The work of judges in cases of custody is primarily related to the issues of morality. The decision to ban smoking near the child on fathers request is one of the demonstrative examples. Custody disputes are often held in a conflict situation (Petrazycki 38). Moreover, one of the parents, as a rule, remains dissatisfied with this or that judicial decision (Kaplan et al. 177). The fathers appeal to the Supreme Court of California with the requirement to prohibit his ex-wife from smoking in the presence of their child had quite reasonable grounds; therefore, the claim was satisfied.
The issuance of a judges verdict is always a hard and indisputable decision even when it comes to family problems (Weisberg and Appleton 84). Legislative acts do not contain corresponding norms providing for punishment for particular ethical issues (Nonet 53). Nevertheless, the judges decision was reasonable enough from the standpoint of social norms. According to Votruba et al., any child has the right to grow in a supportive environment (254). Therefore, the judges verdict to satisfy the fathers appeal was entirely understandable. Judicial practice often resonates with moral norms (Cromdal and Tholander 160). Thus, the case under research has no contradictions and errors.
Works Cited
Cromdal, Jakob, and Michael Tholander. Morality in Professional Practice. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, vol. 9, no. 2, 2014, pp. 155-164.
Kaplan, John, et al. Criminal law: Cases and materials. 7th ed., Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2014.
Nonet, Philippe. Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. Routledge, 2017.
Petrazycki, Leon. Law and Morality. Routledge, 2017.
Votruba, Ashley M., et al. Moral Intuitions about Fault, Parenting, and Child Sustody after Divorce. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 20, no. 3, 2014, pp. 251-262.
Weisberg, D. Kelly, and Susan Frelich Appleton. Modern Family Law: Cases and Materials. 6th ed., Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2015.
Smoking is a critical issue that affects the well-being of the worlds population and often starts during youth. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that one in five high school students and one in 14 middle school students reported current use of a tobacco product& Moreover, 47.2% of high school students and 42.4% of middle school students& used e2 tobacco products (Jamal et al., 2017, p. 597). In addition to that, students can use e-cigarettes today. This issue requires further investigation because it has negative effects on peoples health, including cancer, respiratory problems, etc.
Epidemiology Studies
To explore the discussed issue, various epidemiology studies can be conducted. Observational ones can be used to gather more information about students smoking habits. For instance, cross-sectional surveys can be used to reveal how many students have smoked within particular educational establishments (Xu, Zhu, Sharma, Deng, & Liu, 2015). Case-control studies can be conducted to discuss the influences of smoking on school children. An experiment can be maintained to find out if an imitation of smoking can substitute the real process in the framework of its effects on childrens condition (Littel & Franken, 2012).
Justification of Choices
Observational studies are easy to conduct, and they provide an opportunity to find out what happens without affecting the population (Fida & Abdelmoneim, 2013). In this way, with the help of a cross-sectional study, professionals can minimalize the risk of students being afraid to reveal the fact that they smoke. A case-control study is advantageous because it allows discussing various effects of smoking perceived by both students and physicians. Finally, an experimental crossover study can measure outcomes of smoking imitation as they are perceived by students.
Data Collection
For this research, I will collect several types of data collected from a population. It will include qualitative data that reveals the influences of smoking mentioned by the sample (Ramagopalan, Lee, Yee, Guimond, & Traboulsee, 2013). In addition to that, information regarding its substitutes will be gathered. Quantitative data will also be needed to discuss the prevalence and statistics (Khoury, Manlhiot, Fan, Gibson, & Stearne, 2016). In this way, the number of students who smoke will be identified. This approach will be useful when discussing what consequences of smoking are observed as a rule, and what is experienced only by some individuals. The most frequently used substitutes will be identified in the same way (Farsalinos, Romagna, Tsiapras, Kyrzopoulos, & Voudris, 2013).
To receive this information, different types of questions will be asked. Depending on the research study, the sample will deal with descriptive, observational, and causal questions. For instance:
What substitutes of smoking do you know?
How long have you been smoking?
What consequences have you experienced after a year of smoking?
Dissemination
Obtained findings will be disseminated to peer-reviewed journals for the professionals in the sphere to acknowledge them and consider their research studies. The main conclusions and evidence will be posted online for the representatives of the general public to be aware of the situation. Schools will also receive them to urge their leaders to implement changes associated with the prohibition of smoking.
Summary
Thus, it can be concluded that smoking is a bad habit that affects the health of the worlds population. A lot of middle and high school students smoke today, which leads to serious complications. Additional research is needed to improve the knowledge of this issue and develop new initiatives aimed at the mineralization of smoking rates among the targeted population. It can include cross-sectional surveys, case-control, and experimental studies, and should be based on both qualitative and quantitative data.
References
Farsalinos, K., Romagna, G., Tsiapras, D., Kyrzopoulos, S., & Voudris, V. (2013). Evaluating nicotine levels selection and patterns of electronic cigarette use in a group of vapers who had achieved complete substitution of smoking. Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment, 7, 139-145.
Fida, H., & Abdelmoneim, I. (2013). Prevalence of smoking among secondary school male students in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A survey study. BMC Public Health, 13, 1010-1015.
Jamal, A., Gentzke, A., Hu, S., Cullen, K., Apelberg, B., Homa, D., & King, B. (2017). Tobacco use among middle and high school students United States, 2011-2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 66(23), 597-603.
Khoury, M., Manlhiot, C., Fan, C., Gibson, D., & Stearne, K. (2016). Reported electronic cigarette use among adolescents in the Niagara region of Ontario. Canadian Medical Association, 188(11), 794-800.
Littel, M., & Franken, I. (2012). Electrophysiological correlates of associative learning in smokers: A higher-order conditioning experiment. BMC Neuroscience, 13, 8-14.
Ramagopalan, S., Lee, J., Yee, I., Guimond, C., & Traboulsee, A. (2013). Association of smoking with risk of multiple sclerosis: A population-based study. Journal of Neurology, 260(7), 1778-1781.
Xu, X., Zhu, R., Sharma, M., Deng, S., & Liu, S. (2015). Smoking attitudes between smokers and non-smoker secondary school students in three geographic areas of China: A cross-sectional survey based on social cognitive theory. The Lancet, 386, S78.
Although many people recognize the health hazards related to smoking, a few take bold steps in quitting the act. Jorenby (346) asserts that smoking is a disease like any other, but can be cured when fitting strategies are observed. Besides draining one financially, smoking is a major cause of killer diseases such as; heart and lung cancer.
Hammerle (86) also cites destructions such as; bushfires, environmental degradation and decreased production as sometimes resultants of smoking activities. It is important that one quits smoking in order to lead a normal and healthy life. Besides contributing to increased production, people who quit smoking will reduce the much felt pressure in the healthcare systems.
Discussion
Cigarette smoking can be mitigated when suitable strategies are fixed and followed. Smoking a cigarette is addictive; hence a person who withdraws from smoking experiences a series of symptoms. The symptoms vary and they may include; depression, irritability, anger and restlessness. However, Jorenby (346) argument some of the strategies which can help smokers adapt and ultimately quit smoking. In his view, victims should fast seek the services of a counseling specialist to guide them through the steps of quitting the habit.
He illustrates that, within the counseling field, specialized units such as self-help groups and individual counseling are best experienced to assist smokers cope with withdrawal behaviors and adjust adequately to normal life. Other counseling strategies such as telephone calls and social support also serves the ultimate goal of providing a modern approach in which counseling can be tailored to suit the counseling needs of an individual smoker (Jorenby 364).
