Category: Smoking

Introduction

There are two different views which concern the issue of banning cigarette smoking in public places. These two views are held by the two separate parties that are involved. One group is composed of the smokers who are against the idea of banning smoking in public places. The other is composed of those who do not smoke and are in fear of the health hazards that the smokers expose them to. Those who smoke are not for the idea.

This is because they feel that their freedom is being infringed. The truth remains that cigarette smoking is dangerous both to the smoker and to the people around and something has to be done to minimize the risk. The report is going to cover the different opinions that are held by the two groups and the reasons behind their arguments.

Argument Against the Banning of Smoking

Those who argue against the idea of banning the smoking are of the opinion that some of them opt to smoke due to the stress that they acquire at their work places. They therefore opt to smock so as to relieve themselves of the stress. The argument is a fallacy of inadequate reason falling under the category of ‘False cause (Inch & Warnick, 2010).

It is also argued that just like other people smokers also have their own rights. They hold the opinion that provided they follow all the rules concerning smoking while at the workplace then there is no reason whatsoever to interfere in their smoking affairs as they do no harm to others and that they are responsible for their own health.

They say that heavy smokers are already in addiction and are unlikely to stop the habit. This argument is questionable because smoking has been proved to cause more harm to those around even more than the smoker because the other people take in the unfiltered smock hence putting them at a higher risk.

They also argue that the ban will only increase the possibility of smokers taking more cigarettes while at their homes and hence increase the risk of the children around them being prone to the dangers of smoking.

It is also perceived that the ban will make many bars, clubs and pubs to run out of business as the smokers will no longer visit the places and less money would be earned from the tobacco sales and hence cause many people to lose their sources of livelihoods. This is a good example of a hasty conclusion (Inch & Warnick, 2010). This argument is questionable as there are many other viable businesses that could be done in the place of selling cigarettes.

The main assumption under the above argument is that many people solely depend on the income from cigarette sells and that any law meant to upset this state will render most of these people jobless and with no source of income as well. This could as well fall under the appeal to pity as the smokers expect to be favored on this account.

It is also argued that defaulters will always get away with it as at will be hard for the police to man all the public places and even employees won’t betray each other over smoking. This portrays the fallacy of inadequate reason under the category of two wrongs making a right (Damer, 2009).

The arguments against the ban have also been characterized by false dilemma. Those against the idea also see the whole issue as an infringement of their freedom and they see nothing good in the whole issue of the ban. They seem not to have any middle ground in their arguments.

Arguments for the Ban

There are also several arguments which support the idea of banning smoking from the public areas. It is argued that smoking poses a risk to those around the smoker as compared to the smoker. The smoke from the cigarettes pause a health risk to the inhalers as it causes coronary diseases. It causes cancer as well as other respiratory complications to the victims. Children who are exposed to this kind of smoke are particularly prone to so much of these infections and even death.

It is also argued that smoke from cigarettes usually spreads to a wider area and carrying along its dangers as well, and hence necessitating the need for areas that are set aside for smoking. The smell that is associated with smocking and smokers is also unpleasant hence causing discomfort to the non-smokers. The other argument is that the habit pause a potential risk to those around as it could be a significant cause of fire outbreaks. The remains are at times thrown to the ground or floor and hence having negative effect on the environment.

Those supporting the ban have used the fallacy of false cause as witnessed in the argument that smoking has an impact of environmental pollution. It is claimed that the remains are thrown to the ground and floor hence causing environmental pollution. The truth is that there are other substances that are thrown anyhow on the ground as compared to the cigarette remains. Take for instance sweet wrappings or paper bags which never degenerate. These have more effect on the environment than cigarette remains.

The fallacy of two wrongs making a right has also been witnessed in the arguments that support the ban. It at all smoking is harmful to the victims, then I isolating them and allowing them to have smoking zones will only fuel the act and the smokers will see no need to stop or even seek help due to the addiction. This will therefore put them at a higher risk of contacting the diseases and infections that come with smoking.

Those siding the ban never seem to focus on any positive aspect or the pleasure that smokers derive from the act. Their views are therefore likely to be biased as they have no idea how he smokers benefit from the act.

Smoking has been perceived by those for the ban as a disgraceful act. They however never put into their mind the fact that some of the smokers are usually lured into smoking by the attractive advertisements that are posted by the cigarette manufacturing companies through the media and the press. They could only be dealing with the problem and not touching the cause. If smoking was that bad then it would be wiser to completely stump out the cigarette manufacturing companies.

Comparison

The two different viewpoints are all about smocking. They clearly bring out the points for or against and go ahead to defend the arguments. In both of the two arguments, they advocate for the freedom to smoke only that one’s freedom need not to interfere with the freedom of the other.

The two arguments have used the fallacy of; jumping on the bond wagon. They both present their major points and try to convince the audience to join their side as it seems to be the right thing to do.

Contrast

The two arguments seem to pull in two opposite directions with no common ground being decided upon. Each side is pulling to its own direction. The two arguments are significantly different. Most of the arguments in the fast argument seem to be defensive. They geared towards the smokers justifying their actions.

The first argument seems to have more of the inadequate reasons and misleading fallacies. The argument against the ban seems to lack facts while most of the facts in the second argument have been substantiated. In fact some of the exact figures have been quoted so as to prove the arguments.

Conclusion

The debate on banning or not banning smoking in public places is not an easy ride. Smokers do have their own freedom that needs to be safeguarded. On the other hand, the general publics most of which are non-smokers also have a reason to remain free from second hand smoke which has been proved to be a health hazard. It is difficult to come up with an idea absolutely fair to the two sides.

At the moment, the idea of smoking zones could be the only practical option of minimizing the risks of smoking particularly to the non smokers and at the same time not absolutely deny smokers their freedom of smoking.

The two essays for and against the ban both have reasons for their standpoints. Some of the arguments are substantial and with evidence to back up while others cannot be substantiated. Strong and substantial arguments from the two sides have to be looked at keenly. This will be the only viable way to come up with a lasting solution to the whole issue.

Reference List

Damer, T. E. (2009). Attacking faulty reasoning. Stamford, Mass: Cengage Learning

Inch, E. S. & Warnick, B. (2010). Critical thinking and communication: the use of reason in argument (6^th Ed). Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.

Introduction

Today, it is evident that the society has made a distinction between a man and a woman. Ideas concerning these two gender roles have changed over time, but still have particular beliefs attached to them that reveal issues defining a particular gender, and the way such gender is ought to behave.

