Are you struggling to quit smoking? Did you know that your efforts may be the cause of increased smoking? Researchers have established that suppressing a behavior leads people to think more about the suppressed issue. These results were taken from a three-week study conducted on a group of participants who were trying to quit their smoking behavior. The group was contrasted with a control group whose participants were smokers who had not expressed the desire to quit their smoking behavior. Over the observation period, the researchers were able to establish a unique pattern of behavior rebound that may make the process of quitting smoking more complicated.
The researchers observed that during the first and the second weeks of the suppressed behavior, the participants successfully managed to reduce their intake of cigarettes. This was attributed to their efforts to reduce cigarette intake consciously. As participants continued with the suppressed behavior, it was observed that they become more consciously aware of their suppressed needs. Somehow, this led to an increased desire to take more cigarettes in the second week of the observation period. However, there was no immediate increase in the number of cigarettes taken by the participants as they struggled to quit smoking. This resulted in increased levels of stress as the participants reported that they were thinking about smoking more than when they were not cautiously controlling their smoking habit.
The increased thoughts about smoking which were above the average number of times that the smokers who were not trying to quit smoking thought about their smoking behavior led the psychologist to believe that a conscious effort to change a specific behavior leads to a rebound of the suppressed behavior (Erskine et al., 2010). This makes quitting the identified behavior even harder. As the participants struggled to suppress the behavior in the second week, they became stressed and even generated a greater urge to smoke. This means that the more people suppress a thought, the more they think about it, and thus, the more they are likely to do what they were suppressing.
In week three, it was observed that the group that was trying to quit smoking smoked more than the group that was not trying to quit smoking. Psychologist attributed the rebound behavior to the effects of suppression as the group that was trying to suppress their smoking urges constantly thought about their smoking behavior. Therefore, they were more in constant thought of their behavior, and thus they were prone to smoking more than their counterparts who were not trying to quit the behavior. Due to the stress associated with the suppressed behavior, the researchers observed that during the third week of the observations, there was a tendency among the participants to increase their average smoking habit.
The research findings have put the whole concept of behavior modification into jeopardy. The new concept and the newly developed ironic process theory that explains the rebound behavior observed among the research participants is an indication that the general perception of behavior modification may have to be changed. Otherwise, how do you explain the raised cigarette consumption in week three? The research has huge implications in the field of behavior modification as it explains why some behavior modification efforts are not successful among the selected participants.
Reference
Erskine, J., A., K., Georgiou, G., J. and Kvavilashvili, L. (2010). I Suppress, Therefore I Smoke: Effects of Thought Suppression on Smoking Behavior. Psychological Science. 21 (1225).
The psychological environment and stressful situations often prevent people from predicting further actions and behavior. The outcomes of suppression and stress can be different and, therefore, smoking cannot be expelled from the list either. In the article under analysis called I suppress, Therefore I smoke: Effects of Thought Suppression on Smoking Behavior, the authors dedicate their study to the evaluation of human behavior as well as the influence of stress and thought suppression on smoking behavior. The researchers have also explained the effects of controlling thoughts and emotions as well as have defined what consequences it can have for individual health.
The main idea of the research is to define whether stressful situations, as well as excessive control of emotions and thoughts positively, affect the number of cigarettes smoked during a day. In order to conduct the research, the scholars resort to the sampling method and define the target audience via e-mailing and analyzing the questionnaires fulfilled by the chosen volunteers. The selected group is further subjected to other experiments designed for a period of 3 weeks. Gender and age characteristics have also been fixed. In addition, the participants have also been asked about the frequency as well as the negative effects triggering them to smoke more. Specific scales have been designed to find out the stress level and intensity of influence of negative situations on thought suppression. The individuals taking part in the experiment were divided into the suppression group, the expression group, and the controlled group.
The findings have revealed that suppression groups smoked much less compared to other observed groups. Such a situation was typical for the participants of this group, irrespective of age and gender affiliation. Further, similar results were observed, despite the fact that the participants from the suppression group were told not to change their behavior, which provides the implications to believe that short-term suppression can be effective in diminishing the displays of unwanted behavior. Finally, the researchers have noticed the changes in the stress levels during all three weeks indicating that stress increases with the increase in suppression. In addition, the correlation between the attempts of the participants to quit smoking as well as the stressful situations, was also evident. In particular, the researchers have found that there were no attempts to quit smoking.
The study presented in the article is consistent with the resources, evidence, and materials used. The methods of the research are also relevant and have contributed greatly to the analysis of the results and procedures. It should also be stressed that the authors have managed to introduce theoretical frameworks and effectively apply them to practical knowledge. The experiment has also revealed significant implications for further research on smoking cessation. Specifically, it is possible to dedicate future studies to the evaluation of conditions and favorable environments needed to reduce smoking behavior. Alternative patterns of behavior can be designed to contribute to problem resolution. Therefore, the article is of great importance for the studies in the sphere of psychology and controlling behavior.
References
Erskine, J. A. K., Georgiou, G. J., Kvavilashvili, L. (2010). I suppress therefore I smoke: effects of thought suppression on smoking behaviour. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1225-1230. Print.
Behavior modification method is a technique used to change the inappropriate maladaptive behaviors and lifestyle that negatively impacts an individual’s life with more appropriate positive behaviors that builds reputable character and good lifestyle. Cigarette smoking has been documented to cause a remarkable increase in coronary and other cardiovascular diseases among smokers. The approximate number of people succumbing to death from coronary artery disease is 21.5% whereas those dying from stroke and other heart related ailments is approximately 18% (Fiore 121). Cigarette smoking has also lead to an increased incidence of lung, oral and renal cancer. These diseases that arise from smoking can be reduced to a lower risk level or even completely eradicated by deploying smoking cessation behavior modification techniques and sticking by it to the later.
Key modification methods
Lifestyle modification-this is a technique that gradually helps smokers drift away from habits that may compromise their pursuit to quit smoking. These modifications include keeping off from alcohol during the smoking cessation period, avoiding being idle by finding something to do or going for along walk during leisure time and also eating healthy food and plenty of water to help in cleaning up the system.
Seeking counseling and advice from the physician-this is crucial in boosting the patient’s esteem and giving them morale to successfully undertake the program. The physicians may use the five A’s model to facilitate smoking cessation and this includes: Ask-may ask the patient about tobacco use, Advice the patient to quit smoking, Assess patient’s desire to quit, Assist the patient to quit and lastly Arrange for follow up address. This is a very critical process more so during the first weeks where withdrawal tendency and risk of relapse is very high.
Smoking cessation programs-these are programs designed to help smokers quit from smoking by putting measures in place to help them modify their behaviors and habits in the course of achieving the ultimate goal of quitting cigarette smoking.
Nicotine replacement therapy-this is a treatment offered to patients on smoking cessation to cut down their craving and appetite for smoking by administering small doses of nicotine using special smoking cessation products. This therapy when properly administered is very effective in helping the victims abstain from smocking. The benefits that come with the use of these products far much outweigh any associated side effects that emanates from their use. Some of the approved smoking cessation medications including: bupropion SR, nicotine gum, nicotine inhaler, nicotine lozenge, nicotine patch and nicotine nasal spray. We will discuss each of these medications and relate them to their respective behavior modification techniques.