Besides counseling, smokers can also seek for medical treatment or therapy. Jorenby (346) suggests some medications available to help to deal with dependence. These medications are efficient when they are checked by a doctor and integrated in a comprehensive stop smoking program (Carr 57). In this case, one should seek for the help of his or her doctor (Jorenby 353). The nicotine replacement therapy is of equal importance of medication. This strategy serves as a substitute for cigarette smoking.
Using this strategy, the cigarette nicotine used by one is replaced by other nicotine based substitutes. The used substitute majorly includes the nicotine patch or gum. The substitutes work better when they are delivered in small but in steady doses. They help the body of a smoker to relieve some major withdrawal symptoms. They achieve this goal by avoiding the tars and the poisonous gases that are present in the cigarettes.
Non nicotine based medication also exists in treating smoke related complications. These medications help a person to stop smoking. They are succeed in their role by decreasing the cravings and withdrawal symptoms, without the influence of nicotine.
Jorenby (347) notes that other nicotine alternative therapies such as nasal sprays, gum and the patch inhaler can also be embraced during the therapeutic process. This is because their nature relieves the patient in dealing with nicotine withdrawal syndromes and they do not expose a person to any danger from toxic substances.
Smoking has undesirable effect to the family. As Kick Butts notes, it brings about suffering and smoke related pain in the family (Kick Butts). A member of a family who smokes makes the whole family smoke either passive or involuntary; this is because side-stream and mainstream smoke is passed to them. Besides the nicotine and tar mentioned earlier, the cigarette smoke contains harmful substances such as arsenic, butane and acetone.
These substances are exposed to children making them to develop asthma, pneumonia, colds and coughs and bronchitis. In adults, heart problems are prevalent, poor blood circulation and lung cancer is noted. Treating these medical conditions entails hospitalizations which drain the family finances which could be better used to carry out important roles in the family (Kick Butts).
Parents serve as a role model for their children. However, when they smoke in-front of their childrens, they prompt them to attempt smoking. Children who smoke develop nicotine addiction much quicker, the more they smoke or exposed to smoking the more likely to develop other health related complications.
Hammerle (36) explains that smoking is costing the society more resources. These costs range from purchasing a pack of cigarette to medication. Hammerle (65) illustrates that other than the usual accidents, smokers are exposed to cancer, heart diseases and strokes. Noting the high cost of healthcare and financial obligations to the family, it causes a major financial drain for smokers.
Smoking contributes to reduced production. Reduced production is a major problem which can cripple any country in the world. Smoking reduces the production of an economy because of sustained sickness or deaths. Hence, it is indeed hard to find a replacement for an employee, especially when the smoker had unique skills about a given job. Besides sickness and deaths, absenteeism is a major problem connected to smoking. Absenteeism contributes to low on-the-job productivity because of health related diseases.
Hammerle (95) explain that smoking is the major cause of fires in workplaces and homes. It is also credited to the forest and bushfires, as smokers throw haphazardly the cigarette butts. The assets or property loss resulting from these fires suggests a social cost. Besides fires, pollution and littering is a common issue connected with smoking. Smoking creates enormous litter and pollution because smokers discard the cigarette butts and its packaging.
The costs associated with these issues are felt in different ways. In intangible form, cleaning packaging materials and cigarette butts is costly. It drains the taxpayers money in keeping the environment clean. On intangible aspect, if the litter is made to amass, the costs due to environmental degradation is obvious.
Kelley notes that procrastination is one of the reasons that have made it impossible for many people to quit smoking (Kelley). Procrastinating behavior is life threatening in all aspects of life. Smokers believe that it is easier for them to quit after taking one more puff and this is pushed forward over and again, to the point where it becomes impossible to stop (Kelley).
People who procrastinate are even affected psychologically because they know the right yet they keep on promising themselves that they will do it another day. When the effects finally happen, they suffer twice and the greatest of them is regretting not quitting the first time they ran into the idea. The best way to deal handle procrastination is just to make it today rather than wait for another day since there will be nothing.
People who smoke are at risk of smoking related complications such as heart, cancer and lung diseases. Besides, the money that could be saved to solve other personal and family issues is catered for their hospitalization and purchase of expensive drugs. Therefore, the only solution to avoid these smoking related complications is to quit smoking.
Works Cited
Carr, Allen. The Easy Way to Stop Smoking: The Easy Way Method to Becoming a Non Smoker. New York: Amazon, 2010. Print.
Hammerle, Nancy. Private Choices, Social Costs, and Public Policy: An Economic Analysis of Public Health Issues. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2002. Print.
Jorenby, Douglas. Smoking Cessation Strategies for the 21st Century . Cardiology Patient. (2011): 324 367. Print.
Kelley, Fred. Im not ready To Quit! What Are You Waiting For? Quit Smoking, 1999. Web.
Kick Butts. Quit smoking and take charge of your Health. American Cancer Society. Stop smoking articles. Web.
Historically, smoking is a practice that has existed for a long time. Ever since pre-rolled cigarettes were first introduced in the early 1900s, the number of cigarettes smoked around the world has risen each year. Today, it is estimated that over 15 billion cigarettes are smoked every day (Mason 13).
The shocking thing is that even though the number of cigarettes smoked in some countries is falling, overall consumption continues to extend. This has been attributed to two main reasons. These reasons are, first, selling more cigarettes in poor countries has been on the increase. Secondly, the expanding world population has contributed to this increase (Mason 16).
Smoking in the United States of America has been under scrutiny, for instance, studies revealed that smoking was still a male preserve from 1965 to 1993 (Haustein and Groneberg 60). In addition, smoking prevalence was highest among the people who were living below the poverty line, blue collar workers, single or divorced people and military personnel (Haustein and Groneberg 73). Historically, tobacco is a plant that thrived in Louisiana.
This plant thrives in this state where it is used to be cultivated on large scale. Farmers use to thrive on this plant when they can collect revenue of it (Billings 279). Dr. Alston Ochsner, a famed medical doctor and researcher, carried out studies which led him to conclude that smoking was associated to cancer. From his findings, he concluded, Only four percent of lung cancer is not linked to smoking thus it was preventable cancer (Pyle 9).
These findings were instrumental in the formulation of policies which were against smoking in Louisiana. Currently, the state of Louisiana is smoke free in the public places. This law came into control on January 1, 2007 as a consequence of massive lobbying by the antismoking arm of the state residents and organizations. Essentially, this law ensures that the local government has the ability to supervise and expand the smoke free zones. This is aimed at protecting the non-smoking people within the state.
According to the state, this is viewed as a major step in the direction of public health. Despite all these advancements, there is another side of the coin. This has been characterized by the fact that businesses are coming out stating that their companies have had negative implications with regard to this ban. For instance, there has been a report that the number of sales reduced in some of the businesses. Notwithstanding this fact, many countries have joined the list to ban smoking in public places.
The bans which have been effected in these countries have either been partial or complete depending on the legislation of these particular countries. Some of the countries which have been affected by these bans are Albania, Argentina, United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, Brazil and Austria. In these countries, regulations have been enforced to ensure that there are restricted areas where smoking can be tolerated, such as entertainment spots, and there are areas where it is illegal.
There are many reasons as to why the ban for smoking has been upheld. Some of them have been associated with health reasons. Nicotine is a component which is found in tobacco. Nicotine has a high affinity for being absorbed into the blood, especially when it is smoked. This is because it enters the lungs and is absorbed into the blood stream with a high degree of frequency. When person smokes, nicotine enters the brain rapidly.