These beliefs and ideas have been presented in the book The Realm of Possibility by David Levithan. Particularly, his poem “Smoking” exposes the author’s perceptions about gender and sexuality which other authors create their own arguments about.

Sexuality/Gender in the Poem

In the poem “Smoking”, David Levithan describes his first experience in smoking with his lover Jed. The author is gay bringing in the issue of how a man should behave and what defines him. The fact that he is male does not necessarily make him have the same feelings as the society expects from men.

The author is deeply in love with a fellow man who gives him happiness more than what the society would think of him.In stanza 2, the author reveals the fact that he is gay, while in stanza 3 he reveals that he never wanted to be a cowboy like most young boys usually do. But the author still goes ahead and asks for Marlboros to be perceived as a man by others (Levithan 2-11).

The poem shows how the person who has never tried smoking. On the other hand, he has only known the vanilla scented smoke. In our society today, such a scent will most likely be known to a girl rather than male. Society has different expectations from the person when it comes to gender and sexuality matters.

This is why the person and his lover dare not hold hands in public unless they are out of sight. The female gender is generally or rather scientifically said to be more emotional as opposed to being logical like men. However, in the poem we establish that the person who is a man is also emotional like a woman is.

He displays his emotions when Jed asked him for a date the first time. The person says that he almost cried and became dreamy about the whole idea with his new lover (Levithan 2-11). The poem “Smoking” therefore brings out the issues of sexuality and gender that have become the matter of concern in the society.

Other Author’s perceptions on the Poem

According to Monique Wittig, one is not born a woman but becomes a woman. However, it is also argued that what defines a woman is her capacity to give birth. The author reveals how women were oppressed in earlier days and seen as a weaker sex which was treated inferior to men.

This is said to have been a political sort of constraint and therefore any woman who resisted was not viewed as a real woman. The author belongs to the lesbian group and wishes to destroy the ‘woman’ class because it is an oppressive terminology by virtue of its historical attachment. The author seeks to destroy “woman” because lesbianism does not category sex and thus has no oppressive gender affiliations.

It is further revealed from the article that, a lesbian is not a woman because for one to be considered a woman, she must have a relation in the social world with a man. This social relation is referred to as servitude in that one would have both physical, economic, personal obligations, conjugal rights and other domestic obligations.

Lesbians escape all this because they decline from being heterosexuals in order to join hands in destroying the class ‘women’. The author believes this class has to be destroyed because it is considered inferior; heterosexuality ought to be destroyed first (Wittig 128-134).

Monique Wittig has evidently a different perspective of what defines a woman. In relation to the poem in ‘realm of possibility’, this author would agree with the gay relationship in the poem.

This is because she does not believe that sexuality has to involve opposite sexes but rather that it can be of same sexes just as she is a lesbian. Sexual freedom is what she believes in, for purposes of destroying this society that has placed ‘classes’ of inferiority based on gender. This means that, as long as the relationship does not support the ‘woman class’, then it is acceptable (Wittig 128-134).

Another author (Williams 15-60) in his book highlights the resentment gay people have when it comes to payment taxes for married people. Married people are said to acquire lower taxes and thus unfair to the gay people who are also married. The fact that heterosexuals are given more privileges is annoying to the gay community, and they would also like to have such privileges.

The heterosexuals also have the right to divorce while the gays do not posses that right and can thus remain unhappy when their marriages fail to overcome difficulties of married life. In relation to the poem “Smoking” in the book ‘Realm of possibility’, Williams would also have agreed with the way the gay are being treated differently in society.

In the poem, it is evident that, the two gay partners try hard to appear as normal males by buying Marlboro and also not holding hands in public. The gay community is not free to enjoy the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. This is because the society disagrees with same gender sex relationships thus making such relationships less valued and less accepted.

Keddie also brings out her perception of gender and sexuality (Keddie 20-34). In her book, she argues that there ought to be more attention given to childcare as well as birth, which are the roots of women inferiority and low income.

The author attests that, these problems still exist today and that employment equality that is advocated by feminists, cannot alone be a solution. Women are assumed to have the responsibility of making new beings and taking care of them.

This has for long been taken for granted and instead left women to be subjected to oppression. Just like the first author, Nikki feels that women are subjected to oppression and inferiority which ought to be addressed and thus same sex relationships would be perceived as normal.

In relation to the poem, this author would have agreed with the gay partners because there is no form of oppression involved (Keddie 10-64).

Conclusion

My personal view about the Poem is that women have for some time not enjoyed the rights that men enjoyed. Historically, women were considered less important or rather a weaker sex whose duty is to nurture children and cater for men.

In fact, the term ‘woman’ in some cultures is like an insult. This means that, what is taken to define a woman does not match or fit the gay relationship where the position of a woman has been given to a man.

The gay couple might continue with their relationship in secret because the societal expectations of the way a man should be like, are different. In a nutshell, it can be argued that the definition of a man or a woman is different and not the same as in earlier days.

Today there exists some equality before the law between the two genders, to a large extent. However, where there are loopholes, sexuality has been a problem especially with the lesbians and gay people. These groups do not enjoy freedom and equal rights with homosexuals because they have different sexual perceptions.

Works Cited

Keddie, Nikki. Debating gender, debating Sexuality, London: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.

Levithan, David, the Realm of Possibility, Knop Books for Young Readers, 2006

Williams, Christine, Sexuality and Gender, London: New York University Press 2002.

Wittig, Monique, “One is not a Woman”, Feminist Issues 1, no 4 (1981):128-134

Introduction

This paper is aimed at identifying a plan and strategy for the enforcement of the Michigan non-smoking law that has recently been signed by the governor of this state. This strategy needs to address political, legal, and economic factors which may affect the outcome of this program. Furthermore, it is necessary to take into consideration various compliance variables such as clarity of rules, the attitude of enforcers, the behavior of regulated parties, etc (Harrington & Carter, 2008, p 257). The prohibition of smoking in public areas has long been one of the major concerns for policy-makers and administrative officials, because mere adoption of the smoking bans is insufficient in itself, and governmental agencies should ensure that everyone complies with them. Due to various reasons not all attempts of the state succeeded in achieving this goal.

The development of the strategy

The major steps to be taken

As Christine Harrington and Lief Carter (2008, p 267) argue one of the most significant compliance variables is the clarity of rules which must accurately explain who are the subjects of this law, what are the responsibilities of the parties, and what are possible sanctions. This is why law enforcement agencies should notify the owners of private and public institutions about the recent amendment to the state legislation. In this case, there are several organizations, answerable for this task: Michigan Department of Community Health and local health departments. It is advisable that they provide private businesses with specific instructions concerning the application of this law and fines that can be imposed in default of compliance. The main purpose of governmental agencies is to make sure that there is no way to evade the new rules or misinterpret them. This will lay the ground for the successful outcome of the program.