Medications for Smoking Cessation
Bupropion SR –it does not contain nicotine but can be effectively used as a smoking cessation product. Some of the advantages of using bupropion include: it is a non-nicotine tablet which is very easy to use and can also be used together with nicotine replacement therapies. Bupropion has a number of side effects which includes: may result in insomnia or restlessness, persistent headaches, depressed moods, hostility, tremors, nausea or anxiety. Research has documented that about 21%-30% of users in a period of 6 months, have successfully quitted smoking. The cost incurred per day for this medication is estimated at $4.33.
Nicotine gum-is in the form of a chewing gum that administers small doses of nicotine into the blood stream through tissues in the mouth during the chewing process. Some of the advantages of using this product include: can be easily accessed over the counter, it is very efficient in delivering nicotine and does not have a fixed dosage. Its disadvantages include: cannot be administered immediately after meals, its prolonged use may result in painful jaws and requires regular dosing. About 27% of its users have successfully quitted smoking in a period of 6 months. The cost of nicotine gum is $ 10.33 per day for patients who smoke about 15 cigarettes per day.
Nicotine inhaler– is a metered dose inhaler that effectively administers nicotine doses into the patient’s lungs as an inhalant. Some of its advantages include: its mode of application is in a way similar to the act of smoking and it has very few side effects. Its disadvantages include: may result in throat irritation and it also requires frequent dosing. About 23% of its users in 6 months have obtained positive results. Its cost per day is approximated at $9.50 on an average of 12 cigarettes per day.
Nicotine lozenge-occurs in the form tablets containing a dose of nicotine that gets into the system through the mouth. Some of its advantages include: can be obtained over the counter, delivers nicotine more efficiently than the patch and has a flexible dosing. Disadvantages include: can result in dyspepsia and cannot be administered immediately after meals. Its success has been rated at 21% in 6 months. The cost of 2 to 4 mg is approximated at $8.88 per day.
Nicotine patch-is a transdermal patch used to administer nicotine into the patient’s system through the dermal layer of the skin. Its advantages include: can be obtained over the counter, its prolonged overnight use helps to minimize the cravings in the morning hours and has few side effects. Its disadvantages are: may result in skin infections if not properly used, it is not very efficient in administering nicotine and it is also not flexible in terms of dosing. Its success has been rate at 21% in 6 months. The cost of 21mg is $ 4.00 per day.
Nicotine nasal spray-is a powdery product made from grounded tobacco leaves that is snuffed through the nose. Its advantages include: it is the most efficient and fastest method of administering nicotine, it also minimizes craving within a short while and has a flexible dosing. Some of its disadvantages include: it is the most addictive among the products, can result in nose and eye irritation and demands frequent dosing.
Positive Reinforcement Technique
From the above mentioned medications, the modification technique deployed in all the cases is a positive reinforcement technique where the patients are motivated towards acquiring positive habits and high discipline standards that will help then avoid relapsing and the reward for this is evading many cigarette related diseases like lung cancer, cardiovascular diseases, stroke and many others and living a healthy life in the long run.
Conclusion
The most effective behavior modification technique among college students is bupropion because it is very effective and affordable, has the shortest treatment duration of 12 weeks, it is easy to use and does not contain nicotine and the most effective technique to use in seminars is nicotine patch because it is the cheapest product and readily available over the counter. It also has very few side effects hence the most appropriate technique to be used in seminars.
Work cited
Fiore, Michael C. Smoking Cessation:Clinical Practice Guidline. New York: Sterling Publishing, 1996.
For numerous decades, smoking has remained the most disastrous problem in the universe in spite of the full awareness of the risk accompanied with its use. It results into detrimental effects in the human body and has been linked with numerous diseases such as heart attack, lung and mouth cancers among other ailments.
In addition, tobacco use in open vicinity is harmful because it affects both the consumer and other members of the public who inhale it. Nevertheless, smoking is dangerous to the society as a whole due to its polluting nature and impact on the environment (Williams 180). Therefore, it should be banned in the United States.
The substances in tobacco are harmful for a human life. They damage most of the internal body organs leading to poor health of the consumer. Tar and nicotine are the major contributors of lung, kidney, throat, and mouth cancers and above all lead to death. Presently, “most of the American citizens suffer from tobacco-related diseases” (Shrestha 1).
It is unfortunate that tribulations caused by tobacco are not only dangerous for the smokers but also for the members of the public. People who do not smoke are also exposed to the risk when they inhale the smoke. The gas is harmful to the health of passive smokers. The research has indicated that people living with addicts have twenty five to thirty percent of developing lung cancer (Williams & Torrens 120).
Its impact is not only on the smokers, but also on the county’s economy. The statistics shows that the American government spends approximately fifty billion dollars every year to treat cigarette related diseases. The use of cigarettes causes economic problems to the households since the prices are high and most of the citizens are below the poverty line.
Research shows that poor citizens use up to twenty five percent of their total income on cigarettes, instead of contributing to family development. As a result, its use should be banned in the United States. The government should find the most reliable way of stopping the drug in the country. It should first start by giving a ban on its use in public places such as restaurants to reduce the premature death of passive smokers.
However, stopping people from smoking on the other hand might not be that easy as it will be violating their conjugal rights as citizens (a habit which they should not be deprived of). It becomes addictive to them, thus, posing ban on it might not be of any help to them.
The United States economy has been boosted by high taxes extracted from the cigarette sales. So, this ban may cause the decline in the American economy. In addition, cigarette companies have provided many American citizens with employment in various sectors. In this way, they considerably reduce the level of poverty in the country.
The government should find another alternative means of providing employment to the citizens apart from the cigarette industry. In addition, the government should come up with another alternative source of revenue rather than that from cigarettes.
Last and the most vital thing, the government should develop a strategy of educating people on the negative impacts of tobacco use so that they can realize by themselves that their lives are in great danger. In conclusion, the situation has to be changed in the United States as it poses great danger to the public. The associated benefits are outweighed by the disadvantages, hence smoking should be banned in the United Sates.
Smoking is a widespread habit that causes many diseases. The issue of whether to ban smoking indoors by the governments of various countries is popular as they try to take a step towards curbing the harmful effects of smoking. People support smoking bans because they understand the harmful effects.
Some governments have put in place partial smoking bans, and others have passed total smoking bans. This literature review will focus on the whether the United States government should pass a nationwide indoor smoking ban. The difference between partial and total smoking bans. Moreover, smoking at workplaces.
Wye, Bowman, Wiggers, Baker, Knight, Carr, et al (2010) says in Australia smoking is the leading cause of disease burden. The rate of smoking is very high among patients diagnosed with psychiatric disorders, and many of them succumb to smoking related illnesses than their counterparts without the disorders.
Total smoking ban is better than partial smoking ban because it protects non smokers from the effects of secondary smoke. The smokers find that they have to cut down the number of cigarettes they smoke in a day as long as they are in total ban smoking areas. The total smoking ban may encourage them to give up the habit.
Whereas, partial smoking ban may paint the picture that smoking is fine as long as one does so in a designated area. Yet, the harmful effects continue to undermine their health. For instance, in a mental health facility that practices total smoking ban treatments for nicotine dependence are high unlike in those that have partial bans.
For total smoking ban to be successful all the stakeholders in a health institution or in a country need to be included in the strategy. The inclusion of people in implementing the total smoking ban will lead to acceptance and compliance.
If the stakeholders are not included some will be hostile to the smoking ban, and it might not be successful. However, there is limitation in findings of prior researches on staffs’ view on the issue of total smoking bans in mental health institutions.
