given the cost to employers:

Smoking employees cost $6,000 a year more, study finds

$6000 seemed like a lot to me, but the breakdown is interesting and makes sense. It even factors in the fact that smokers who recieve a pension normally die younger (thus costing their employers less)


I didn't see where they took into account the frivolous breaks non-smoking employees take. Also, a lot of employees take smoke breaks in their allotted break time.

Excess healthcare costs of smokers, who have higher rates of lung disease, heart disease, various cancers and other illnesses: $2,055.77.


Did they take into account excess health costs of those who are obese, eat like shit, and don't exercise. Not according to this article.

This was a crap study at best.

david cohen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1610
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby david cohen » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:00 pm

I won't defend smoking, but there was a good letter to the editor of the WSUrinal on Sunday. She argued that since state employees are already paying into an insurance pool designed to spread the fiscal risk among all of it's members, why charge some members more? Think about all the risky behaviors pool members engage in- helmet-less cycling, eating, drinking, unsafe sex, hunting.....

As an aside, cocaine DOES have a medical use as a vasoconstrictor- and it's also highly regulated in it's liquid form...but crack?

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby Stebben84 » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:06 pm

david cohen wrote:I won't defend smoking, but there was a good letter to the editor of the WSUrinal on Sunday. She argued that since state employees are already paying into an insurance pool designed to spread the fiscal risk among all of it's members, why charge some members more? Think about all the risky behaviors pool members engage in- helmet-less cycling, eating, drinking, unsafe sex, hunting.....


I'll also say that I'm not defending it. I will say that I agree with this statement 100%.

P.S. I like WSUrinal.

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3458
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:09 pm

Stebben84 wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:$50 a month doesn't seem that bad given the cost to employers:

Smoking employees cost $6,000 a year more, study finds

$6000 seemed like a lot to me, but the breakdown is interesting and makes sense. It even factors in the fact that smokers who recieve a pension normally die younger (thus costing their employers less)


I didn't see where they took into account the frivolous breaks non-smoking employees take. Also, a lot of employees take smoke breaks in their allotted break time.



A startling part of the calculation was just how much less productive smokers really are. “Though all employees are occasionally unproductive in one way or another, research suggests that smoking status negatively impacts productivity separately and apart from lost work time due to smoking breaks and absenteeism,”


I assume based on that statement, they didn't ignore frivous breaks on anyones part. Smoker's breaks were just that much more.

I found the following paragraph much more interesting:
“This is because nicotine is a powerfully addictive drug. Although cigarettes satisfy a smoker’s need for nicotine, the effect wears off quickly. Within 30 minutes after finishing the last inhalation, the smoker may already be beginning to feel symptoms of both physical and psychological withdrawal. (Much of what smokers perceive as the relaxing and clarifying effect of nicotine is actually relief from their acute withdrawal symptoms.)”’


One could also question the cost in productivity of heavy drinkers, parents of young children, late night gamers, or people who read and post on forums excesively.

Stebben84 wrote:
Excess healthcare costs of smokers, who have higher rates of lung disease, heart disease, various cancers and other illnesses: $2,055.77.


Did they take into account excess health costs of those who are obese, eat like shit, and don't exercise. Not according to this article.

This was a crap study at best.


I don't know if I would call it crap. It was focused on a single issue. I'd love to see a broader report covering all of the issues you mention as well as the ones I mentioned, but just because it was focused on one possible issue doesn't make it crap.

I'd also point out that it's completely possible that they didn't factor those items in since both smokers and non-smokers can be subject to them. I know the concept of an obese smoker with poor dietary habits who doesn't excercize is way out there, but I've heard it happens.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3614
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby jman111 » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:22 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:I know the concept of an obese smoker with poor dietary habits who doesn't excercize is way out there, but I've heard it happens.

Hey, I don't smoke (tobacco)!

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3365
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby lukpac » Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:34 pm

penquin wrote:Doesn't matter. ObamaAdmin is still raiding homes/clinics and arresting folks for it...regardless if it is "allowed" by state law or not.


Yeah, it does matter. Marijuana is legal in some states. Crack is, to my knowledge, not.

penquin wrote:From what I understand, people said the same thing back-in-the-day about cannabis. How the heck could a plant, with so many wonderful uses, be made illegal?

Looking at past history, as well as current conditions, it seems that it is only a matter of time before tobacco is banned. Especially if marijuana is re-legalized...gonna need something for those DEA agents to do, and tobacco has been vilified enough for most of America to accept the idea.


Current conditions? What current conditions? What purpose would making tobacco illegal have?

Comrade
Forum Addict
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am
Contact:

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby Comrade » Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:03 pm

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/0 ... lant-case/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius- ... le/2531097

The day will come eventually to everyone where they deeply regret the power they let burocrats assume over their lives. That day will come sooner to some than to others, but it will come.

Unfortunately, it cannot be stopped at this point.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby Stebben84 » Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:31 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:I assume based on that statement, they didn't ignore frivous breaks on anyones part. Smoker's breaks were just that much more.


This is what they said:

They looked at the lowest possible costs for people taking smoke breaks – just eight minutes a day lost to smoking. That would cost employers $1,641.14 a year, they said. But it’s more likely much higher -- $3,077, they calculated, based on two 15-minute smoke breaks a day. Lost productivity was based on the average wages and benefits paid a smoker working full time: $26.49 an hour, with 232 days worked a year.


Most employees get 2 fifteen minute breaks a day anyway. Where in this paragraph do they refer to other employees breaks. By the way, no one takes a 15 minute smoke break unless they have 15 minutes to suck down two cigarettes.

Also, in your quote, they refer to productivity and not breaks, so they actually did not take into account other employee breaks. I would like to see the analysis of this productivity.

Unfortunately it was a poorly written article because I found no link to the study. If someone finds it, please post.

lukpac
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3365
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby lukpac » Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:35 pm

Comrade wrote:http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/06/04/sebelius-i-cant-step-into-girls-transplant-case/

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sebelius- ... le/2531097

The day will come eventually to everyone where they deeply regret the power they let burocrats assume over their lives. That day will come sooner to some than to others, but it will come.

Unfortunately, it cannot be stopped at this point.


So people can't stop themselves? Is that what you're trying to suggest? Because bureaucrats don't have magical powers.

And what do the articles you posted have to do with anything?

LizardKing
Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:20 pm

Re: State Workers to be Charged for Smoking

Postby LizardKing » Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:31 pm

Word is if you say you don't smoke and you are caught smoking you will be fired. It should create 3-4 employment attorney positions, 2 in the private sector, and 2 to defend the State. So that's 4 jobs created for Scott. Net gain to the state coffers will be a big negative.
Where is the tobacco settlement and tobacco tax money? Shouldn't they use that to cover this if it's a "money" issue?


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 4 guests