Another obstacle, which should be surmounted, is the reluctance or inability of law enforcers, themselves to perform their duties (Harrington & Carter, 2009, p 267). It should be taken into consideration that local health departments may not have sufficient resources to see to this task as they may be understaffed. Certainly, these officials do want to stop smoking in public areas but they may have other issues to address. This is why it is vital for the authorities to give them some financial assistance so that their employees could monitor bars, restaurants, and other institutions which are liable to the non-smoking law. This strategy will leave practically no leeway for the violation of the smoking ban. At least, this possibility will be reduced to a minimum.

The authorities should also take into consideration the role of beneficiaries, in other words, the non-smoking visitors of restaurants, bars, etc. The thing is that they will also acquire certain rights when this law will take effect. For instance, they will be able to file a complaint or even issue a suit against a “food service establishment” or other institution which allows smoking in enclosed areas (the State of Michigan, 2009). Thus, their rights must be clearly articulated to them. In this way, the government may gain the support of these people. The local authorities should raise their awareness about this legislative bill and its implications for non-smokers.

On the whole, the outcome of such a campaign depends mostly on the active participation of beneficiaries (Miller & Jentz, 2009, p 91). It should be noted that regulated parties or the owners of restaurants do have some resources to avoid detection or to block the enforcement of the law, for example, by providing smoking rooms for the employees, or by saying that they do not bear any responsibility for the workers, who smoke in enclosed areas. This is actually one of the provisions of the new non-smoking law (the State of Michigan, 2009). It might be quite difficult to prove that they turn a blind eye to this misconduct without the testimony of other visitors. One cannot deny the fact that the local health department will be unable to supervise all public areas, and the role of whistle-blowers will become immense.

Sanctions against violators

David Rosenbloom enumerates various law enforcement techniques that can be used against those, who are reluctant to abide by the rules; they include financial penalties, cease-and-desist orders, industry guides, etc (2007, p 109). The main objective of administrative sanctions is to convince people that compliance with the law is more profitable than its violation. This law advocates the use of financial penalties, namely inobservance can entail a $ 100 fine whereas subsequent violation may result in more severe charges (the State of Michigan, 2009). Yet, we can also advocate the use of cease-and-desist orders. Their essence lies in the following: the governmental agency requests a private business to put an end to a certain activity (indulging), otherwise, this business may face a legal action like the suspense of license. The combination of these law enforcement techniques can produce a more profound effect. It will be more fruitful than mere compulsion.

External environment

The implementation of administrative law is hardly possible without a thorough analysis of the external environment. One of the major concerns is that the prohibition of smoking would result in considerable losses for many enterprises (Tollison & Wagner, 1992). One should not overlook the fact that the economies of many US regions rely on the manufacture of cigarettes. However, this misgiving is usually not justified as the products of tobacco companies usually enjoy considerable demand even despite the restrictions of the state. It is also hypothesized that a smoking ban would inflict a severe blow on food service establishments as they will be unable to retain a large portion of their target audience. Still, by prohibiting smoking in public areas, they may as well attract new customers, who prefer a smoke-free environment. They may even increase their profitability.

The only factor that requires scrutiny is the protests of smokers, themselves because this law infringes upon their rights and liberties. Therefore, it might be prudent to assign a certain area for them. This policy will not do harm to anyone elses health. There is very little probability that smoking will ever be eliminated in the United States and it is of crucial importance for the conflicting parties to reach a compromise.

Conclusion

Judging from this discussion, it is possible for us to conclude that the enforcement of Michigan non-smoking law can be effective under several indispensable conditions, in particular: 1) clarity of rules, 2) sufficient resources of law enforcers, themselves; 3) active participation of beneficiaries or non-smokers. Most importantly, effective implementations of this bill cannot be achieved without offering certain opportunities for the smoking population, whose needs should not be overlooked.

References

Harrington C.B & Carter L.K. (2008) Administrative Law and Politics: Cases and Comments. Washington:CQ Press.

Miller R.L. & Jentz A. (2009) Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. New York: Cengage Learning.

Rosenbloom D. 2003 Administrative law for public managers. NY: Westview Press.

State of Michigan. (2009) Enrolled House Bill No. 4377. Web.

Tollison R. & Wagner R. 1992 The economics of smoking. Munich: Springer.

The current public health issue in New Jersey selected for this assignment is smoking in public places. The presently spending bill that will be discussed in the paper is Bill No. 1235 sponsored by Senator Shirley K. Turner that was introduced on January 25, 2018 (Turner, 2018). The bill is focused on the prohibition of smoking at public parks and beaches. The significance of this legislative reform is great since smoking is one of the major causes of preventable deaths. Therefore, it is crucial to approve this proposal to provide better healthcare opportunities for New Jersey citizens. The paper will consider the pros and cons of the bill the analysis of which will be supported by the evidence from research articles about the subject of discussion.

Benefits of the Bill

The major advantage of the bill is that it is aimed at eliminating the exposure of New Jersey citizens to dangerous secondhand cigarette smoke (Turner, 2018). It is mentioned in the bill that tobacco is the main reason for preventable disease not only in the state but in the whole nation. Also, it is noted that tobacco smoke makes up a significant health risk to nonsmoking individuals (Turner, 2018).

Therefore, the benefit of the bill is that the health hazard will be decreased using banning smoking in public parks and beaches. The problem of secondhand smoke exposure is widely discussed in scholarly literature. In their article, Homa et al. (2015) analyze the prevalence of such exposure in the US. The authors conclude that the risk of being subjected to secondhand smoke decreased from 52.5% in 1999-2000 to 25.3% in 2011-2012 (Homa et al., 2015).

However, scholars note that the level of exposure to secondhand smoking is still very high, putting at-risk children, individuals living below the level of poverty, non-Hispanic blacks, and citizens living in rented apartments (Homa et al., 2015). Taking into consideration the results of this research, it becomes obvious that the bill will be a beneficial opportunity to eliminate the risk of secondhand smoking posed to nonsmokers.