The attitude towards smoking in the workplace is mainly negative (Walsh Paul, Paras, Stacey, Tzelepis, et al, 2011). Studies show that many people prefer if employees did not smoke at their workplaces. Many workplaces have implemented a total smoking ban. Many employees are okay with the ban because they do not like their smoking colleagues exposing them to secondary smoke.
Moreover, employees waste time during working hours as they take a break to go. and smoke. The breaks affect their productivity hence they do not give their best to their employers.
Thus, there is a negative attitude towards workers smoking in their work places. Therefore, one will not see many people smoking at the workplaces openly because of the negative attitude, but will see them smoking outside for instance in parks, bus or rail stops, and home.
On the other hand, we have the partial smoking bans. Some governments have passed partial smoking bans to cut down on the cost of smoking both in social, and health terms. The introduction of the bans is not old and many countries such as the United States have taken a step to look into the effects of secondary smoke to people.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention was given the responsibility of studying the effects of secondhand smoke. The findings showed that the number of people suffering from heart attacks decreased. However, there is still no concrete evidence to support that short time exposure to secondary smoke leads to an increase in suffering from cardiovascular diseases.
Secondhand smoke has been shown to cause problems to individuals around the smoker and hence partial bans do not protect the people in the same environment as the smoker. For instance, some hotels and bars have smoking areas, but people near those areas are still exposed to the harmful effects of the secondary smoke.
Some studies have been done to examine if partial smoking bans are effective than total smoking bans, and the pros and cons of each (Hofmann & Nell, 2012). However, there is no conclusive study about which type of ban is better, but the bottom line is that smoking bans improve the welfare of the society.
In conclusion, the United States government should pass a nationwide indoors smoking ban because the harmful effects of smoking cannot be underestimated. The number of people suffering from smoke related diseases is high thus an indoor smoking ban can help to reduce the numbers.
Moreover, many people seem to be in agreement that smoking indoors, and exposing the other people to secondary smoke is not good. Hence many would support the indoors smoking ban. The government needs to make a concerted effort to enforce laws against indoor smoking to protect its citizens from the negative effects of smoking, and ease the burden on the health sector.
More importantly, the government should bring all the stakeholders on board so that they can support the indoor smoking ban, and avoid law suits by those who feel that the ban may be infringing on their personal freedoms.
Besides, the population should be sensitized about the harmful effects of firsthand and secondhand smoke so that they can embrace the smoking bans and in the process deter those who are considering taking up the habit, and encourage those who smoke to quit.
Reference List
Hofmann, A., & Nell, M. (2012). Smoking bans and the secondhand smoking problem: An economic analysis. The European Journal Of Health Economics, 13(3), 227-236. doi:10.1007/s10198-011-0341-z
Walsh, R., Paul, C., Paras, L., Stacey, F., & Tzelepis, F. (2011). Workplace- related smoking in New South Wales: extent of bans, public attitudes and relationships with relapse. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 22(2), 85- 90.
Wye, P., Bowman, J., Wiggers, J., Baker, A., Knight, J., Carr, V., &… Clancy, R. (2010). Total smoking bans in psychiatric inpatient services: a survey of perceived benefits, barriers and support among staff. BMC Public Health, 10372-382. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-372
In essence, the main thrust of the ban against smoking is connected to the widely spread notion that second hand smoke has detrimental effects on the health of bystanders. It is argued that workers who inhale second hand smoke on a daily basis are placed at risk of developing the same type of detrimental health effects that smokers subject themselves to and as such presents itself as a real health concern in workplace environments (METRO BRIEFS, 2011).
Originally, prohibiting smoking within establishments was under the option of the property owner however as the notion of the detrimental health effects of second hand smoke proliferated this resulted in a smoking ban put into effect by certain towns, cities and most recently the state of New York (METRO BRIEFS, 2011).
What must be understood is that the smoking ban that will be put into effect is a direct result of two rights clashing against each other, namely: the right of people to work/eat etc. in a safe environment and the right of smokers not to be discriminated against as a social group.
It must be noted though that the effects of secondary smoke on bystanders is still inconclusive and the potential economic reversals that may occur as a direct result of the ban are potentially considerable. As such, this paper will explore whether the various reasons behind the smoking ban are justifiable, if the after effects are potentially detrimental and will judge if the ban is a justifiable form of discrimination against a particular social group.
Justifying the Ban on Smoking
An examination of the literature leading up to the New York Ban on smoking reveals that the primary reason behind the ban itself is due to concerns related to the effects of second hand smoke on the general public (Philippidis, 2002). While smokers take it upon themselves to knowingly degenerate their lungs and general physical health other individuals do not take up such a choice.
While there have been no conclusive studies examining the effects of prolonged exposure to second hand smoke, enough studies have shown that smoke from cigarettes contains the same detrimental effects as what a smoker takes into his own body. It is based on studies such as this that the ban on smoking is justified since it is assumed that prolonged exposure to cigarette smoke will result in the same level of exposure as compared to a normal smoker (The Beat, 2007).
Restaurant workers are especially at risk since unlike the average smoker who stops smoking from time to time waiters, bartenders and other service attendants who are within a smoke filled environment on a constant basis due to the regular influx of smoking customers are thus exposed to greater concentrations of second hand smoke (Philippidis, 2002).
The detrimental effects are also stated as not being limited to service attendants alone but extend to the customers of various establishments who are also exposed to high levels of cigarette smoke. It is based on such factors and the potentially detrimental effects they have that the ban on smoking is seen as being a justifiable measure since not all individuals choose to willingly subject their bodies to prolonged deterioration as seen in the case of numerous smokers (The Beat, 2007).
Potential Aftereffects of the Smoking Ban
During the various events leading up to the establishment of the new law against smoking in public areas, numerous concerns had been raised of which the potential economic effects of the ban were among the most prevalent (Sales steady after N.Y. smoking ban, 2006). Banning smoking within restaurants and various establishments were though of as having the effect of alienating a particular consumer segment which would reduce business profits.
It was feared that smokers would merely go to establishments that allowed smoking versus those that didn’t resulting in a considerable loss of income (Sales steady after N.Y. smoking ban, 2006). In light of this potential situation the total prohibition of smoking in all establishments (with a few exceptions) was seen as the best possible solution of which restaurant and shop owners were all in agreement with.
The end result is a situation in which smokers would have to travel to adjoining states in order to smoke within various restaurants and establishments, an unlikely scenario given the high cost of gas and the inconvenience of having to travel just to eat and smoke at the same time. Thus the potential economic aftereffects of the smoking ban are negligible further justifying its implementation within the state of New York.
Is the ban a Justifiable form of Discrimination?
When examining the basis of the ban it can be seen that it is in essence a form of discrimination against smokers, as such it must be questioned whether it is ethically justifiable to effectively ban an activity which is done by a particular social demographic.
What must be understood is that unlike other forms of discrimination such as those pertaining to race, ethnicity and gender; smoking actually has a verifiable detrimental effect on people (SIEGEL, 2011). Coming from a particular gender, race or ethnic background doesn’t cause any detrimental effects to people within a particular area while smoking does cause the prevalence of second hand smoke which is considered to be hazardous to a person’s health.
It is based on these facts that it can be seen that discrimination on the basis of race, gender and ethnicity is unjustifiable since there are no immediate effects noted while smoking has verifiable negative effects which makes it justified to discriminate against it since it posses a distinct health risk to people within a particular location (SIEGEL, 2011).