This is characterized with the peaking levels which take place within 10m seconds of inhaling the drug. Cigarette smokers not only tend to die at an earlier age, but also have a higher probability of developing certain diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and broncho-pulmonary disease, than the non-smokers.
Smoking does not just affect only the smoker, it also affects the person who does not smoke. These are people who are exposed to the smoke which comes off the end of the cigarette that the smoker has not inhaled. This smoke joins the environment and is inhaled by the secondary party from there. Thus, it is important to note that secondary persons get to smoke through two main ways.
First, it is smoke which is usually not filtered from a cigarettes burning end and secondly, it is smoke which is exhaled from the smoker himself. The secondary smoke is dangerous to the people who are found within the environment of the persons who are concerned. This is because these people are usually exposed to the risks of the smoke just like the smoker, some of the diseases which they are exposed to include lung disease, emphysema, and heart diseases.
This smoke is especially harmful to the children because childrens systems tolerate smoke at a more complex level than the adults. Coworkers are also exposed to the risk. It is not the doctors who oppose smoking, businesses have also been on record with regard to supporting the ban. This is because the risks associated with smoking. For instance, the advocates of the antismoking express concern over the health of their employees who are smokers. This is due to the health concerns which are or have been concerned with smoking.
For instance, the smokers are likely to have high health care costs owing to their harmful habits. In addition to this, there is a negative implication to the non-smokers who work with or seek the services of the businessmen. Furthermore, some businesses hold the opinion, creating a smoke free work place is the easiest policy to adopt, as well as the least expensive and the most health conscious (Bray 289). This is in line with the following benefits which are associated with the smoking ban.
Bray states that A smoking ban will best support the wellness program of goals of helping the employees quit smoking and protecting nonsmokers from harmful effects of secondhand smoke (291). There is a consensus among those who support antismoking that the campaigns which have been staged by the pro smoking brigade have been exaggerated. This has led to studies which have revealed that numerous health care campaigns have had devastating psychological effects on the people who have been smoking.
In addition to this, more studies suggest that on the issue of heart disease risk, the non-smokers risk of getting that disease is quite low as compared to that which was purported initially. Some scientific reports conclude that the risk associated with smoking in regard to the non smokers was too small to support the smoking ban. This ban has major implications on the business premises and the business owners. This is because empirical evidence suggests that due to the ban, to support smoking has become costlier than before.
This is because it has resulted into most businesses being forced to come up with services cater for the irritated customers owing to the anti-smoking regulations as well as having to take care of the employees who may be non smokers who are working in a smoking environment. It is also worth noting that the issue of smoking or not smoking is an individual issue which protects the constitutional right of the smoker.
This implies that when the government imposes the non smoking campaigns, it denies other peoples rights to make decisions which is not in line with the constitution. This has had a major issue with the effect on businesses where some smokers or non smokers have kept away due to the policies either of the business supports. It is worth noting that this debate is not about to end.
This implies that there are people who will still favor the smoking habits, and there are those who will be of the idea that smoking is not as it is purported to be tainted. Furthermore, the issue of constitutional rights also needs to be put into perspective due to the fact that it has been argued that the smoking ban imposes decisions on citizens who have the ability to make their own choices.
It is important to look at this matter from both sides of the coin. What are the precise implications of this ban on both the smokers and the non smokers? Studies should ensure that they remain as impartial as impossible to ensure that the directions which are taken with the policy formulators are in the right perspective. On evaluating closely the subject of the constitution, the United States of America constitution grants individual rights.
Some of them, such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the right to bear arms are explicit in the document. Others have been inferred by the United States court, such as the right to privacy and bodily integrity. Thus, to arrive at a conclusion on which side to support, it follows both the scientific conclusions should be impartial as well as the right interpretation of the constitution (Riegelman 69).
Even as this ban is gradually gaining momentum and being embraced holistically across the globe, it is important to establish measures to ensure that it does not have negative effects on the smokers. It is therefore necessary to ensure that support groups and health services centers are assisting people who might be having smoking problems. So, the fight against smoking will be won gradually.
Works Cited
Billings, E. R. Tobacco: Its History, Varieties, Culture, Manufacture and Commerce. Middlesex: Echo Library, 2008. Print.
Bray, Ilona M. Healthy Employees, Healthy Business: Easy, Affordable Ways to Promote Workplace Wellness. California: Nolo, 2009. Print.
Haustein, Knut-Olaf and David Groneberg. Tobacco Or Health?: Physiological and Social Damages Caused by Tobacco Smoking. New York: Springer, 2009. Print.
Mason, Paul. Know the Facts about Drinking and Smoking. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2009. Print.
Pyle, Dr. Hugh F. How to Quit Smoking Without Pills, Pain Or Panic. Tennessee: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 2000. Print.
Riegelman, Richard K. Public Health 101: Healthy PeopleHealthy Populations. Sadbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2009. Print.
Cigarettes are not just addictive but also result in severe illnesses in smokers. For smokers that are apprehensive about the health issues of smoking, the most excellent thing to settle on is to quit because no cigarette is safe (Malone 2013). Philip Morris is an international tobacco corporation that is based in the United States and whose products trade in more than two hundred nations and enjoys over fifteen percent of the worldwide cigarette market base.
Philip Morris concurs with the overwhelming medical and scientific evidence that smoking results in emphysema, heart illnesses, and lung cancer, as well as other severe illnesses amid smokers. Smokers have a higher possibility of developing such severe illnesses when compared to non-smokers (Samet 2013). Philip Morris also affirms that smoking causes addiction thereby making it taxing for people to stop smoking.
Nonetheless, addiction does not make it impossible for smokers that are determined to quit. Enhanced awareness and educational programs ought to be carried out in an effort of helping present smokers and prospective smokers in making firm decisions against smoking.
Philip Morris and Proof of Health Issues
Philip Morris admits the existence of scientific proof that smoking leads to lung cancer in addition to other severe illnesses even after years of disputing such findings from health professionals (Hiilamo, Crosbie & Glantz 2014). In the contemporary times, Philip Morris, the biggest tobacco company in the United States, has shifted nearer to existing scientific view regarding the medical concerns of cigarette smoking since it has encountered rising pressure from smoking-associated regulations and court cases.
As a section of a 100 million US dollars organizational reputation campaign through a new website, Philip Morris explicitly asserted that smoking could result in emphysema, lung cancer, and heart illnesses to mention a few. The action by Philip Morris generates an inclination amid tobacco companies of attempting to place health-associated concerns behind them after settling lawsuits made by the states that seek the recovery of their Medicaid expenses for the treatment of cigarette-related sicknesses.
Through making revelations concerning the health risks of smoking, Philip Morris could have the desire of making it more difficult for the people who carry on smoking to file charges against the company by contending that such people knew the likely dangers.
Apart from Philip Morris, many other concerns have made the health issues of cigarette smoking evident. There is a noticeable swing for Philip Morris and other companies, especially concerning the concerns of medical welfare and smoking. Earlier, Philip Morris had maintained, for instance, that cigarette smoking presents an insignificant risk aspect in illnesses such as lung cancer. The change of the perspective by Philip Morris marks a new phase in the legislations and regulations. The proof of health issues associated with smoking appears to be deserting the operations that left uncertainties in the minds of smokers (Cabanski et al. 2015; Karagueuzian et al. 2012).
Nevertheless, the evidence has some drawbacks in that it does not state whether Philip Morris concurs with the conclusions wholly. Philip Morris states that the company needs some complainants that could prove that cigarette smoking is the sole cause of their illnesses and not other aspects (Russell, Wainwright & Mamudu 2015).