Another benefit of the bill is that it recognizes the problem of littering and the increased fire hazard as a result of smoking in public places (Turner, 2018). The issue of cigarette butts polluting the environment is extensively discussed in scholarly research articles. A pilot study performed by Wilson, Oliver, and Thomson (2014) analyzes such aspects of smoking as fire risks, litter, and cigarette butt disposal in public places. In particular, Wilson et al. (2014) observe smokers’ approaches to the disposal of butts at bus stops. The authors remark on the following aspects of smoking in public places:

• smokers frequently put nonsmokers at risk due to smoking within a very close distance of other people;
• smokers produce much litter because of throwing out cigarette butts;
• there is a fire hazard posed by smokers because some of them throw butts into vegetation (Wilson et al., 2014).

The problem of cigarette butt disposal is also analyzed in research by Metcalfe, Murray, and Schousboe (2017). Scholars note that not only is tobacco consumption a crucial health issue but also the waste generated by smokers poses a serious environmental risk (Metcalfe et al., 2017). In their analysis of tobacco waste in New Zealand, Metcalfe et al. (2017) mention that such litter pollutes beaches, parks, and other public places. Moreover, tobacco waste contains “a myriad of noxious chemicals” many of which pose direct health risks and environmental hazards (Metcalfe et al., 2017, p. 65). Scholars delineate several ways of reducing the amount of tobacco litter:

• taxation of tobacco waste;
• littering fines;
• cigarette butt deposit programs;
• cigarette butt recycling and collection;
• using pouches or bags to collect tobacco product waste (Metcalfe et al., 2017).

Metcalfe et al. (2017) also remarked that a large part of the responsibility for secondhand smoking and littering belongs to tobacco-producing companies, although they are trying to deny the blame. The authors note that not only consumers of tobacco products are accountable for environmental hazards but also the producers and sellers of cigarettes and similar goods.

Therefore, the major benefits of the bill are the intention to eliminate secondhand smoke exposure and the purpose to decrease the amount of litter produced by smokers. The bill aims at managing these issues by banning smoking in public places such as beaches and parks. The initiative is highly relevant and necessary since statistics of environmental pollution and secondhand smoke exposure are rather high.

Limitations of the Bill

The major disadvantage of the bill on the part of the nonsmoking society is that while it restricts smoking in parks and beaches, it does not ban smoking in adjacent parking lots (Turner, 2018). This issue may be regarded as a drawback since many nonsmokers may be exposed to secondhand smoking in these places. Moreover, since the bill restricts smoking in public places but allows it in the parking lots, there is a risk of the increased amount of smoke released in these places. As a result, nonsmoking citizens may find themselves in the situation of the intensified danger when they park their cars next to beaches and public parks.

Another limitation of the bill concerns smokers. This group of citizens may view the ban as a restriction on their rights and freedoms. Smoking individuals may argue that their freedom is violated, and they may think that banning smoking leads to prejudiced treatment of their lifestyle preferences. Although one of the major purposes of prohibiting smoking in public places is reducing the consumption of tobacco products, there is no firm evidence of the positive outcomes of such measures. In their research, Jones, Laporte, Rice, and Zucchelli (2015) remark that no significant data are indicating that bans on smoking have a considerable impact on smokers’ behavior.

Therefore, the limitations of the bill are twofold. On the one hand, the bill does not limit the consumption of tobacco products in parking lots, which increases the possibility of exposure to secondhand smoking. On the other hand, the bill may meet the opposition from smokers who may find it a limitation of their rights.

Current Event Articles Covering the Issue

Recent events related to smoking bans that are covered in local newspapers focus on such problems as smoking while walking and e-cigarettes. The article published in “Jersey Evening Post” in March discusses the risk of smoking e-cigarettes by non-smokers. In particular, it is mentioned that healthcare organizations and professionals in the second biggest city in the state acknowledge the hazards posed by e-cigarettes. Specialists suggest that e-cigarettes should only be used as a method of smoking cessation and must not be used by children or non-smokers due to containing nicotine and other dangerous substances (“E-cigarettes,” 2018). Professionals admit that there is not enough evidence of health problems caused by e-cigarettes’ yet, but society should be cautious concerning this type of cigarette.

Another current aspect of smoking is discussed in the article by Atmonavage (2018). The author reviews the possibility of introducing a bill banning smoking while walking in New Jersey, following the example of New York City. It is noted that smokers lack self-awareness and do not understand that smoking while walking down the street puts many people at risk of secondhand smoke exposure. Thus, to eliminate the danger for nonsmokers, the bill prohibits smoking while walking. At the same time, the proposal does not concern those standing and smoking (Atmonavage, 2018). The interest of current articles in the problem of smoking signifies the need to treat this question with sufficient attention.

Conclusion

Bill No. 1235 sponsored by Senator Turner is an attempt to eliminate the exposure of the citizens of New Jersey state to secondhand smoking and decrease the amount of tobacco product waste in the environment. The bill has several advantages as well as disadvantages. The main benefits include the reduction of litter, the minimization of fire hazards, and the establishment of healthy lifestyle opportunities for nonsmokers.

The major limitations of the bill are concerned with the rights of smokers as well as nonsmokers. Smokers may find the bill a restriction of their freedom whereas nonsmokers may feel not enough protected due to the permission to smoke in parking lots. The problem of smoking and its adverse outcomes is represented in scholarly research and discussed in recent articles. Such aspects as e-cigarette smoking and the ban on smoking while walking constitute the most relevant issues related to the problem. Bill No. 1235 is likely to create positive changes in the statistics of secondhand smoking exposure in New Jersey.

References

Atmonavage, J. (2018). NYC might ban smoking while walking. Should N.J. follow? New Jersey On-Line. Web.

E-cigarettes ‘should not be used by non-smokers.‘ (2018). Jersey Evening Post. Web.

Homa, D. M., Neff, L. J., King, B. A., Caraballo. R. S., Bunnell, R. E., Babb, S. D., … Wang, L. (2015). Vital signs: Disparities in nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke – United States, 1999-2012. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 64(4), 103-108.

Jones, A. M., Laporte, A., Rice, N., & Zucchelli, E. (2015). Do public smoking bans have an impact on active smoking? Evidence from the UK. Health Economics, 24(2), 175-192.

Metcalfe, S., Murray, S., & Schousboe, C. (2017). A kick in the butt: Time to address tobacco waste in New Zealand. New Zealand Medical Journal, 130(1456), 65-69.

Turner, S. K. (2018). Senate, No. 1235. Web.

Wilson, N., Oliver, J., & Thomson, G. (2014). Smoking close to others and butt littering at bus stops: Pilot observational study. PeerJ, 2, e272.