Conclusion
Based on the various facts and arguments presented in this paper I would like to state that I am in favor of the smoking ban in New York since as it can be seen it posses little detrimental economic aftereffects, creates a safer working and eating environment for people within the state and based on the fact that it is considered a health hazard makes it justifiable to discriminate against its use within public areas.
The statement “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is applicable in this particular case since it is in the best interest of the majority to preserve their health as compared to the perceived convenience of smoking for the minority of smokers within the state.
Reference List
METRO BRIEFS. (2011). New York Amsterdam News, 102(8), 3. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Philippidis, A. (2002). Golden Apple considers NYC smoking ban. Westchester County Business Journal, 41(34), 5. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Sales steady after N.Y. smoking ban. (2006). Indianapolis Business Journal, 27(21), 20A. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
SIEGEL, M. B. (2011, May 6). A Smoking Ban Too Far. New York Times. p. 27. Retrieved from EBSCOhost..
The Beat. (2007). Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(10), A491-A493. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Even though the Canadian government has illegalized the trade of cannabis, it is evident that it still legalizes it overtime considering the events that have happened and continue to happen, among them being the 4/20 protest. Every 4th of April, protesters meet to celebrate the smoking of pot and demand that the product to be legalized just as tobacco. The law enforcers are always on the lookout to ensure that safety is maintained during such occasions. However, they do little or nothing to control the smoking of the pot.
4/20 protest in Canada
The code 4/20 is rumored to have been started by ‘the Waldos’ in San Rafael High School. They used it to refer to the time they met to smoke pot which was usually at about 4:20pm everyday. The name was later used as a code by other pot smokers to keep the police, parents or school administrators unaware of their activities. There are other stories that speculate the origin of the code which may not be ascertained at the moment.
However, what is known for sure is the date the protests began and it is believed to be in 1995. It all started in Vancouver when a manager, Rozek, and one hempe store employee, Cindy, put up a request to their boss, Marc Emery, to start the movement. “They asked if they could hold a 4/20 celebration next door in Victory park”. Marc declined this request but they insisted on going ahead with their plans despite his lack of approval.
Therefore on April 4th, 1995, about 200 hundred people met in Victory Park and smoked pot all day long while playing loud music. In the following years the number of people who joined the meeting had grown to five hundred and promised to become even larger. By 1997, the number had grown to such an extent that the venue was too small. “It is then that Vancouver Art gallery was selected as the next venue and has been used to date”[1].
The main occurrence in the celebration is the smoking of pot and its trade. Police deployed to the scene do not engage themselves in preventing the smoking of cannabis. Rather, they insist that their main responsibility is to combat those who traffic and smuggle the commodity.
Cannabis trade in Canada
The growth of cannabis in Canada can be dated back to the early seventeenth century. It is actually believed to be one of the first crops that had been farmed in Canadian soil. “Parisian is believed to have migrated to Nova taking with him a wealth of knowledge on the farming of cannabis” [2]. The trade has been going on since that time to the present day.
Initially, it was grown naturally but due to the new rules set by the administration, farmers have gone the extent of growing the product indoors. In order to achieve this, state-of-art equipment was used to attain almost natural atmospheric conditions that are favorable for the growth of the product. The THC content in the marijuana grown in doors ranges from 10-15% while that from naturally grown marijuana contains slightly over 2%. The indoors product thus fetches good money in the market.
“The trade is said to be masterminded by Vietnamese gangs who operated in family units, a large market share of the product sold come from the Vietnamese groups”[3]. The units can range from as few as four to as many as a hundred people. The operations revolve around how debts are settled and secrets kept in the area. “The main strength of the trade is the co-operation exhibited among families that keep the business well networked and funded”.[4]
The multibillion business has grown so dynamic that the Vietnamese groups have gone to the extent of hiring security men to guard the crop. These groups then sell the grown product to other organized gangs in the region. The families preferred the trade to the normal day jobs as they regarded it as a quick way to make cash.
Besides, their language was poor and would not permit them to secure well paying jobs. Cannabis often goes to the extent of being traded at $6000 for every pound. Given these insane amounts, people can then manage to do all that money can do. “Helicopters are sometimes used in the trade, particularly for transit purposes”[5].
The trade was first illegalized in the late nineteenth century. Then, the police were on the look out for all the smugglers in the region and for any equipment that would be on transit with the intension of the cannabis growth. When the rule was first established, people brushed it off saying people would eventually break the rule.
The example given was the tobacco trade that was illegalized for one decade and legalized in the years that followed. Government efforts to decrease the trade in the industry may have doubled but many of those convicted ended up in being bailed out only to embark on the trade.
Many of the 4/20 protesters argue that the product has medicinal value unlike tobacco, yet the later is legalized while the former is illegalized. The money spent on combating the growth and trade of the product should be re-channeled and boosted from the revenues of marijuana to cater for the health issue of the people in general. According to them, “cannabis users never commit the social crimes such as wife battering that is pronounced among drunkards”[6].
Effects of cannabis on the Canadian society
Cannabis, unlike other drugs, has both positive and negative effects. Acute use of the product can result in increased vulnerability to heart and lung diseases. However, the effects occur rarely and in occasional cases will lead to the loss of memory by the user. Studies conducted indicate that cannabis has no relation to increased crime. “Drunken people often become violent but cannabis does not particularly cause aggression”.[7]
Among the positive effects of consumption of the drug are reduced pains, anti-vomiting and anti-spasmodic. Owing to these effects, the Canadian society has not been affected gravely by the product. However, the frequent charges imposed on the people found in possession of cannabis have increased greatly.
Canadian government and cannabis
The laws that govern the possession of cannabis in Canada have often been accused of having no particular effect on curbing the trade of the product. Though the product is illegal, the smoking of the drug is carried out in the open right in front of the law enforcers. Activities of the government have in the long-run led to the implicit legalization of the product.
This effect has manifested itself in different ways. For instance, the prohibition of the drug as per the bill passed in 1923 indicates no apparent reason for the enlisting of the drug as illegal. “Its inclusion may have been done by accident”. [8].Therefore, when the law enforcers began executing the law, they had never felt the urgency of holding culprits. It is no surprise that the first case of one charge with possession of cannabis occurred more than nine years after the bill had been passed.
Secondly, the ambiguity in the law causes confusion to even the law enforcers. The law states that “cultivation of cannabis is illegal except for when it is used for medicinal purposes”.[9]
This does not specify how much of the product should be for the medicinal value. It also implies that individuals who are found in possession of the product and who smoke it are called not be tried against the law. Therefore, when policemen are deployed to the 4/20 protest areas, they do not arrest those who smoke; instead they claim to be on the look out for those causing chaos or found trafficking the drug.
Another factor is the kind of action taken against those found in possession of the cannabis, “culprits are taken in for a few days, charged and then released”.[10] The more relaxed the laws on the crimes committed by people, the more the perpetrators are encouraged to continue with their actions.
The Canadian government seems to take the cannabis case lightly. The policemen are not motivated to charge those found in possession of the drug. When they do, they never follow up the cases with seriousness they deserve. The courts, on the other hand are changed with responsibility of charging the criminals. However, “the ambiguous law surrenders them into toothless dogs that only bark but never bite”.[11]
Initially, just after the enactment of the bill, people felt it was unfounded and strongly advocated for the legalization of the commodity. However, “all attempts to alter the act were thwarted by the emulation by foreign countries to ensure the drug is illegal”[12]. In 2002, Jean’s liberal government attempted to pass a bill that legalized small amounts of cannabis. However, the bill died when parliament was prorogued. Similar attempts were made in 2004, but still the bill died in the process and never made it into a law.