The change in the viewpoint of Philip Morris might not have been the outcome of any new scientific discoveries but happened as the company decided to embark on a less aggressive and defensive stand. As a section of an earlier accord engaging cigarette corporations and government officials that failed in Congress, tobacco companies could have chosen not to dispute public health outcomes regarding connections between cigarette smoking and diseases such as emphysema, lung cancer, and heart illnesses.
A wide pool of studies affirms that the actions recently undertaken by Philip Morris were significant in that they may offer tobacco companies a chance to rework on choices they may have made many years ago (Clifford, Hill & Collin 2014; Proctor 2012). However, the tobacco sector ought to have undertaken this route in 1964 but in its place chose to take part in a campaign of fraudulence and deceit, for which it is currently paying.
If there were a means of immunizing people against one-third of the cases of cancer, could it be in great demand? The response is apparent, yet the fact is that almost fifty years following the establishment of the connection between cancer and cigarette smoking, close to 25% of the grown-up populace in America keep on smoking, and tobacco use is progressively rising across the globe. What then could be done to address the problem?
Philip Morris made it clear that it was actively engaged in over 130 smoking prevention programmes amid the youth in over seventy nations. Some of the studies that have focused on public health programmes and schemes by tobacco corporations ascertain that the companies endeavors are less persuasive and disregard the health impacts of cigarette smoking by cunningly promoting tobacco use. In this regard, public health professionals question the suitability of company-sponsored cigarette smoking avoidance initiatives.
One of the most excellent methods of decreasing cigarette smoking is raising the monetary costs of tobacco mainly via smoke-free guidelines, taxation, and an extensive banning of advertisements (Moodie et al. 2013). Other strategies such as the application of caution labels on cigarette packets and other tobacco products, restricting the sale of cigarettes to minors, and boosting access to smoking cessation services seem to have had an indirect influence on smoking though the full impact of the policies might not have been accomplished so far. Professional insights concerning potential genetic modifiers of reaction to treatment and establishment of therapeutic approaches have the possibility of noticeably changing how societies tackle tobacco health issues (Weber et al. 2013; Cummings & Proctor 2014).
Conclusion
Cigarettes do not just cause addiction but also bring about severe illnesses in smokers. For smokers that are nervous about the health problems of smoking, the most excellent thing to go for is to quit because no cigarette is harmless. Philip Morris concurs with the irresistible medical and logical facts that smoking results in emphysema, heart illnesses, and lung cancer, in addition to other severe illnesses. Smokers have a higher chance of developing such severe sicknesses when compared to non-smokers. Awareness and educational programmes ought to be carried out in an endeavor of assisting current smokers and prospective smokers in making firm resolutions against smoking.
Studies on public health initiatives and schemes by tobacco firms discover that the companies endeavors are less influential and ignore the health impacts of cigarette smoking by artfully promoting tobacco consumption. The best method of decreasing cigarette smoking is raising the fiscal costs of tobacco primarily via smoke-free rules, taxation, and a far-reaching banning of advertisements.
Reference List
Cabanski, M, Fields, B, Boue, S, Boukharov, N, DeLeon, H, Dror, N & Merg, C 2015, Transcriptional profiling and targeted proteomics reveals common molecular changes associated with cigarette smoke-induced lung emphysema development in five susceptible mouse strains, Inflammation Research, vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 471-486.
Clifford, D, Hill, S & Collin, J 2014, Seeking out easy targets? Tobacco companies, health inequalities and public policy, Tobacco control, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 479-483.
Cummings, K & Proctor, R 2014, The changing public image of smoking in the United States: 19642014, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 32-36.
Hiilamo, H, Crosbie, E & Glantz, S 2014, The evolution of health warning labels on cigarette packs: The role of precedents, and tobacco industry strategies to block diffusion, Tobacco control, vol. 23, no. 1, p. 2.
Karagueuzian, H, White, C, Sayre, J & Norman, A 2012, Cigarette smoke radioactivity and lung cancer risk, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 79-90.
Malone, R 2013, Tobacco endgames: What they are and are not, issues for tobacco control strategic planning and a possible US scenario, Tobacco control, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 42-44.
Moodie, R, Stuckler, D, Monteiro, C, Sheron, N, Neal, B, & Thamarangsi, T 2013, Profits and pandemics: Prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries, The Lancet, vol. 381, no. 9867, pp. 670-679.
Proctor, R 2012, The history of the discovery of the cigarettelung cancer link: Evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll, Tobacco control, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 87-91.
Russell, A, Wainwright, M & Mamudu, H 2015, A chilling example? Uruguay, Philip Morris International, and WHOs framework convention on tobacco control, Medical anthropology quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 256-277.
Samet, J 2013, Tobacco smoking: The leading cause of preventable disease worldwide, Thoracic surgery clinics, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 103-112.
Weber, S, Hebestreit, M, Wilms, T, Conroy, L & Rodrigo, G 2013, Comet assay and airliquid interface exposure system: A new combination to evaluate genotoxic effects of cigarette whole smoke in human lung cell lines, Toxicology in Vitro, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1987-1991.
A 50-year old male visited a nurse with a purpose of smoking cessation. While this process is considered complicated due to the smoking habit being a psychological trait, there are steps that should be followed for a successful outcome. Educating patients about smoking risks is an essential part of the cessation process, as well as medication and psychological support. This paper provides a plan for a mentioned individual that he should follow remain healthy.
Calculating Pack-Years
Pack-years are the concept that is used to determine the health risks of a smoking patient (Petro, 2012). It is calculated by multiplying the average number of cigarette packs a day by the amount of years devoted to this habit. Thus, a man from the case has been smoking one pack a day for the last ten years. It means that he has ten pack-years behind him. Determining this value is important for a nurse due to the necessity of treatment planning. The number of screening procedures depends on pack-year, as they are associated with the risk of lung cancer and heart disease (Fucito, Czabafy, Hendricks, Kosten, Richardson, & Toll, 2016).
Education Plan
Evidence demonstrates that even a brief notice about the necessity of smoking cessation given by nurses in primary care is able to reduce the number of patients with this habit (Raw, McNeill, & West, 1999). Thus, promoting healthy lifestyle should become the basis for an educational plan for this individual. A nurse must address several lifestyle factors that are potentially important to the patient. Firstly, economic reasons should be described. People who smoke tend to spend more money on health care since they tend to fall ill more often (Krueger, Turner, Krueger, & Ready, 2014). Secondly, if the man will keep smoking, there is a high chance he will receive a serious disease that would prevent him from enjoying his future retirement.
Management Plan
The most important step in the management plan is to determine a date when the man should quit smoking (Scholz, Stadler, Ochsner, Rakow, Hornung, & Knoll, 2016). It would act as a psychological milestone, after crossing which a patient should not go back to his former habit. A series of screening tests should be organized to detect any health issues associated with smoking. A nurse should also consult the man regarding his way of life and any specific conditions that could contribute to his habit. In a case if it appears that there are such conditions, a nurse should offer alternative ways to manage the problem.
Treatment
A nurse must ensure that the patient follows all the prescriptions and behavior guidelines. Although this is not possible to determine by fact, the patient himself must realize the importance of treatment and be responsible for his actions. Medical treatment would include prescribing substances that would transport nicotine to the mans body without smoking. A nicotine plaster is one of such items. Non-pharmacologic treatment is also reasonable, especially when it is determined that the habit has psychological reasons. For instance, smoking is often a way of relaxation (Robertson, Iosua, McGee, & Hancox, 2015). A nurse should discuss alternative actions of reaching relaxation or enjoyment.