Abstract

Involving companies that produce and market products for smoking into preventive measures is a solution proposed by the Assembly of the State of New Jersey. The purpose of the current analysis is to explore the Act establishing a Fund to Prevent the Use of Tobacco and Electronic Smoking Devices. The Act was developed to support activities for limiting and preventing smoking within the population of the state and promote awareness linked to adverse health conditions. The critical proposal within the Act is to enable companies that produce electronic smoking devices and tobacco cigarettes to forward $.25 from every $1 they spend on marketing and advertising their products to the Fund on a quarterly basis. The advantages and disadvantages of the legislation were discussed in this case because of the complexity of the topic at hand as well as the potential effects of the solution on the sphere of public health. The key finding of the paper is that the Fund enables the efforts targeted at the prevention of smoking and raising awareness of its adverse health effects, this means that companies selling tobacco or electronic cigarettes get involved in preventing customers from buying their products. To conclude, the legislation is expected to empower public health practitioners to be more proactive in communicating the adverse effects of smoking and decrease its state-wide use.

Introduction

Smoking represents a public health issue that remains to be addressed as the burden of disease and mortality associated with it are extensive, ranging from nervous system damages to lung cancer. The sphere of public health has been working on implementing policy changes that reduce the prevalence of cigarette smoking and its health consequences. However, large corporations make a lot of money from producing and marketing tobacco and other smoking-related products to the population. Such companies are not interested in communicating the actual effects of smoking to the public, which is why legislative action is needed to regulate the way in which harmful substances are marketed to customers.

Main body

For this reason, it was chosen to focus on the Assembly of New Jersey Act “establishing a fund to support prevention and awareness activities concerning the use of tobacco and electronic smoking devices” (“New Jersey Assembly Bill 375,” 2018, p. 1). The legislation intends to regulate the marketing of cigarettes to the general public by imposing the payment of $.25 from every $1 that companies spend on promoting their products. This paper will focus on exploring the legislation in greater detail, discussing its implications, and reviewing the benefits and limitations. Since more efforts to regulate the marketing of tobacco products are needed, the state of New Jersey has implemented a regulatory step that can address the issue.

For understanding the nature of the discussed legislation, it is crucial to consider the New Jersey legislative and regulatory process. The Legislature of the state is divided into the Senate with forty members and the Assembly that includes eighty members. A bill becomes law in the case when both the Senate and the Assembly agree upon passing it, and the governor signs it. There are eleven stages that an idea has to pass in order to become law. For example, in the first stage, an idea is developed when a legislator decides to sponsor a bill and asks other legislators in the same chamber to join in. Subsequently, a bill is drafted, introduced, there is a committee reference followed by a committee action, second, and third readings. After these stages, either a Senate or Assembly vote is needed to ensure that twenty-one votes are given in the Senate and forty-one are given in the Assembly. A second vote occurs after either of the parties’ vote to approve the bill in the legislative process. The approval of the law leads to the action of a governor, who can sign it, veto it conditionally (which means that changes should be made), or veto it absolutely.

There may be differences in the Senate and Assembly versions of a particular bill because a bill is moved through legislative bodies separately before being approved by both of them. This means that a New Jersey Senator does not have to vote on a House bill while the House of Representatives members do not have any say on the Senate bill. If to compare the bill chosen for analysis, no differences between the Senate and Assembly versions of the document are present, which means that consensus has been reached between the two participants of the legislative process. Based on the latest information of Assembly Bill 375, it was referred to Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee, implying that there may be additional changes made in the Senate and Assembly versions.

The legislation was chosen for discussion because of the need to continue the efforts associated with raising awareness of the adverse effects of tobacco use. However, one of the key characteristics of the bill is the attention to the use of electronic smoking devices that have been considered less harmful than cigarettes in general (Callahan-Lyon, 2014). The bill acknowledges the adverse effects of using e-cigarettes because they also contain nicotine and should be regulated in their use in the state of New Jersey. In its essence, the Act intends to establish a fund for supporting the prevention and awareness of activities associated with the use of tobacco and electronic smoking devices. This means that the manufacturers of cigarettes and the producers of e-cigarettes are expected to forward a set percentage from the money they spend on advertising to the Fund to Prevent the Use of Tobacco and Electronic Smoking Devices established by the Act. The funds collected from the organizations shall be used to support the activities targeted at the prevention of tobacco and electronic cigarette use in New Jersey alongside raising awareness regarding the adverse consequences of their use. According to the bill, $.25 of every $1 manufacturer spend on advertising should be transferred to the Fund.

The key benefit of the legislation is associated with ensuring that companies that make money on selling tobacco cigarettes and electronic smoking devices financially contribute to raising awareness of the impact their products have on human health. Thus, the monetary contribution to prevention efforts and informative actions ensures that companies that market potentially harmful substances understand the consequences of their operations. Another potential benefit of the bill is the increased capability of the state of New Jersey to be more effective in raising awareness of the implications of tobacco use. Healthcare organizations, as well as non-profits, require the support of governmental bodies in terms of informing the public about the harmful effects of smoking. The bill is expected to strengthen the abilities of healthcare organizations to address the excessive use of cigarettes within the population through additional support from the state.

Despite the benefits, it is essential to account for a limitation of the legislation. Most notably, the Act does not consider the scope and the financial capabilities of organizations that manufacture and market smoking-related products. While large corporations can afford to give away $.25 for every $1 spent on marketing, smaller companies, predominantly those producing supplementary products for e-cigarettes, cannot. Therefore, the bill should have gone into more detail regarding the differentiation between companies that produce tobacco cigarettes, those manufacturing e-cigarettes, and companies that specialize in making complementary products for electronic cigarettes. There could have been a difference in the amount that various organizations have to pay as related to their financial capacities. While there is no financial impact statement attached to the bill, it is important to understand that the economic implications of the legislation are vast as companies are expected to pay a fourth of their marketing budget on funding efforts targeted at decreasing the use of products that they sell to customers.

From a personal standpoint, the legislation is extremely smart in increasing financial support for the efforts of cigarette use prevention. Since companies earn money from manufacturing and marketing potentially harmful products that have health implications for their customers, they should be involved in actively raising awareness of the negative effects of smoking. While such a process may seem counterproductive to business, being honest about the implications of using certain substances is a key to transparency and fostering trusting relations with customers. If the customers that buy from tobacco companies understand the implications of their actions based on the existing awareness and prevention programs, they are less likely to engage in damaging behaviors. From another perspective, it can be assumed that the bill limits the financial well-being of companies in the long run because they are required to invest in counter-advertisement efforts of the products they sell themselves.