Following the pressure from the United States and other neighboring nations, the Canadian government is under pressure to stiffen its rules on cannabis trade in the nation. However, Canadians think otherwise, “Anglo Reid poll indicates that about 53% of Canadians seek the legalization of the drug”.[13]
Legalizing the drug would mean allowing the commodity to be legally traded within the nation’s borders. The cultivation would increase the supply of the product in the region and its great cash rewards would result in countries that have illegalized the trade experiencing frequent cases of cannabis smuggling.
To avoid such an occurrence, the Canadian government should amend the bill to be more precise on its restrictions and freedoms. Where possible, there should be no exceptions as they make the separation of the entities a difficult task. The policemen should then be motivated to charge anyone found in possession of marijuana- whatever the amount. Courts, on the other hand will be in a position to issue judgment accordingly.
Bibliography
Bello, Joan. The Benefits of Marijuana: Physical, Psychological & Spiritual . EAST YORK: Hushion House Publishing, 2003.
Carstairs, Catherine. Jailed for Possession: Illegal Drug Use, Regulation, and Power in Canada, 1920-1961. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2006.
Casavant, Lyne. Illegal Drug Use and Crime: A Complex Relationship. Ottawa: Library of parliament, 2001.
Erickson, Murray. Cannabis Criminals. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation, 1980.
Giffen, P. J., Shirley Endicott and Sylvia Lambert. Panic and indifference: The politics of Canada’s drug laws : a study in the sociology of law. Toronto: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse , 1991.
Howlett, Michael. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. 3rd ed. Washington: Oxford University Press, 2009.
MacCooun, Robert and Peter Reuter. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: “Reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate”. Journal of American Medicine, 1997: 49-56.
Martel, Marcel. Not This Time: Canadians, Public Policy, and the Marijuana Question, 1961-1975. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2006.
Nolin, Claude. Cannabis: Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2003.
Patton, David. Cannabis In Canada: Addiction Foundation, (May 2007): 10-15.
Rubin, Vera. The Science of Cannabis. Washington: National Institute of Medicine , 1999.
“The Legal Sanctions Related to Cannabis Possession/Use Position Statement”. CAMH. Web.
Footnotes
. “Marijuana use doubled over past decade: study”. CBCNEWS. Canada.
Lyne Casavant. Illegal Drug Use and Crime: A Complex Relationship. (Ottawa: Library of parliament, 2001).
Claude Nolin. Cannabis: Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2003.
Claude Nolin. Cannabis: Report of the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, 2003).
Murray Erickson. Cannabis Criminals. (Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation, 1980).
P. J.Giffen , Shirley Endicott and Sylvia Lambert. Panic and indifference: The politics of Canada’s drug laws : a study in the sociology of law. (Toronto: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 1991).
Joan Bello. The Benefits of Marijuana: Physical, Psychological & Spiritual . (EAST YORK: Hushion House Publishing, 2003).
David Patton. “Cannabis Use in Canada.” Cannabis In Canada: Addiction Foundation, (May, 2007): 10-15.
“Marijuana use doubled over past decade: study”. CBCNEWS. Canada.
Marcel Martel. Not This Time: Canadians, Public Policy, and the Marijuana Question, 1961-1975. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006).
Catherine Carstairs. Jailed for Possession: Illegal Drug Use, Regulation, and Power in Canada, 1920-1961. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006).
Michael Howlett. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. (Washington: Oxford University Press; Third Edition edition, 2009).
The state of Florida sometime in July 2003 in line with the Public Health Chapter of its 2008 statutes enacted a policy that regulated indoor tobacco smoking. It was natural to react to the failure by the Federal Government to enact a Federal Nationwide Smoking Ban.
The ban sought to outlaw smoking in all enclosures with the exception of private residences, shops dealing in retail tobacco, selected smoking areas in hotels, bars whose earning from sale of food forms less than one tenth of its income, medical research premises smoking is specifically part of a cessation program as well as elected smoking zones in customs transit areas manned by the Department Of Homeland Security.
The state of Florida spends up to 60$ million every year in efforts aimed at controlling tobacco and tobacco related ailments. This is 150$ million short of the recommendation by Center for Disease Control on states spending towards this cause. This amount can be substantially reduced if an effective smoking ban policy is put in place to reduce the number of people affected by this killer menace.
Various other alternative policies have been suggested the object of which is to cut across the various interests affected by any Smoking Ban Legislation. It is important that all available options be examined before a policy is adopted. This paper seeks to lay out these options and suggest the most ideal of them.
Nature of the Problem
Up to 17.5 % of the adult population in the state of Florida is made of tobacco smokers.18.5% are male smokers while 16.4% are female smokers. Florida is ranked the 18th in the list of states with the highest number of smokers in its population.
Among the youths those between the age of 12 and 17, one in every ten teenagers is a smoker making it the 13th state with the greatest number of teenage smokers within this age group (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data, 2008)
For all intents and purposes Florida lacks a minimum price law but however requires that all retail sellers of tobacco related products be licensed. Despite the numerous statutes regulating the sale and consumption of tobacco the annual mortality rate attributed to cigarette and tobacco related ailments is up to 28,600 people.
This makes it the 20th in the list of states with the highest number of people dying from smoking. Even more compelling the state spends up to 25% of the revenue it receives from excise taxes to fund tobacco control. (Center for Decease Control, 2010)
On the other hand the state receives up to 450$million in excise tax from its 40 cents a pack taxation policy as at 2004(The Smokers Club, 2008). It is also apparent that a policy on smoking does not only affect cigarette suppliers and retailers but also affects entertainment joints as well as restaurants and bars since smokers form part of their clientele.
According to a Gullup poll 51 % of smokers think that smoking bans are justified and 47% are of the opinion that they are a form of unjust discrimination and victimization against them.
Majority of people are of the opinion that there should be a total ban on smoking in restaurants as opposed to providing for designated smoking areas. Majority also think that went it comes to workplaces hotels and bars it would be more appropriate to provide specific smoking zones as opposed to total bans (Saad, 2007)
The implications of the policy adopted therefore affect several essential sectors of the economy and hence a need to balance the conflicting needs of the population and its participants. It is therefore important to maintain a level playing field for all parties involved.
Background on Current Policy
The quest for a viable and reliable policy on smoking began back in 1985 when the then legislature modeled the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act. The substance of the act was to restrict smoking in public places except in particular areas provided for as smoking zones. The act has undergone fundamental amendments and the most recent reform initiative is the 2003 Public Health Indoor Tobacco Smoking Policy
The policy only affects workplaces and restaurants. Its sole purpose is to protect people from the health hazards of second hand tobacco smoke in furtherance of section 20 of the constitution of Florida.
The 2003 policy therefore just cuts across the divided interests in the industry and does as much as bend towards the consumer and non consumer battle which circles around public health and interest.
This however leaves out an important player in this game who is the supplier and the retailer who are considered as subsidiary interested parties who are made to comply with the compromise of the consumer and non consumer.
Policy Options
Below are such alternative policies that the administration could opt to adopt in place of the current policy.
Total Ban Policy
Substance
The policy entails a total ban on smoking in all public places including bars, gaming establishments, restaurants and hotels. This is a more authoritarian approach whose objective is at all costs to protect public interest. Public interest here will be measured by the conflict of numbers between the smokers and the non smokers.