Follow-Up and Evaluation
A follow-up plan would include the number of sessions that should be associated with further consulting and test procedures. A nurse should ask the man about his progress on smoking cessation. If there are any obstacles, they should be discussed to find a solution. Tests should be run to determine the positive dynamics of the patients health state. Seeing values like heart performance increase should serve as a motivating element for the man. Evaluation should take place two weeks before the end-of-smoking day, two weeks after it, one month, and half a year consequently.
Krueger, H., Turner, D., Krueger, J., & Ready, E. A. (2014). The economic benefits of risk factor reduction in Canada: Tobacco smoking, excess weight and physical inactivity. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 69-78.
Petro, J. (2012). That the effects of smoking should be measured in pack-years: Misconceptions 4. British Journal of Cancer, 107(3), 406-407.
Raw, M., McNeill, A., & West, R. (1999). Smoking cessation: Evidence based recommendations for the healthcare system. BMJ, 318, 182-185.
Robertson, L., Iosua, E., McGee, R., & hancox, R. J. (2015). Non-daily, low-rate daily, and high-rate daily smoking in young adults: A 17-year follow-up. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 1-7. Web.
The proposed analysis is aimed at comparing and contrasting two essays devoted to a similar theme the smoking ban. The authors try to address the problem from different perspectives and support their ideas in the most efficient way.
Thus, the key emphasis of the analysis will be put on the argumentative basis that these essays have along with its consistency and logical relevance.
Arguments against Banning Smoking
The first argument against banning smoking employs the idea that smoking in specially designated areas cannot do harm to the health of non-smokers as the latter are supposed to avoid these areas. It is an inductive type of argument the generalized conclusion relies upon a preceding series of specific arguments.
The second argument suggests that banning smoking is likely to have a negative impact on employees productivity. This argument shows a fallacy of generalization it promptly switches from the assumption that some workers smoke to reduce stress to the conclusion that employees will work worse if they do not smoke.
The third argument consists of a series of relatively unconnected statements. The key points of this argument suggest that banning smoking will violate smokers rights, yet, it will not make them give up the habit.
The next argument suggests that banning smoking will increase the general consumption of alcohol. This statement might be referred to as the fallacy as the final conclusion is driven on the basis of a couple of ungrounded assumptions.
The subsequent argument insists on the negative effect that banning smoking will have from an economic perspective. It is an inductive argument first, it refers to the financial losses that bars and restaurants will essentially bear; then, it develops the idea about generally negative economic outcomes.
The last reason suggests that the ban will not work properly as the major part of people will ignore it. The argument might be characterized as a personal opinion, as it is not clear what the underpinning reasoning is.
Arguments for Banning Smoking
The first argument in favor of the smoking ban provides a rationale for the harm that secondhand smoking causes. In the meantime, there is no alignment between smoking and the scope of the impact it has over non-smokers, so the argument is not complete.
The second statement is, likewise, devoted to the elucidation of the secondhand smoking consequences. Meanwhile, there is still no connection indicated between smoking in public places and secondhand smoking.
Another argument supporting the smoking ban provides some statistical data related to the cases of infection in children caused by secondhand smoking. As well as the previous two arguments, this statement does not show the interconnection between smoking in public places and childrens secondhand smoking.
The fourth reason explains the spread of smoke and criticizes the functionality of smoking and non-smoking areas in public places. This argument is based on the metaphoric example it draws parallels between spreading smoke and coloring water.
The next reason supporting the smoking ban emphasizes the unpleasant effect that non-smokers experience due to the spread of smoke in public places. The argument is of deductive character it begins with a general statement and narrows to a particular example of smoky clothes.
The last argument focuses on the risks related to smoking. Contrary to the previous argument, it is of inductive character it starts with a particular example of fires and generalizes the idea about the harmful environmental effect.
Comparison between the Two Essays
On the face of it, the essays look rather identical than different. They follow a typical essay structure and are relatively similar in terms of the language style. Moreover, the essays employ different types of arguments in order to support their ideas. Thus, there are arguments based on induction, deduction, and examples in both papers.
In addition, the authors stick to a concise, logical structure so that, in general, the ideas are clearly outlined.
Moreover, the authors tend to avoid judgmental remarks and critics towards the opposite point of view. As a result, their essays create a favorable expression from an ethical standpoint.
The contrast between the Two Essays
In the meantime, there is a series of distinguishing features that make the essays different. Thus, for instance, the first essay fails to provide a concise conclusion the following passage is, in fact, another argument against the smoking ban.
The second essay, in its turn, has no drawbacks from the structural perspective; yet, its arguments are weaker. Hence, the author of the essay employs a large scope of statistical data, meanwhile, failing to align it to the general string of logic. In addition, some of the arguments, in the second essay, seem to represent one and the same idea, re-phrased and complemented by some minor details.
Finally, the authors manner is slightly different as well whereas the first essay is more restrained and concise, the second author seems to be more emotional and preoccupied with the subject.
Conclusion
As a result, the analysis of the two essays has shown that the first paper offers more consistent reasoning. Despite the evident drawbacks in the essays structure, its author has managed to provide a persuasive rationale for the advanced point of view.
The arguments of the second essay are also logically relevant, though, in some cases, they seem to be not aligned to the core thesis.
The research question is to determine the quantity of the impact that different levels of alcohol ingestion combined with smoking behavioral patterns make on men and women in terms of the risks of cancer.
The variables used are different. Some of them are independent, such as demographic characteristics (gender, age), past-related issues (family health history, body mass index), and current health indicators (the results of the mammogram and prostate specific antigen tests). The cumulative average consumption of alcohol is the dependent variable. The majority of the variables are ordinary (physical activity, the usage of vitamins) and ration (the level of alcohol consumption). They may be either continuous (the variables pertaining to individual health history, for instance, the history of colonoscopy, or alcohol ingestion the authors emphasize that they consider it to be a continuous variable) or discrete (the number of pack years, alternate healthy eating index).
As the researchers stated, they used Spearman correlation, Cox proportional hazards models, and likelihood ratio tests (Cao, Willett, Rimm, Stampfer, & Giovannucci, 2015).
In the context of the conclusions, it is stated that lower levels of alcohol consumption are associated with minimum risks of cancer in both men and women. However, the gender differences are also registered: male subjects demonstrate almost equal relative risks of alcohol-related cancer on condition that their drinking is light or moderate, but female subjects who have never smoke differ since the risks of cancers (especially breast cancer) increase significantly when a woman consumes one alcoholic drink per day. Therefore, the authors insist on the idea that smoking history should be taken into account when the level of alcohol ingestion is examined.
Article Review
The researchers touch upon a very significant issue since early intervention is a matter of primary concern in relation to any disorder. The early Parkinsons disease treatment is urgent, and one should justify the usage of a certain medicine prior to making a final decision. Under these circumstances, antidepressants become an important instrument: they not only delay the need for dopaminergic therapy but also help reduce the level of motor impairment and disability which is beneficial.
This article is a good example of research. It is well-structured and informative since it contains all significant elements in the correct order, and the headings and subheadings give the opportunity to orientate oneself within the text. Another advantage of the present paper is the wide coverage of studies conducted earlier: several clinical trials are included. Later on, it is necessary to underline that the time-dependent Cox regression models are employed: in comparison with the ordinary model, this approach seems preferable because it relates to the particular research: attention is drawn to the covariates connected with time.