The legislation is expected to receive mixed views from different stakeholders. It is evident that companies operating in the cigarette business would be opposed to it. Giving away a quarter of the budget they spend on marketing is a significant contribution to raising awareness of the harmful effects of tobacco smoking. However, healthcare stakeholders are more likely to support the legislation. For example, the American Nurses Association (ANA) will be of support the bill because the organization continuously works with state regulatory bodies to update and improve the manufacturing, marketing, and use of tobacco products. It is important for the ANA that the population has access to appropriate reporting pathways related to experiences associated with tobacco use. Such pathways require the support of non-profit organizations and funds that can facilitate the increased sharing of relevant information on smoking cessation. It is imperative to equip such organizations as the ANA with financial resources to pursue the prevention of cigarette use among the population.

The efforts targeted at smoking cessation, according to the legislation, include “activities to prevent the use of tobacco and electronic smoking device in the State, and promoting awareness of the health conditions associated with such use” (“New Jersey Assembly Bill 375,” 2018). These activities may include public events, advertisements disseminated across the state, community-based programs, educational materials distributed across schools and colleges, promotional leaflets available at healthcare facilities, and many more. The legislation will also be supported by the New Jersey Nurses Association and the New Jersey Hospital Association because the organizations also work toward reducing the health burden of tobacco cigarette and electronic cigarette smoking. Integrating smoking cessation into the daily practice of such an organization is a complex task that requires flexibility and accommodation for the public’s needs. Because of this, financial support granted by such players as the Fund to Prevent the Use of Tobacco and Electronic Smoking Devices is fundamental.

When contacting impacted stakeholders at the mentioned organizations, it is vital to get the opinions of the Board of Directors members. The ANA Board of Directors, for example, includes professionals with decades of experience in the field of nursing management, public health, nursing science, training and mentorship, and more. The organization’s Vice President, Faith M. Jones (MSN, RN, NEA-BC) has leadership experience in multiple areas related to public health and can give some perspective on the legislation. The sphere of public health requires the support of the state in addressing such complicated issues as excessive smoking, which is why the legislation is highly likely to get promoted by multiple healthcare organizations operating both in the state and country-wide.

In terms of the impact on nurses and the nursing profession, the legislation is expected to help practitioners in the field to be more proactive in advocating for smoking cessation among the state’s public. Also, nurses may assume the roles of educators for their patients, especially in terms of those struggling with smoking abuse. The increased awareness of the health conditions caused by the use of tobacco and electronic smoking devices will provide nurses with more leverage in educating their patients. The increased awareness of the implications of tobacco and e-cigarette smoking can benefit the nursing practice in several ways. For example, the wide availability of electronic cigarettes has increased the exposure of young adults and the youth (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health, 2016). The legislation is expected to raise awareness of the adverse effects of smoking among the youth with the help of nurses acting as advocates (Pozgar, 2020). The increased transparency reached with the help of the legislation is highly likely to make healthcare organizations and nurses be more proactive in communicating the adverse effects of smoking on the health of the population.

Conclusion

The chosen 10th congressional district of New Jersey, which includes East Orange county, is represented by Senators Cory Booker and Bob Menendez. It is also represented by the congressman Donald Payne Jr. and assemblywomen Mila Agency and L. Grace Spencer. All of the mentioned representatives of the district are democrats. Orange County citizens who are interested in the legislation that regulates the marketing of tobacco and electronic cigarettes are recommended to contact the representatives mentioned above to inquire about the Act as well as give suggestions regarding its implementation. The proactiveness of citizens is essential in the issues associated with public health, and the legislation developed in the state of New Jersey requires the support of the population.

References

Callahan-Lyon, P. (2014). Electronic cigarettes: human health effects. Tobacco Control, 23(Suppl 2), 36-40.

National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health. (2016).E-cigarette use among youth and young adults: A report of the surgeon general.Web.

New Jersey Assembly Bill 375. (2018). Web.

Pozgar, G. (2020). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

The recent regulation accepted and approved by both camps, “bootleggers” and “Baptists” is tobacco prohibition. The private interests, social expenses and public policy clearly corresponds to the issue of tobacco: certain individuals choose to smoke. Their decision to smoke imposes costs on the community and the state. Both “bootleggers” and “Baptists” agree that policies are needed to manage the tobacco industry or otherwise rectify the inequity of uncompensated externalities. The public costs are great, but are rarely accurately portrayed. “This seeming paradox grows from and is explained by tobacco roads paved with “bootlegger-Baptist” coalitions” (Rotondi 2007).

The social interest goals are to prohibit and limit tobacco usage and impose heavy taxes on tobacco producers. Most political leaders who oppose tobacco use claim smoking increases health care costs, expenses that are subsidized by non-smokers. In reality, regardless of their higher prevalence of disease and physical disability, tobacco smokers save state money on health care. Yet, tobacco smoking is socially costly. Tobacco smoke contains over four thousand compounds, many of which are poisonous, tumerogenic, mutagenic or carcinogenic. The Baptists state that tobacco smoking is the single most avoidable cause of death in the United States. The tobacco industry is directly responsible for one in six deaths– % 25 of all deaths among men and % 11 of all deaths among women. “In the current debate, members of Congress must decide whether they want victory for the largest U.S. cigarette producers at consumer and perhaps even Baptist expense. While they choose, they should bear in mind the historical reality that in the tobacco context, as Baptist fervor foments, bootleggers rake in the alms” (Rotondi 2007). The issue is based on the fact that tobacco smoking also reduces the quality of life and ruins the body in numerous ways. It increases the risk of incurable diseases such as diabetes and of peptic ulcers. It makes genetic diseases more difficult to treat and more likely to be fatal. Tobacco smoking increases the risk of osteoporosis and bone fractures in older women.

The benefits for “bootleggers” are that price increase will lead to industry profits and transfer of the capital to party. Thus, the question how much tobacco smoking will continue to decline depends upon social policy in the form of excise taxes, anti smoking actions, restrictions on smoking and regulation of the tobacco industry. It also depends on real income, new investigations about the health effects of tobacco, and advertising and promotional activities by tobacco manufacturers. Many American tobacco companies have restructured their product range in order to reduce their risk but find that it is their non-tobacco earnings that are at risk.