As it is the number of smokers forms less than a quarter of the population hence their interests are greater and since democracy is the rule of the majority then these interests prevail. It therefore will require total abstinence from smoking in public places. It targets the reduction of chances of exposure to second hand smoke to members of the population who are non smokers.
The policy recommends the following regulations:
A total ban on smoking in public places including bars restaurants working places and hotels this is however with the exception of research institutions such as those whose objective it to rehabilitate smokers. Retail shops will also be accepted from this provision.
An increase of the sales tax on the cigarette to 50$ a pack.
All establishments shall bear in a conspicuous place writings to the effect that it is a non smoking establishment
Proponents
This policy bears its origin in the early fifteenth century in the era of the Mexican Ecclesiastical Council which banned the use of tobacco in any church in Mexico and any other Spanish colony in the Caribbean. The Pope in 1590 and 1624 also adopted the same approach and threatened any offender with excommunication.
This type of ban became popular in parts of Australia in the late 17th century in Berlin and Setting. The Nazi regime also adopted this approach until it’s down falling in 1945.
This campaign spilled over to the 20th century even amidst liberalism and found its way into Minnesota first only as a partial ban in 1975 then later as a total ban in 2007. It condemned smoking in restaurants and bars countrywide. It is currently enforced on 48 % of the American population (Taub, 2006)
Rationale
According to the American lung association (2011), deaths resulting from lung diseases continue to rise and the major contributor to these diseases is tobacco smoking. Chronic Respiratory Disease has quickly risen to the third most prevalent cause of death.
The most reasonable and humane cause of action would be to provide an airtight policy that will ensure that only those who choose to intentionally expose themselves to the effects of smoking are set in this risky path.
Criticisms
This policy is modeled towards ensuring that public interests are maintained at all cost. It therefore leaves out other essential factors that influence such a policy such as the minority interests that are embodied in the smoking population. This is an integral part of the policy that ensures that it complies with the doctrines of natural justice which must be obeyed by all laws.
This policy is too rigid and fails to conform to emerging trends in people’s conceptions of social evils and the entrance of more liberal approaches to problem solving. It foregoes the rights of smokers to free access to public facilities by restricting their chosen modes leisure.
It has also been suggested that this policy looks only to one cause and ignores the wider picture. A research published by Cotti (2008) suggests that with the imposition of smoking bans the number of fatal accidents arising from drunken driving has risen by 13%. This they attribute to smokers having to drive far away from jurisdictions that bear total bans and have consistent enforcement.
Tobacco companies are also likely to oppose this policy especially due to the increase in the sales tax which eats into their profits.
Cost implications
The policy proposes an extreme approach to the fight against tobacco consumption. It recommends an increase in the sales tax revenue to $50 cents a pack. This will imply an increase in the state revenue from sales and excise tax. An eighth of this amount (12.5%) will be used to finance anti smoking organizations such as rehabilitation centers and aid in the procurement of affordable medical services to victims of tobacco related ailments.
This will also mean that the annual budgetary spending on tobacco related disease control will increase tremendously and therefore more people will be able to access better health care at affordable fees in the rehabilitation centers.
Partial Ban
Substance
This policy tows the line drawn by the liberalist thinking of tolerance and forbearance. It proposes
A partial ban to smoking which exempts licensed bars and gaming establishments only.
Hotels and restaurants and workplaces are all non smoking zones
An increase of the sales tax on the cigarette to $75 cents a pack
An exemption of designated public smoking zones to be established by the relevant municipal authorities
Proponents
A lot of research ink has been published concerning economic effects of smoking policies. Majority of them suggest that it has no negative economic impact and subsequently could be considered to have positive effects on business (Eriksen & Chaloupka, 2007).
It matters not what you do outside your wok premises. Some on the other hand incur heavy losses in the form of health bills and insurance which goes to taking care of the smoking habit (Prochaska, 1983).
Proponents of this policy also point out that there are alternative ways of mitigating the effects of second hand smoke besides legislative bans one of which is proper ventilation.
Rationale
People smoke for varying reasons some of which are medically justifiable. In a research conducted and published by Cohen et al (2001) patients who were smokers were found to have lower rates of target lesion revascularization. 6.6% of smokers were found to have this disease as compared to 10.1% in nonsmokers.
Certain specific conditions such as lung cancer are accelerated once a smoker stops smoking although this is due to the rate of quitting smoking once the cancer has been diagnosed. (Herbert, 2010). Smoking is said to relax the mind and is therefore considered pleasurable to smokers. They are therefore entitled to a chance to enjoy such pleasure in the same way alcohol consumers do.
Criticism
It has been suggested that the effects of passive smoking can be reduced through ventilation and hence no need for smoking bans. Tobacco companies also will be affected by this policy and are likely to challenge this policy on grounds that it deters trade by making it unbearable to manufacture and distribute their product.
However it is established it is in good authority that these companies have the capacity to stretch even as far as 1$ a pack and still break even.
Cost implications
The economic impression in the policy despite being a liberal one is more totalitarian. It is sustained by the 75 $cents a pack approach. The annual revenue in this case however can be said to increase since consumers will ensure that they stay within the jurisdictional requirements. 25% of the amount will be used to finance rehabilitation and in the provision of healthcare and treatments for the patients and persons requiring special attention.
Liberated ban
Substance
This policy is a purely liberal approach which provides for
A partial ban to all public establishments including Hotels and restaurants and workplaces
An increase of the sales tax on the cigarette to 1$ a pack
The state shall require that before any hotel bar or restaurant is registered it shall indicate whether it is a smoking or non smoking establishment.
All establishments that allow smoking shall provide for specified smoking zones within these establishments as a condition before a license is granted
Smoking zones not be within not less than ten feet from a non smoking zone and that it should be adequately ventilated
Rationale
Smoking is a purely voluntary act and therefore the state should not interfere with the individual’s freedom to do as they please let alone regulate how they use that freedom. It therefore should merely restrict the extent to which the individual enjoyment of their rights affects others.
In effect therefore every person has an option to smoke at any of the designated smoking zones. It is a progressive policy both financial and legislative wise and strictly insists on coercing the consumer to reduce their consumption of the product. It makes it hard for the consumer to maintain the habit and deters others from it.
Criticism
The policy will probably face criticism from anti smoking campaigners on the basis that it is too liberal and does not hold the interests of the public at heart and that it bends too much toward the smoking population.
Tobacco companies are definitely going to criticize the policy on its cost effectiveness and applicability in a state like Florida. It is a rather ambitious policy in terms of the cost effectiveness. The justification however is that they have the potential to transfer the cost to their royal consumers.
Cost implication
The policy provides for a 1$per packet taxation policy which means that the revenue collected from the excise taxes as well as sales revenue will increase by a big margin.
A third (33%) of this revenue will be directed at financing organizations that facilitate provision of medical care and rehabilitation facilities to persons suffering from tobacco smoking ailments. 20% of these funds will be used to subsidize and provide incentives to establishments that offer to be non smoking zones. These incentives could be either monetary or trade incentives.
Advocated policy
According to the US Census Bureau, Florida’s population by 2009 is estimated at 18.6million with a per capita personal income of 38,000$. Virtually half of the smoking population in the state attempt to quit smoking every year.
Fig 1. A Proportion of Cigarette Users who try to quit.