Overall, the research is credible and relevant. However, I would like to focus on some issues. As the researchers themselves point out, they distributed patients in accordance with the classes of antidepressants, and it made the sample size too small to detect significant differences between the groups (Paumier et al., 2012, p. 884). Do you think it would be more appropriate to include fewer classes of antidepressants and investigate their impact? There is one more question I would like to ask: what are, in your opinion, the necessary steps that should be taken in future in order to expand the topic and achieve more detailed results?
Paumier, K. L., Siderowf, A. D., Auinger, P., Oakes, D., Madhavan, L., Espay, A. J.,& & Collier, T. J. (2012). Tricyclic antidepressants delay the need for dopaminergic therapy in early Parkinsons disease. Movement Disorders, 27(7), 880-887.
Secondhand smoking, also known as passive, is detrimental to public health due to its association with chronic conditions. Passive smoking causes premature death of nonsmoking individuals, including children. It also causes respiratory complications, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases (Coughlin et al., 2015). Scientific evidence shows that chronic conditions, particularly respiratory disease and cardiovascular conditions, decrease with legislative bans for public smoking (Coughlin et al., 2015). Therefore, smoke-free legislation in public places offers an opportunity to protect the public from the negative effects of smoking, hence influencing social norms and reducing risky smoking behavior.
Policy Proposal
Public Policy Issue
Smoking continues to be major public issue considering the number of smokers in America. According to the CDC, about 18% of U.S. adults are categorized as either consistent or chronic smokers (MacArthur, n.d.). This percentage translates to around 42 million people who smoke regularly (MacArthur, n.d.). On the one hand, more than 3100 smokers are underage while about 300 start as casual substance users but later become daily smokers (MacArthur, n.d.). These statistics have contributed to the widespread efforts to educate the public regarding the need to quit smoking. However, most of the chronic smokers ignore the ramifications of the habit despite the deterioration of their health, as well as deaths.
Issue Selection
Smoking tobacco is classified as one of the leading causes of preventable deaths, given the proven scientific implications of tobacco on health. In America, smoking is associated with approximately 500000 deaths every year, with 10% of the cases being attributed to passive smoking (MacArthur, n.d.). In other words, tobacco, as well as smoking, accounts for roughly 1200 deaths daily. Besides, individuals who smoke are likely to die at least ten years earlier than their non-smoking counterparts (MacArthur, n.d.). Surprisingly, research shows that around 90% of the deaths related to lung cancer have a connection with either the use of tobacco or smoking (MacArthur, n.d.). On the same note, every year, the number of women dying from breast cancer is less than those who succumb to lung cancer.
With regard to chronic diseases and conditions, smoking is one of the primary risk factors. Evidence shows an increased risk of contracting coronary disease up to four times whenever a person smokes (MacArthur, n.d.). Smoking also increases the probability of developing diabetes by 30 to 40 %, leading to difficulty in controlling Type 2 diabetes (MacArthur, n.d.). Apart from lung cancer, smoking is associated with cancer in the various parts of the body, including mouth, tongue, colon, liver, bladder, pancreas, kidney, larynx, stomach, and blood (MacArthur, n.d.). Furthermore, smoking decreases fertility, taking into account sudden infant death syndrome, ectopic pregnancies, pre-term delivery issues, and low birth weight occurrences among the smokers (MacArthur, n.d.). Hypothyroidism and lupus are some of the autoimmune responses that are linked with smoking.
Issue Relevance
Secondhand smoking, a detriment to public health, has, over the years, reduced due to legislative efforts, especially indoor. Indoor smoking has significantly decreased as a result of policies prohibiting it in communities, cities, and states. Today, societal values have changed, implying that public smoking at social places is unacceptable (Coughlin et al., 2015). The efforts to minimize indoor smoking have, over the years, reduced levels of cotinine, a chemical produced when the body breaks down nicotine, from 90% in 1990 to 25% in 2012 (MacArthur, n.d.). As a result, taking a similar course of action concerning smoking in public places will further decrease nicotine exposure, hence low levels of cotinine.
Financial Impact
Smokers and nonsmokers exhibit different health care costs, a perspective that prompts the policymakers to reduce the relative costs of tobacco. In general, users of tobacco develop more health issues and diseases than nonsmokers, which costs the former $ 11 000 more than the latter (MacArthur, n.d.). Therefore, the former require frequent medical attention, reducing their productivity at the society level and hurting the economy. Apart from household spending on preventable diseases, smokers tend to harm their loved ones by subjecting them to secondhand smoking, which eventually affects the entire familys financial status.
Smoking bans take various perspectives in light of the economic impact on the community. These financial implications are either indirect, intangible, or direct. The firms involved in tobacco processing are on the verge of lacking a sustainable market, which reduces the industrys job availability. Additionally, hospitality businesses, including restaurants and bars, are subject to the risk of reduced market value as the ban limits smokers freedom. A significant percentage of expenditure is attributed to smoking. This reserve can be used to improve the various social and economic aspects. Additionally, production and consumption of tobacco assists the economy in crating generating and economic stimulus. However, quitting smokers may decide to undergo the treatment, which can be expensive. The school-based programs reduce short-term costs for smoking, saving between $ 16,400 and $580,000. Thus, financial issues revolve around medical costs and health care aspects.
Personal Values
Assisting cigarette smokers to quit smoking is fundamental to improving their self-worth and self-respect and stabilizing their emotional well-being (Nieh et al., 2018). Legislating public smoking will also help some people who intend to quit but relapse to feel more accomplished. Core values regarding the rights of others and well-being are also crucial to promoting societal harmony. Restricted smoking is one of the indirect interventions for preventing people from smoking (Nieh et al., 2018). This measure positively impacts individuals health and finances, enabling them to live a better life. Hence, the policy will play a crucial role in bettering the future of individuals who would either be subject to premature death or chronic diseases.
Ethical Principle or Theory
Fundamental nursing principles and theories support the policys proposition to ban smoking in public places. Considering human life dignity, it is recommended that medical practitioners be committed to advocate and promote the patients health and safety (American Nursing Association, 2015). While the public members are entitled to autonomy, based on the principle of beneficence, a nurse should ensure that his or her actions are in the best interest of the community (Stone, 2018). Hence, the proposed cause of action in policy is aligned to benefiting the community and reducing preventable diseases. On the other hand, it is in the communitys best interests that medical practitioners advocate for more good than harm.
The Top-Down Approach to Policy Advocacy
Decision Maker
To enact the proposal for banning smoking in public places in Georgia, legislative assistance and action are required. The senator for Georgia, David Perdue, is considered the most effective and influential at the state level. He will receive the brief with the background information required to propose the bill in the legislature. Afterward, he will take the appropriate course of action to ensure that the corresponding recommendations are considered for law formulation.
Explanation
Banning smoking in public places is crucial to the Georgian population, given the demography and the impacts the latter has on public health. Additionally, Georgia has not enacted statewide restrictions for smoking in public spaces. Since a significant number of states have introduced regulations to control smoking in public places and relevant implications to the entire U.S.A, the senator should sponsor the bill, which will improve the health system.
Notably, in Georgia, tobacco poses major challenges concerning the consequences of smoking, such as preventable diseases and deaths. American Lung Association identifies three goals to deal with Georgias overall smoking rates, aiming to reduce them from 18% to less than 10% in 2024 (Coughlin et al., 2015). The objective is to protect the public from second-hand smoking, as well as reduce the health care burdens in Georgia. The three goals include increasing tobacco product prices, advocating for laws to promote smoke-free air, and funding control programs for cigarette cessation (Coughlin et al., 2015). These objectives can only be achieved if the elected officials will be involved in policymaking. Therefore, the senator should be involved in this course, which affects a significant population of Georgia.