Traditionally, Baptists opposed tobacco smoking and demanded strict laws and regulations in this industry. Tobacco smoking also increases the negative effects of alcohol on the body and influences the efficacy of medical treatment, sometimes hazardously. “The current bill in Congress has support from Baptists such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Heart Association, former FDA chairman Kessler, and 77 percent of American voters. Even the Southern Baptist Convention’s president wants the legislation” (Rotondi 2007). The danger is that tobacco smoke also saps one’s energy, stains the teeth, fouls the breath, dulls the hair and ages the skin. The important fact is that most of the consumers who smoke tobacco today began when the severity of the health cost of smoking was less well understood and explained to the public. The Baptists underline that smokers made a choice to smoke, but it was not necessarily a well-informed choice.

Current state’s campaign against tobacco smoking has focused on demand reduction. Its foundation has been education–in schools, through the mass media, during health care programs and in open and repeat warnings on cigarette packages and advertisements. The Congress has also restricted promotion of tobacco smoking, having banned tobacco commercials on television and radio since 1971. Anti Smoking regulations has been enacted, typically at the state or local level, restricting tobacco smoking in public places such as state buildings, banks, schools, health care services, public transport, stores, theaters and stadiums. “Though the MSA has since come under attack in courts and has shown minor holes even for the bootlegger companies (e.g., a small but significant decrease in market share), the episode largely allowed them to prevent catastrophe” (Rotondi 2007). Almost half the American states have incomplete restrictions on tobacco. The federal government prohibits tobacco at its own work sites and on interstate transportation. Also, the federal government prohibits tobacco usage on all domestic airline flights. The objective of the Baptists is a smoke-free society. This necessitates ending by tobacco smokers and non initiation of potential smokers. This, this prohibition may never be achieved. So, as the “bootleggers” pursue their goal, society also must continue to strive to reduce the externalities linked to tobacco production. The policy instruments have thus far proven quite efficient and successful. Even though, these policies and regulations on tobacco should pass the point of diminishing marginal returns; they should be continual, prolonged and improved.

Works Cited

Rotondi, Joseph A. Bootleggers, Baptists, and Tobacco Regulation. AllBusiness. 2009. Web.

Introduction

Parents should not smoke when driving around with their children. The health effects of smoking have been much documented. The health implications of children being exposed to secondhand smoke by their parents become even more apparent in enclosed places like inside vehicles. Thus, children should be saved the indignity and unfairness of being exposed to the harmful effects of a habit they themselves are not partaking. This essay is meant to support the contention that smoking in cars should be banned by giving the reasons why; even though there are others who are opposed to the ban.

Discussion

Smoking in cars with children has been one activity that has brought about a lot of debate among various stakeholders. Although smoking as a habit has been tolerated some people, majority of the citizenry, including both smokers and non-smokers agree and support the protection of children from harmful secondhand smoke from their parents and other members of the public. Out of this need, several regulations have been put in place to ensure children’s safety in vehicles is guaranteed; thus, protection from second-hand smoke is an obvious measure that is directed towards the overall safety of the children in vehicles.

The effects of smoking in cars with have kids are very much apparent. Generally, smoking has been associated with many ailments among children. Children may suffer from asthma, respiratory infections like colds and ear infections. Furthermore, research has shown that exposure to secondhand smoke is a contributing factor in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)(Kathleen, et al 2007). The research also linked Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD) cases in children and their mothers who smoke (63). Smoking in cars just serves to exacerbate the effects of this habit. Studies done by the Adult Health Advisor show that there can never be enough ventilation in cars to do away with the effects of the smoke on kids (65). They argue that “opening a window can cause the air to flow back into the vehicle, hence leading to smoke being blown back directly at the non-smokers” (67). It is therefore unfair to take advantage of the vulnerability of children and their inability to make decisions by poisoning them through secondhand smoke.

The number of children being exposed to this habit is very high. Of the 126 million non-smokers in the united states still exposed to secondhand smoke, more than a quarter are children (Von Sternberg 2009). This should therefore serve as a source of concern among all the stakeholders. A further study in 2005 by California Environmental Protection Agency, CEPA showed that SIDS caused the deaths of approximately 432 infants as a result of being exposed to secondhand smoke (33). The report also showed that the toxic level of secondhand smoke in a car is up to twenty fives higher than the effect in a house (42). Efforts to effects these bans have received enormous support from both the smokers and non-smokers. 85% of residents of Ontario, Canada, supported this ban in 2006 (CEPA 48). All these statistics serve to indicate the grave concerns expressed by people as a result of the exposure of youngsters to second hand smoke.

With all these statistics however, there are still those who are against the banning of smoking in cars. Those who are against the ban argue that smokers have a right to smoke in their vehicles and therefore regulating them is like invading their privacy (Kathleen, et al 74). Furthermore, there have been arguments regarding the enforcement of the ban. It will be extremely difficult for police, for example, to know the ages of teenaged children who are in cars. Additionally, they argue that what is needed is effective campaigns and public education, especially among parents (78). Thus, bringing in laws without considering this fact is an exercise in futility as long as parents do not have the information and awareness regarding the dangers they put their children in by exposing them to secondhand smoke. All in all, ensuring parental responsibility is the most important approach to this problem. Focusing on one environmental strategy, which is the car, is unrealistic. Long term educational strategies and not piecemeal legislation are the most appropriate means of ensuring that the rate of exposure to secondhand smoke is reduced.

Conclusion

Banning smoking in cars that have children is one habit that requires the concerted efforts of all people and government agencies to ensure the future health safety of young children. It is therefore encouraging that even though there has been lack of enough coordination in campaigns stop the habit, the opinions among majority of the public is one that supports the legislation to ban it. The health of children is of great importance and cannot be negotiated by various interests and legislation to this effect is just one way of ensuring that this remains so.

Works Cited

Von Sternberg, Bob. “Want to smoke? Bill says kids can’t be in the car: The measure to be introduced at the Legislative Friday would make it a crime to smoke in a car if children are present.” Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN.) 2009. Web.

Kathleen et al. “Environmental Health Perspectives. Developing Asthma in Childhood from Exposure to Secondhand Tobacco Smoke: Insights from a Meta-Regression 115 (2007) 1394-1400. Web.

“Second Hand Smoke” CRS- Adult Health Advisor. 2009: Web.

United States. California Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Audit of Smoking Related Pollution. San Diego: California, 2006.

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 father’s 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 father’s 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 judge’s 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 judge’s 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 judge’s verdict to satisfy the father’s 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.

Legalizing Vaping

Having emerged quite recently, vaping was considered a fad initially, yet it seems to have cemented its place in the global industry as an important trend that represents a constant demand. However, with the parallels between traditional smoking and electronic vaping having been drawn momentarily, vaping was prohibited in the U.S. (Borodovsky et al., 2016). However, due to significantly less harmful effects that vaping produces on health and physical development, I can be considered a legitimate solution to reducing the levels of smoking, which is why it needs to be legalized as a possible component of a therapy aimed at helping people to quit.

