We’ve had a lot of discussion on this blog about where to draw the line on wellness – exercise machines in the office, local governments stepping in, extra taxes on unhealthy food – and for most things, I’m usually in favor of more wellness and better health. On one recent issue, though, I think I am actually on the other side.
The Pentagon commissioned a report on smoking in the military and is urging the Department of Defense to ban smoking in the military. The report makes a lot of strong arguments, such as smoking causing $800 million a year on lost productivity and health care expenses, smoking causing mental health problems like mood disorders, schizophrenia, and substance abuse, and etc.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I hate smoking as much as the next person. I hate the smell, and I honestly cannot comprehend how someone can suck on a stick of carcinogens, knowing that the likelihood of dying from a painful disease directly caused by smoking is around 99.99%.
But the average person is not being asked to go into a war zone and put his or her life on the line, every day, for months and months at a time. The report suggested “enforcing equal work breaks for all employees to relieve the stress and boredom on duty.” Now, I’ve never been to a war zone, but I’m guessing that most of the men and women over there don’t have much of a chance to get bored or relieve stress. If taking a cigarette break helps them get through the day and calms them down before they have to get in a vehicle that may or not be blown up by a roadside bomb, then who are we to say that’s unhealthy? In the long run, yes. In the short run, though, the negative effects are outweighed.
Should the DOD spend more energy and effort on smoking cessation programs? Absolutely. The report indicates that neither the Pentagon nor the Department of Veterans Affairs has a “comprehensive tobacco-control program.” It’s definitely time to put one in place. Active duty military personnel, especially those in conflict zones, should not be the guinea pigs for these programs. They have more important things to worry about today than the possibility of lung cancer 10 or 20 years down the road. Target smoking-cessation programs at them either before they go off to war or when they get home safely, not while they’re in the middle of the action.
The report identifies a correlation between tobacco addiction and mental-health problems. While this is no doubt true, does it also mention the correlation between mental-health problems and being in an active war/conflict zone?
Anyone who has tried to implement any sort of wellness program in their workplace knows how challenging it can be. There has to be a readiness to change, and getting people to that point through whatever means you can is a daunting task (trust me, I know!). People who don’t want to change are not going to change, no matter how many taxes or increased health care costs you throw their way. The employees in our workplaces, though, are not at war. Our troops fighting for their lives need our support, not lectures on healthier lifestyles.
If the DOD can direct its focus on the new members of the military, eventually the problem will work itself out. It’s an uphill battle (no pun intended), but I think they can do it. They just have to provide the right tools and resources to the right people to set a successful course. Kudos for commissioning the report and looking to actually do something. Here’s hoping they do it right.
#1 by Mike on July 21st, 2009
What’s really sad about the majority mentality in relationship to smoking is that the majority who does not smoke says that the minority who do should not, and that ends the inquiry in their view. By comparison, I could decide that anyone who was overweight should be taxed heavily, or anyone that received a speeding ticket should have their car taken away, or anyone who takes “legal” narcotics propogated by pharmaceutical industry should be subject to controlled susbtance requirements, or anyone who drinks beer/wine should be prohibited from doing so, all on health grounds. That’s not really what’s going on though. What it really amounts to is a self-righteous moral superiority complex – no different than religion, or political, or ideologues – deciding for the minority what should be the norm. The health cost they disguise it with is laughable – it’s just a pretext. If it was a health issue, then all cars would have rev-limiters prohibiting them from going faster than 50 mph, corn syrup would be as illegal as crack, legal addictive substances sold by big pharma would be the outrage it is, and the deadly consequences of alcohol would be accorded proper context relative to marijuana (and the big alochol lobby would be reviled). These health initiatives disguise the real issue, which is majority rule (circa Nuremburg 1933), embellished as a social contract. If we passed a Constitutional amendment outlawing self-righteous, overweight, pill-popping, lead-footed, pickled, narrowminded ideologues, I’d be happy to quit smoking. Until then, not so much.
#2 by Shelly on July 21st, 2009
I could not have said it any better myself Mike.
#3 by David Janus on July 22nd, 2009
Very nice post.
From a business perspective, I think the key to a credible (and successful) wellness program is the ability to link the program to real business needs. The WSJ had an article earlier this month (http://bit.ly/Ett2o) that discussed a company that has – so far – been quite successful with implementing a very aggressive wellness program, including mandating all employees to get a physical in order to be eligible to receive health insurance. The article describes very clear business reasons for the company’s policy. As you describe well in your blog, there is really no such connection that would make an aggressive anti-tobacco campaign for soldiers in the field make a lot of sense.
#4 by ken on July 24th, 2009
for liberals there is no line on enforcement – they love running others peoples lives….
#5 by Kristina on August 3rd, 2009
I have mixed feelings. I have worked for companies where emplyees would get up to $500 credit/year (divided monthly) on their annual premiums for engaging in a fabulous Matria wellness program. Employees had to complete an online assessment, track physical activity, engage in walking/physical programs, and healthy food challenges. However, the management would pick 3 days a week for their department and allocate 1 hour (outside of a honored lunch period) to encourage and allow for employees to participate. The company was trully dedicated to bettering employee health also by allowing employees to order 5 lb weights and a stepper via the company store at no cost, if they would like.
If an employer is not equally committed to not just encouraging their employees but making the effort to ease the burden on employees to participate in mandated programs. it makes it challenging for any employee who is already working 10 or more hours a day, has obligations and commitments to family and community resources outside of the workplace to force a tracking system.
It actually adds to stress in the workplace, as is my opinion. Since, it is not like those that want to be healthier are not doing activities to achieve such personal goals, especially when this is a program targeted to those who may not make life changes.
Those who are uninterested in addition to not being allowed the time, simply wont change the bottom line for your cost of healthcare. My 2 cents.
#6 by Kristina on August 3rd, 2009
Also to add, the military provides Laser Vision correction at no cost to the military, they require Physical Fitness exams 3 times a week. Those that smoke usually only do so on deployment when they have no access to a cold beer in 150 degree weather, or the comfort of a loved one for 6 months to 18 months at a time. The military happens to be the most focused and requires not only fitness, but a healthy lifestyle. If a young man or woman wants to smoke a cigarette while defending our country and on a 15 minute watch break in between being bombed and fighting off the enemy, I dont think we should take that from them. Many foods and alcohol are prohibitted in the countries we are currently at war with. Most quit smoking when they return, since it adversly affects their PT qualification. Its really the the most selfish/rediculous suggestion any socialist/liberal has brought up in recent history.