Challenges
One of the issues regarding public health issue corresponds to autonomy as a stipulation for human rights. Since public smoking is restrictive, it can be termed as an infringement of human rights. In spite of the effects of smoking to the general public, most of the passive users do not consider it very harmful, hence their laxity in advocacy. Additionally, legislators might be pro-smoking, thus adamant in supporting bills that could regulate its use. On the other hand, since not all jurisdictions in the United States prohibit smoking in public spaces, the motion is likely to face significant resistance. On the same note, awareness programs, which require finance, are necessary to train the public about the impacts of smoking on public health and economic systems.
Options and Interventions
Public members should be educated about the course of the policy, given its aim to protect their health. The appropriate zones for public smoking should be established with the required infrastructure to ensure smokers do not risk the lives and health of nonsmokers. The policy should impose the relevant statewide enforcement measures, including the penalties and fines. Education and enforcement interventions are tangible due to their potential in changing undesirable conduct in public places.
Furthermore, to effectively address smoking prevalence in Georgia, it is imperative to address the issues social, political, and economic aspects. The policymaker can increase the taxes for tobacco prices (Coughlin et al., 2015). This approach is effective in reducing the affordability of cigarettes, hence reducing the widespread user. Another strategy to discourage smoking is banning promotion and advertisement in mainstream media, as well as social media platforms. This intervention is meant to decrease new users as a result of tobacco product marketing. Smoking restriction as a tool for social order will be most effective in reducing secondhand smoking (Coughlin et al., 2015). Smoking cessation programs will be used to assist those who intend to quit smoking. Finally, consumer education and related campaigns will be used to outline the harm and burden caused by smoking. As a result, it will discourage a significant number of smokers.
Course of Action
Significant approaches to effectively address public smoking are the interpolation of the relevant health, economy, and community issues. In essence, the educational approaches, taking into account fact-checking and expert opinion, effectively instigate a change at legislative and community levels. While awareness programs before introducing a ban are critical to gaining support for the policy, they are not sufficient to mitigate the risks associated with secondhand smoking (Berg et al., 2016). Hence, a policy and enforcement framework must be developed across Georgia. To address the difficulties associated with passing the policy motion, informative measures should be used to convince the administrators.
The following actions steps will result in a succinct address of the policy issue:
Chose an organization to popularize and promote the policy issues based on the benefits.
Create the capacity to create cessation programs and centers.
Offer public awareness and education to the community and household members concerning smoking.
Start a legislative motion after attracting public interest.
Passing the bill into law.
Providing social, economic, and political support for enforcement of the policy
Once the issue is popular in public, they will take necessary cautions. Additionally, they will not be adamant about the adverse effects of smoking (Berg et al., 2016). Gaining public support for the issue by working with a local organization will ensure the popularity and support of the majority of the elected officials. Finally, the opposition due to conflict of interest from the industry players and pro-smoking legislatures will not stand the public opinion.
The success of the Policy Brief
The briefs success will be determined by the support the proposal gains from Georgias senator, the extent to which the legislator will involve stakeholders, including advocacy teams, and the elements to be included in the policy. In essence, the effective development of the brief will prompt the decision-maker to not only advocate for restrictions to smoking in public places but also seek statewide educational and awareness programs.
The Bottom-up Approach to Policy Advocacy
Identified Organization or Community
Advocacy and non-profit organizations are instrumental in initiatives for public policies. American Lung Association (ALA) is one of the institutions that can help address the issue of public smoking (American Lung Association, 2020). The organization has been involved in creating awareness regarding the detriments of tobacco on human health (American Lung Association, 2020). Furthermore, its initiative, Freedom from Smoking, assist addicts in quitting smoking. Hence, working with the institution will scale advocacy at local and legislative levels.
Summary of Expressed Interest
American Lung Association advocates for the regulation of tobacco products and their use. It is also vibrant in promoting sufficient funding for cessation, education, and prevention programs (American Lung Association, 2020). It is also involved in promoting policies and laws related to reducing smoking, such as increasing tobacco products taxes (Coughlin et al., 2015). Therefore, the American Lung Association, given its presence capacity in handling policy issues in Georgia, stand better chances to make significant impact concerning the policy proposal.
Community-Based Participatory Research
Awareness programs will be established to educate the locals on the negative impacts of secondhand smoking (Wagner et al., 2018). Another strategy to reduce the overall resistance to policy change is creating cessation programs and facilities (Estreet et al., 2017). These facilities are known to be effective, especially when they involve motivators as opposed to healthcare workers (Alagiyawanna et al., 2017). The other mechanism to deal with this challenge in community settings is sponsoring community-based discussions, workshops, and public activities to identify and evaluate costs associated with smoking in a wider community perspective.
While cessation programs and the popularization of the initiative to reduce smoking in public places will help build community-focused capacity, it is imperative to employ the relevant collaboration approaches. In this regard, the community and the organization must collaborate to achieve the corresponding benefits (Wagner et al., 2018). CBPR requires partnerships to be equal and mutually engaging. In response to this requirement, the partners will develop a document consolidating the involvement of every stakeholder. The framework for cooperation will also outline the role of each party, including the community members (Estreet et al., 2017). The aim is to ensure that all the parties involved are accountable for equitable power sharing and collaboration, as well as ensuring sustainable partnerships.
Concerning sustainability and commitment to long-term goals related to reducing smoking prevalence, this initiative will focus on iteratively revisiting the community needs. Relevant staffing measures, including cutting related costs, will ensure the partners long-term engagement with the community (Estreet et al., 2017). Based on the sustainability goals, the non-governmental partners, as well as other state stakeholders, will contribute to formalizing cessation programs and related centers to ensure long term cooperation with community members (Estreet et al., 2017). This course will ensure that the programs extend beyond the policy initiative.
Approach and Collaboration
American Lung Association (ALA) has the capacity to establish cessation and awareness programs and events. Therefore, this collaboration will be useful in addressing public smoking legislation and community capacity. To better achieve community participation goals, the corresponding programs should be established across the state (Wagner et al., 2018). The non-profit organization will be useful in creating corresponding outreach programs. Therefore, the institution will be involved in providing training, awareness, and motivation activities.
To effectively collaborate with ALA, it is imperative to develop the plan for collaboration, including funding requirements and relevant proposals. These two documents provide the basis for the course the company will support. Boardroom meetings and discussions will be scheduled to deliberate on the collaboration (Wagner et al., 2018). During these engagement sessions, the initiative will demonstrate its alignment to the ALAs values, mission, and vision. After successfully involving the relevant parties concerning the partnership, Georgia leadership will be engaged for strategic future and sustainability initiatives and other long-term goals (Wagner et al., 2018). The agreement of the partnership will culminate into the determination of each partys role. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be developed to ensure appropriation of roles and engagement terms.
Goal Alignment
Both the American associations public participation programs and goals are aligned to the current public policy issue, which aims at legislating smoking in public places. First, to promote lung health and related complications, the public and policymakers must be involved. Secondly, while advocacy and public policy are essential to this course, it is imperative to conduct the necessary interventions to curb smoking in the community, as well as households. Hence, the American Lung Association will be crucial to achieving public policy with substantial support from the publics members.