This is a clear indication that a stringent policy will do little to deter the population from smoking. The people of Florida are aware of the effects of smoking and are willing to stop.
The first policy is the most appropriate for a state that has little awareness of the effects of tobacco smoking. It will be the most suitable for a state whose economy is still at its development stage since its financial implications on the tax burden is not as harsh as policy 2 and 3 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008)
Florida however is ranked the 54th in the states with the heaviest tax burden only four slots from being the state with the lightest tax burden. The first policy will therefore have minimal impact on the level of smoking in the state. It will most probably lead to more smokers opting to smoke in the privacy of their homes.
The policy would not also see the light of day since it goes against public opinion which seems to be okay with the idea of allowing smokers to smoke in bars and designated smoking zones.
Policy two which is literally the current policy is a viable policy if the suggested amendments are made. However it will only do as much as maintain the status quo since the suggested increase in excise tax falls within an affordable revenue index of an average income earner.
Like the first policy it will force the non drinking smoking population into seclusion and privacy of their homes. This in effect keeps them away from sensitization and out of reach for the anti smoking campaign.
The third policy on the other hand is an ambitious and progressive one which not only changes the approach to the fight against smoking by making acquisition of the commodity much more expensive but also gives society a chance to embrace the problem as one of their own.
The salient features of a progressive policy are its firm ability to influence its participants to develop a moral obligation to obey it yet still sanctioning them against disobedience.
The state facilitates this approach by providing subsidies to establishments that opt to be non smoking zones. It is also economically feasible since the tax increase falls within the reach for both the supplier and manufacturer and is self sustaining.
Conclusion
Employers spend up to $3400 every year on smoker related costs such as health care bills absenteeism and productivity lapses. The government has its own share of spending that keeps growing by the year. It is irrefutably clear that cigarette smoke contains up to 4800 chemicals some of which can solely cause heart disease and lung cancer the third most deadly diseases.
Every year at least 8.6 million people in the Unites States contract a smoking related illness. This translates to 20 people suffering from these illnesses for every person who dies from a smoking related disease. In children it is said to cause up to 300 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia annually (Healing Glaser Clinic, 2007)
Even more gripping 63% of students in their middle and teen ages were exposed to second hand smoke a week before the survey was done in the fall of the year 2000.
They were either exposed to this smoke in a room or a car. This figure has reduced drastically thanks to the enforcement of the 2003 policy. It could reduce even further if the recommendations of this policy memorandum are adopted. (Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 2000)
Policies in the past have acquired a dictatorial tone and have left he fight against tobacco smoking to the state civil organizations victims and patients. The suggested policy option will do more than bring these parties to harmony but also allocate responsibility to them and also bring aboard the suppliers and retailers input.
With the interests of the state at heart the people of Florida will have an opportunity to participate in governance and administration through civil obedience or actual constructive participation in the enforcement of this policy.
References
American Lung Association (2011). Stop smoking. Web.
Center for Decease Control. (2010). Smoking and Tobacco. Web.
Cohen, D. et al. (2001). Impact of Smoking on Clinical and Angiographic Reste-nosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Another Smoker’s Paradox? ; Boston Harvard Medical School.
Cotti, A. (2008). Drunk driving after the passage of smoking bans in bars. The Economist. Web.
Eriksen, M and Chaloupka, F. (2007). The Economic Impact of Clean Indoor Air Laws. Cancer Journal for Clinicians. Web.
Florida Youth Tobacco Survey. (2000).County Study & Data Book. Web.
Cigarette smoking and other forms of tobacco use are directly responsible for at least one-third of all cancer deaths annually. One reason why smoking has endured, in spite of its dreadful death statistics, is that cigarette is highly addictive and comparatively not expensive to buy. It is vital to fight this trend to ensure that the deaths emanating from smoking are reduced drastically.
Contextually, the dangers posed by smoking are numerous. Not only are the smokers at risk but also non-smokers. This is a considerable provision in the realms of health; hence, the efforts created by the government to curb this trend should be supported fully. Smoking kills, both directly and indirectly.
Canada, as a country, is no exception in this trend following the massive deaths it registers annually due to cancer and other related diseases (The Lung Association, 2012). In this regard, there is need to reduce the mentioned deaths for the benefit of the nation. Most families have been rendered hopeless due to cancerous attacks.
In addition, most children have been orphaned due to deaths caused by smoking, and societies are losing lots of funds on tobacco-related problems. Despite the economic gains registered from tobacco, its health concerns are devastating. Hence, it is vital to agree that there is need to reduce the smoking rates within the society. There are 2 different types of policies in the Canadian context.
This incorporates taxation policies and education policies. In fact, the government should impose high taxation provisions on cigarette manufacturers. This will eventually hike the prices of cigarette sticks in the market hence discouraging smokers.
Education, on the other hand, tends to sensitise the public against smoking (CBC News, 2011). The government, policy makers, and people in general are the concerned stakeholders in the fight against smoking. This paper seeks to reveal how the smoking phenomenon can be combated through “Taxation Policies” as well as “Education Policies”.
What the Theory Says
There are credible theories on how the two policies can be enhanced to help in the fight against smoking. This is a considerable provision when scrutinised critically. By applying the concept of elasticity of demand and supply to discuss (theoretically) how each type of policy (taxation and education) impact cigarette smoking, several ideologies emerge that indicate the possibility of attaining success in the fight against smoking.
First, high taxation provisions will force the cigarette manufacturers to increase the prices of their commodities due to increased operational and business costs. Consequently, the prices of cigarettes will increase forcing smokers to cut down on their demands for cigarettes. Eventually, there will be reduced smoking trends in the country.
Additionally, by increasing the taxation provisions, the supply of cigarettes will reduce (since most manufacturers might quit the industry) while the demand will increase. Consequently, the prices of cigarettes will also increase due to high demands.
Nonetheless, due to “demand, supply, and price” elasticity, high prices will discourage buyers who will consequently reduce their smoking rates following the high cost of cigarettes imposed on smokers indirectly by the government. The desires of those with purchasing power in regard to cigarette business will drastically reduce due to high taxation provisions.
Hence, high taxation quest will help in reducing the aspects of smoking within the Canada and beyond (CBC News, 2011). Only the few individuals who will be able to afford the prospected high costs of cigarette will smoke. Nonetheless, the majority will reduce their smoking trends. Educational programs executed to sensitise the youth and other vulnerable groups have also been put in place by the Health Canada.
Canadian Examples
In the last decade, smoking rates in Canada reduced drastically from 25% to 22%. The Canadian Health has forced cigarette manufacturers to put graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging. This is meant to draw the Canadians’ attention to the devastating health repercussions of using tobacco products. This has been done to complement the high taxation provisions set for the cigarette manufacturers.
Additionally, most states in Canada have adopted smoke free by-laws to help in curbing the menace (Health Canada, 2002). Additionally, the Health Canada’s legislative, regulatory, as well as policy efforts regarding the tobacco control have been promoted by the Tobacco Act (1997).
Other new regulations enacted as at June 2000 have also been operational. Such legal Acts have been staged to control manufacture, trade, tagging, and advertising of tobacco merchandise in Canada. They also promote the education of the youths on the health consequences of smoking. Educational programs executed to sensitise the youth and other vulnerable groups have also been put in place by the Health Canada.
Chart 1: % Canadian smokers daily by sex and aged 12 or older (2001-2011).Chart 2: % Canadian smokers by age group/sex/household population aged 12 or older (2011).