When compared to smoking, the side effects of vaping appear to be minuscule, which is why vaping needs to be recognized as a significantly less harmful alternative. Consequently, its therapeutic effect as the transitioning phase between smoking and a healthy lifestyle must be acknowledged. Consequently, the development of a policy allowing vaping as the treatment tool for quitting smoking has to be enacted. The policy in question would center the needs of people that are exposed to smoking, emphasizing the latter as a major public health issue that must be managed appropriately. Thus, the FDA and the U.S. Government must legalize vaping as a possible constituent of effective therapy aimed at managing one of the biggest public health concerns to date.

Prohibiting Vaping

Simultaneously, it is important to realize that vaping is not entirely harmless, and that it should only be seen as the opportunity for transitioning from smoking to a healthy lifestyle. According to the existing research, abuse of vaping entails prolonged exposure to volatile organic compounds, which may also have a detrimental effect on one’s health (Kalkhoran & Glantz, 2016). Although vaping has an admittedly fewer range of side effects discovered so far, most of its outcomes on people’s well-being have not been researched fully (Hua & Talbot, 2016). Thus, the fact that the outcomes of vaping are heavily under-researched does not allow making it a full-fledged part of a therapy process.

Therefore, vaping is not to be allowed; quite the contrary, it is important to guard people against the fad, the outcomes of which are currently, for the most part, unknown. Additionally, vaping in itself may contribute to the development of a smoking habit. Since it launches the same brain reward system that nicotine products do, it does very little to break the habit of smoking, which is why allowing vaping on a legal level is likely to contribute to a rise in smoking rates. Once having developed the habit of vaping, people are likely to try tobacco products as well.

Methamphetamine: The World’s Most Dangerous Drug

Substance addiction is one of the most difficult health issues to manage due to the incessant urge that it causes in patients. Although opioids are generally considered the class of drugs that have grave implications for an individual’s physical and mental health, methamphetamine is usually singled out as the one that produces the most devastating effect. The reasons for all authorities, including healthcare, legal, and religious ones, to pay particular attention to methamphetamine include its high availability and the risks of developing severe health issues as an immediate response to the drug (Gouzoulis-Mayfrank et al., 2017). According to a 2019 report, methamphetamine affects men particularly strongly since 3.7% of men needed an emergency hospitalization immediately after consuming meth (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2019). Therefore, a combination of poor awareness rates among target audiences about the health risks, namely, changes in brain functions, and its high availability make methamphetamine the drug about which not only healthcare authorities but also clergy and legal organizations actively warn citizens.

References

Borodovsky, J. T., Crosier, B. S., Lee, D. C., Sargent, J. D., & Budney, A. J. (2016). Smoking, vaping, eating: Is legalization impacting the way people use cannabis? International Journal of Drug Policy, 36, 141-147.

Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, E., Härtel-Petri, R., Hamdorf, W., Havemann-Reinecke, U., Mühlig, S., & Wodarz, N. (2017). Methamphetamine-related disorders. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 114(26), 455-461.

Hua, M., & Talbot, P. (2016). Potential health effects of electronic cigarettes: A systematic review of case reports. Preventive Medicine Reports, 4, 169-178.

Kalkhoran, S., & Glantz, S. A. (2016). E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 4(2), 116-128.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2019). Methamphetamine drug facts. Web.

Introduction

Countries across the globe continue to promote the need to ban smoking in enclosed and public places. The paper states that cigarette smoking in public and enclosed places should be banned because it does not only harm people’s health but also causes diseases and affects both the active and the passive smokers.

The first part of the paper will address effects of tobacco smoking on personal health and the economy. This will be followed by a discussion on the ban of tobacco smoking in Jamaican public and enclosed places. Finally, the impact of the ban will be highlighted.

Effects of smoking

According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (n.d), smoking increases the chances of coronary heart disease, stroke, and lung cancer. The CDC maintains that thickening of blood vessels increases heart beating and blood pressure. On the other hand, stroke occurs due to blockage or collapse of veins supplying the brain. Furthermore, blood clots prevent blood to be supplied to the heart leading to heart attack. Moreover, tobacco smoking results in poor health, consequently reducing productivity of an individual.

In the same line, cost of healthcare services is increased since a smoker has to seek for medical attention on several occasions. To add on this, smoking affects bone development, teeth, fertility, and increases the risk for cataracts. In brief, tobacco smoking is not good to overall health of a person.

Ban of smoking in Jamaica

In a research by Brown (2013), Jamaica instituted a law to regulate smoking in enclosed public places. The policy is in line with international responsibilities, i.e., to reduce tobacco usage and exposure. Some of these smoke-free zones recognized by the law are workplaces, recreational as well as educational centres, bus terminus, and several other public places (Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2014).

In a move to reinforce the regulation, Jamaica opted for vigorous public education starting with schools. Such campaigns would serve the purpose of creating awareness on limits of the law and the catastrophic effects of tobacco smoking on people’s health and environment (Linton, 2014).

Impact of the ban

Following the ban on tobacco smoking, Steele (2013) notes a 30 % decline in sales that accompanied the confusion on where a person is allowed to smoke according to the law. At the same time, there was a drop in consumption due to an increase in price of tobacco in response to inflation and devaluation.

As a retort to declining sales, manufacturers resort to innovation to rejuvenate and re-engage with their customers. One of the innovations attracts the consumers with the new cigarette’s menthol flavour and smell. The operation of the innovative product is such that a smoker taps the tip of the stick to activate a capsule releasing extra menthol.

Conclusion

The essay demonstrates that tobacco smoke is harmful to overall health of active smoker and passive smokers. Specifically, it has negative effect on blood circulation, respiratory organs, and several other critical organs. Tobacco smoke is also counterproductive because unhealthy individuals can less work that evidently affects the output for an economy.

Cognizant of its international obligation and the aforementioned health effects of tobacco smoke, Jamaica enacted a law in 2013 to regulate smoking in public places. In response to the decline sales, manufacturers have introduced innovative menthol intended to increase the smoker’s experience.

References

Brown, I. (2013). Smoking ban takes effect today. Web.

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids: Tobacco Control Laws. (2014). Web.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Smoking & Tobacco Use. (2014). Web.

Linton, L. (2014). House Approves Amendments to Smoking Regulations. Web.

Steele, M. (2013). Cigarette Market Will Soon Shrug Off Smoking Ban. Web.