Action Steps
One of the fundamental initiatives is the creation of capacity in society and governance. To achieve this goal, the involved stakeholders must undertake the due political and social activities, including educating the community about the need to minimize smoking, more so in the public domain. After educational and awareness programs, the relevant stakeholders should seek individuals to participate in the cessation of public policy (Wagner et al., 2018). Thus, the creation of centers for cessation programs is a fundamental requirement (Estreet et al., 2017). The successful candidates will be empowered to scale the discourse to the community to support the legislation process. The community and organizational advocacy programs will convince the policymakers, hence the issues progression and support to the state assembly.
Roles and Responsibilities
Every stakeholder has a role to play in advocacy, education, and policy implementation. The healthcare workers involved will be useful in demonstrating and training the community workers to effectively conduct their duties. The American Lung Association will facilitate the creation of cessation facilities, community-based education and awareness programs (Estreet et al., 2017). The widespread knowledge of the detriments of public smoking and benefits gained from cessation programs will strengthen the case for legislation. In this regard, the members of the public will be involved in advocacy. Finally, the non-profit organization will be involved in the higher-level decision making by documenting the necessary course of action with respect to policy formulation and public health interventions. The policymaker will present the motion for the corresponding law and desired policies.
Each stakeholder is charged with roles and responsibilities to ensure the collective goal achievement. ALA will provide the capacity-building resources associated with training the locals regarding smoking adversities and interventions. Trainers and educators will assist in the cessation programs and insights regarding the health burdens. The management will offer critical insights regarding social work and public health approaches to address the community needs.
Key Elements of Evaluation Plan
The evaluation plan is instrumental in aligning the corresponding activities to achieve the main goal effectively. In this regard, the plan must meet fundamental collaboration requirements. The following elements in line with CBPR principles will be useful in the evaluation plan: trust levels between the stakeholders, integration of the teams to achieve the collective goal, and widespread familiarity of the public policy issue among the stakeholders. Mutual knowledge and corresponding course of action, iterative processes to examine success in terms community-based objectives, and sharing of knowledge among all parties are also vital.
The plan for evaluation will entail phases and activities to examine the success of objectives, as well as collaboration goals. Processes will be evaluated on the basis of the established plans, development, and execution (Wagner et al., 2018). The involved stakeholders should examine the progress in alignment with collaboration and sustainability goals. This approach also provides options for erratic or problematic issues to improve mutual cooperation. With respect to community and stakeholders engagement, impact evaluation will be utilized, focusing on consistency with goals related to capacity building, collaboration, and sustainable course (Wagner et al., 2018). The final stage will be outcome evaluation, which will examine the extent to which the community-based objectives are achieved.
Community/Organization Plan
The program must be evaluated against the goals at the individual, household, and community levels. It should also be examined with respect to public health and political process success. In evaluating the community plan, it is imperative to consider the scope of the work and processes. The activities and goals must be aligned to the particular demography, and the programs must cover all areas and meet representation requirements. This particular process must reach a substantial population of the people affected by the problem through household targeting, cessation programs, and popularization events (Estreet et al., 2017). The other measurement for achieving the objectives will be quantitative efficiency for cessation programs.
Evaluate the Effectiveness of the Two Different Approaches
Strengths of Each Approach
The top-bottom approach is an efficient methodology in situations where time and resources are limited. This mechanism does not require a lot of time to formulate and enact policies. In essence, it only involves a few and influential stakeholders, hence the ease in decision making and understanding of the issue. Since the stakeholders are mostly specialists or top-executives, achieving consensus is straightforward, saving time and resources. Therefore, it is cheaper and less time consuming due to the engagement of a few stakeholders, as well as short processes. Concerning the current issue, this method will be instrumental in faster implementation of the policy and low enactment costs.
The bottom-up approach is associated with three major strengths, motivation, empowerment, and positive influence and reception. This strategy empowers and encourages engagement with stakeholders from all walks of life. The result is empowerment in terms of knowledge for the subject matter, reception of policies at both lower and upper levels of the community, and the stakeholders motivation to implement the policy. These positive outcomes are due to acceptability and reception in the public domain. In terms of public smoking legislation, this particular approach is effective as it will be based on knowledge regarding the subject matter.
Challenges of Each Approach
The top-bottom may be subject to influence from wrong players and low participation. Wrong players can result in improper decisions, as well as self-centered decisions. Minimal public participation, especially in public health issues, may result in inefficient policing due to low levels of awareness and knowledge. Furthermore, the policy may also face resistance or impartial following, given the public social places where the offenders may not be reported.
The bottom-up approach can be subject to issues due to multiple stakeholders involvement, as well as different goals and interests, resulting in incoherent and slow processes. On the other hand, the involvement of the public implies reliance on less experienced individuals. Furthermore, the variations in goals, as well as ulterior motives, can lead to poor decisions. For the current issue, the entities in the tobacco products manufacturing can influence policing and corresponding interventions negatively; furthermore, this process, while educative, can take longer to implement.
Most Effective Approach
The bottom-top approach is likely to be more effective than the bottom down approach due to the nature of the public policy issue. Since legislative advocacy affects a significant population, it is imperative to foster public participation. This method will also help to tackle chronic smoking through cessation programs (Estreet et al., 2017). It is also likely to gain community support, hence the efficiency in the related public health issues. Unlike the top-bottom approach, which can be subject to resistance at the community level, the bottom-up approach will lead to risky behavior and perceptual change.
References
American Lung Association. (2020). American Lung Association mission. Lung.org. Web.
Nieh, H., Wu, W., Yen, L., Hurng, B., & Chang, H. (2018). Will personal values predict the development of smoking and drinking behaviors? A prospective cohort study of children and adolescents in Taiwan. Journal of Health Psychology, 23(7), 982-992. Web.
Stone, E. (2018). Evidence-based medicine and bioethics: Implications for health care organizations, clinicians, and patients. The Permanente Journal, 23, 18-30. Web.
Many people in the modern world are prone to bad habits. One of these habits is smoking, which many medical patients abuse in everyday life. Tobacco chemistry harms all organs without exception, adversely affecting the health of patients. As a result, in a year, a person 25-65 years old who quit smoking can show excellent results in improving their health, in comparison with those who continue to smoke.
Quitting Smoking
A year after stopping smoking, hoarseness in the voice may disappear, the patients tooth enamel will become lighter. The regeneration of the lungs will begin: the process will touch the cells called acini, from which the mucous membrane is built. Recovery can take up to a year, depending on the length of smoking (Weissmann, 2018). Over time, the smoker may begin to forget about coughing (Kaplan, 2019). At this stage, the risk of stroke, heart attack becomes lower.
Additionally, if the client had shortness of breath, then it may disappear. Moreover, for a smoker, the risk of developing cardiovascular disease is a few times higher than for a non-smoker. Diseases of the cardiovascular system are the leading cause of death worldwide. Tobacco chemicals, including nicotine, reduce the ability of cells to suppress the development of tumors. As a result, the likelihood of cancer formation increases (Hall et al., 2021). Quitting tobacco reduces the risk of developing tumors.
Conclusion
In conclusion, smoking is harmful to peoples health and has many consequences for various organs. By quitting smoking, a person can achieve many improvements in their health and appearance in a year. In comparison, a person who continues to smoke may develop additional diseases and health problems in the short and long term. Therefore, quitting the habit of smoking a person can radically change his life in just one year.
References
Hall, D. L., Neil, J. M., Ostroff, J. S., Hawari, S., OCleirigh, C., & Park, E. R. (2021). Perceived cancer-related benefits of quitting smoking and associations with quit intentions among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Journal of Health Psychology, 26(6), 831-842. Web.