Conclusion
The Canadian government fights to reduce the rates of smoking within the country. The government proposes to enact high taxation policies and educational policies to help in curbing this menace. Health Canada has managed to involve the public in the fight against smoking. Youths are under educational programs to ensure proper knowledge regarding the dangers of Smoking.
In depth, this paper illustrates the issue that is based on banning smoking and this is possible since smoking bans is not as new as some people may think. Going back to 1941, the Nazi president passed a law that bans smoking in buildings that belong to the government such as hospitals and schools. Moreover, it is showed that the United States finally followed all those countries by banning smoking officially in the federal buildings in 1997 through the influence of President Bill Clinton (Blanpain 58). As a result, the essay analyzes the measures which have been taken on the issue of banning smoke in Florida international university.
Banning smoking at Florida Campus
The document indicates that in 2010, Florida International University issued a law that prohibited any smoking activity in the campus. Smoking, in fact, was not only prohibited in the campus, but also in the cars. At first, when I read the news about banning smoking in all Florida universities, I was almost sure that no one would disagree with that law. However, it appears that some people disagree with the law not because they are smokers, but because they think it is their right to do whatever they wanted to do (Warner 96). Actually, I have never read an official article that disagrees with smoking bans.
Lambert’s thought on smoke banning
I did my research on Google and on Florida International University’s online library; I was trying to find a subject that is related to smoking bans. After I did my personal research on that particular subject, I found several articles and newspaper reports that were actually against smoking bans. But, what caught my attention from the news reports and the articles was the topic on “The Case against Smoking Bans” written by Author Thomas A. Lambert.
The author actually presents some statistics against smoking law (Warner 57). He argued that by banning smoking, people would lose their freedom when it comes to choosing what to do and what not to do. In addition to the freedom of people’s rights, Lambert said that there are people who believe that smokers will lessen government expenses in the health system compared to the non-smokers (Blanpain 75).
Lastly, Lambert claims that banning smoking will encourage young people to smoke because they will think it is great. Even though Lambert’s article contains detailed information concerning dangers of smoking, he still has reservations that students will still smoke despite the ban. Additional information is yet to be analyzed so as to enable people understand what he wants them to focus on when it comes to banning smoking in the public.
In his article, Lambert has not only missed some facts, but also he does not have the logic to clearly analyze his claim. Although I agree with some of the points that the author states about the rights of the people concerning “what they want to do and when to do it,” I disagree with the author on giving the people the right to hurt people. Anything that hurts other people is not a right, and most people should be against it. Smoking in public places can affect not only adult’s health, but also children’s health (Warner 106). In fact, I have always believed that smoking should be considered as dangerous as guns or other weapons that harm people.
Preventive measures
The document indicates that there ought to be a-range-of preventive measures that include government enforcing smoking bans in public places like campuses. In event of this, the paper proposes that people wishing to smoke can be referred to special areas; these non-smoking policies support health education campaigns. Moreover, according to Lambert’s article, the most effective means of achieving smoking bans in public buildings is by issuing absolute decision on the matter.
This may be accompanied by education programs and provision to assist workers to achieve smoking cessation. Therefore, this shows that, it is important that the organizations management take the responsibility and talk with those affected by the bans hence provide education and information (Blanpain 123). In the event of this, the document signifies that only comprehensive measures are successful in Florida international campus.
There have been several public smoking bans that have proved to be promising since the issue of smoking prohibits smoking in all public places. Moreover, the document indicates that non-smokers support on total bans regarding smoking has grown drastically and the poll result clarifies on what is taking place in Florida. It shows that non-smokers are more prepared to ban smoking instead of just reserving segregated areas for smokers and non-smokers. This shows that despite the increased acceptance of smoking bans in public places, more than 8 in 10 Americans oppose smoking (Klingemann 56). In addition, only 16% are in favor of making smoking in public places illegitimate and the rest of the percentage go to the extent of disagreeing with this notion.
This has brought to our senses that the stated objectives for smoking bans in public places are primarily defined from a public health perspective. This means it is a way of reducing the exposure to second-hand smoke and discouraging smoking in the public. Thus, the document examines the impacts of banning smoke in Florida International University where a large portion of the revenue is generated by taxes on students.
Hence, any policy that changes the patterns of education may have significant budgetary impact (Slottje 49). Therefore, the contributing factors to this shift in education are the potential flight of local gamblers to an adjacent state. This is where smoking bans have not been enacted and the socio-economic characteristics of communities in which they are located.
In recent study, results show that many people showed support for a wide range of policies like evidence based measures and less effective strategies. In some cases, support for effective policies was moderate. Hence, this shows that the attitude towards policy measures which improve structural conditions for self-change is not viewed by the public as unhelpful and so, this ought to be taken into account.
Finally, the most recent and impressive example of environmental changes potentially relevant to self-change is the complete ban on smoking (Klingemann 74). This has been possible where preliminary steps have been taken to curb smoking consumption. Moreover, the paper indicates that the impact of smoking bans on smoking behavior and self-change process is scarce. In the event of this, indirect measures like reductions in cigarette sales and smoking related health problems have been employed as a measure (Slottje 79). This has led to employing direct measure that focus on the effects of reduced access to smoking at the university grounds of Florida. Although the causality is unclear, it’s assumed that these reactions will support self-change processes.
Experiences from many countries suggest that a legislative framework is very important in many ways. Banning is one of the many measures that can normalize non-smoking behavior in a work-place since it sets obligations on workers to change their smoking behavior. Thus, the forced change of behavior eventually changes the attitude towards smoking and it becomes normal to go elsewhere when smoking. Moreover, the ban institutionalizes the rule of non smoking and facilitates enforcement hence it may be the only effective means that can achieve change in the sectors such as education sector (Haustein 56). The intention of the law is to primarily protect the general public but since this sector is also a workplace of many, they serve to protect workers from being exposed to smoking behaviors in their workplace.
Conclusion
The laws that regulate smoking in the public emphasize that the most difficult place to ban smoking is at the university grounds. The document also shows that it is not unusual that larger companies set aside trends of smoking policies even before covering a law private enterprise. However, it shows that for this gradual evolution to be successful, it is important to support the implementation of rules with awareness campaigns (Haber 97).
Thus, by creating an enforcement mechanism in place, and in respect, the role of labor inspectors can be understood. It also implicates that if smoking is not banned, then risks need to be evaluated, protected and preventive measures implemented. The paper indicates that a strong government is needed and this can lead to positive signals that give workers their right. Moreover, national campaigns for smoking free workplaces benefit from a more structured and far-sighted non-smoking effort (Haustein 123). Hence this implies that reducing exposure of banning smoke in the public ought to be restricted since smoking restrictions may affect smoking behavior by reducing opportunities to smoke.
Works Cited
Blanpain, Roger. Smoking and the Workplace, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2009. Print.
Haber, David. Health promotion and aging: practical applications for health professionals, USA: Springer Publishing Company, 2010. Print.
Haustein, Knut. Tobacco or Health? Physiological and Social Damages Caused by Tobacco Smoking, USA: Springer, 2009. Print.
Klingemann, Harald. Promoting self-change from addictive behaviors: practical implications for policy, prevention, and treatment, USA: Springer, 2007. Print.
Slottje, Daniel. Current Issues in Health Economics, London: Emerald Group Publishing, 2010. Print.
Warner, Kenneth. Tobacco control policy, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2006. Print.