Category: Smoking

Smoking is the act of inhaling or smelling smoke that results from burning something, most commonly tobacco. All enclosed public areas, including bars and restaurants, have been subject to statewide smoking bans in some states; only certain areas have been affected in other states. According to WHOs Smoking and Tobacco Use Policy, a smoker is defined as someone who regularly or infrequently smokes any tobacco cigarette (WHO). A daily smoker, consequently, is someone, who smokes at least once a day. Smoked tobacco products include cigarettes, cigars, bidis, and kreteks. Some people prefer to use a pipe or a hookah (water pipe) to smoke loose tobacco. Tobacco products that are chewed include snuff, dip, and snus; smokers can also smell snuff. Some people smoke regularly, but not every day, and these people are known as infrequent smokers (Recher 18). Tobacco smoking in public places is prohibited by smoking bans or smoke-free laws. They include both criminal and health and safety regulations for the workplace.

Getting nicotine from cigarettes is like sucking on a tailpipe for air. Many countries have banned smoking, but despite decades of research showing its dangers, tobacco is still widely available and profitable for everyone but the customer (Recher 1). One percent of public funds are allocated to a chemical that has no benefits and only causes illness, disability, and death. Even though taxing tobacco has its benefits, including fewer smokers, increased government revenue, and a healthier society, as respiratory therapists, people should embrace the use of excise duties that the government may use selectively. Smoking is the leading cause of lung cancer, asthma, and other pulmonary diseases, with an estimated $12.0 billion in annual economic losses worldwide due to these conditions (Recher 1). The trade-off is illogical, even if one looks at it only from an economic standpoint.

As a reasonable position, the government should not dictate what vices the population engages in, which is why tobacco sales should continue. Even though the United States has tried to limit soft drink quantities, fast food is unregulated but failed miserably. Despite increased government interference, few people oppose access to these items. However, there is at least one advantage to these other sins, however. People need fuel, even if they eat at fast-food restaurants infrequently, drink alcohol, and gamble in moderation. There is no such thing as moderate use when it comes to tobacco. A person, those around them, or even those exposed to it in a tertiary setting cannot be exposed to any amount of cigarette smoke without harm. They are willing to tolerate smoking-related illness and death to make money. It is unlikely that Health Canada would allow tobacco smoking in Canada today, but it is also unlikely that any of todays governments would denounce it. The public outcry from smokers and non-smokers, enforcement expenditures, illegal imports, anti-government action, and underground sales conspire to make absolute prohibition impossible.

Here is the dilemma: although tobacco has no health benefits, it cannot be outlawed. Smoking rates in the United States had steadily decreased since 1965 when more than half of the population smoked; by 2014, they had fallen to 18.1 percent (Recher 1). It means that people are forced to use whatever resources are still available to them to quit smoking: logical or emotional arguments, organized cessation programs, medications and patches, and e-cigarettes and gum.

In the history of humanity, the cigarette has been the most lethal item. An estimated 6 million people die from smoking each year, a number that is expected to rise before it decreases (Leung and Don 1). Only 100 million people died from smoking in the twentieth century, but a billion could die if people do not change their ways (Ritchie and Roser). This century, even if current consumption rates are gradually reduced to zero by 2100, people will still have around 300 million tobacco-related deaths in this century. (Roser and Roser). A flaw in the product design of the cigarette has resulted in half of its long-term users dying from their use. Its designed to be addictive, too. Tobacco companies in the United States have the authority to reduce the nicotine content in cigarettes to non-compensable, non-addictive levels. It is within the FDAs jurisdiction. Denicotinized cigarettes were already on the market in the nineteenth century, and the water-based nicotine alkaloid is easy to produce. When Philip Morris first started making Next cigarettes in the 1980s, they used supercritical fluid extraction techniques to reduce nicotine levels by 97%, which would be required to make a cigarette with just 0.1% nicotine, down from the current values of around 2% (Havermans et al.). Keeping in mind that the amount of nicotine in the rod is more important than how much a person consumes.

Cigarettes are intended to produce smoke that can be inhaled is another flaw. Before the seventeenth century, tobacco smoke was seldom breathed due to its harshness and alkalinity (Baron 1). A way of heating the raw tobacco leaf during the fermentation process to preserve its naturally existing sugars, flue-curing, was only discovered after the invention of smoking. Inhaling smoke with a lower pH is easier because of the acids produced when sugars are burned. Ironically, these supposedly milder cigarettes were much more dangerous, causing smoke to be sucked into the lungs and making them far more dangerous. Flue-cured nicotine, a manufacturing practice that can be changed at any time, is nearly solely responsible for the current global lung cancer epidemic. There should be a significant reduction in the amount of nicotine in the rods, but no cigarette should be supplied with a smoke pH lower than 8.5. The health of the public will be better served by these two new laws than by any other legislation.

Alternatively, it could be argued that the tobacco industry is a major source of corruption in society. By funding decoy or distraction studies, big tobacco has distorted scientific research. As a result, newspapers and magazines that rely on tobacco advertising for revenue have been hesitant to print critical articles on cigarettes. As a result of Philip Morris bribery of its insurance provider (CIGNA), the corporation polluted even its workforces information environment. Even the US president and military have been subjected to cigarette firms exploitation and coercion, as have the American Medical Association, the American Law Institute, several sports leagues, firefighting organizations, and the Hollywood industry. President Lyndon Johnson refused to approve the 1964 Surgeon Generals report for political reasons. US Navy attempts to go smoke-free were scuppered by cigarette manufacturers. Tobacco-friendly politicians were persuaded to thwart the Navys goal of having a smoke-free Navy by 2000 in 1986, and regulation was enacted requiring all ships to sell cigarettes and allow smoking. American submarines didnt go smoke-free until 2011, as a result.

In contrast, smoking cigarettes is a major environmental polluter. Pesticide use and deforestation are both harmful to the environment when it comes to producing cigarette products because of their use in growing and curing and rolling, and flavoring (Leung and Don 1). Several square miles of savannah woods are burned each year to produce the charcoal needed to cure flues. A large amount of greenhouse gas emissions is also produced by the curing and transportation of cigarette goods and the careless disposal of butts. Adding insult to injury, the tobacco industry has generously supported those who reject man-made climate change even further. Even in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, the easy-to-avoid cause of the catastrophe, cigarettes, are mostly overlooked.

Any proposal for a ban is likely to be criticized for increasing smuggling or even organized crime. That, however, is akin to blaming criminals with large wallets for their crimes. For reasons including price discrepancies and cigarette makers tolerance for contraband, tobacco smuggling is already widespread in the industry. In contrast to alcohol prohibition, when drinking was viewed as a more recreational substance, the demand for illegal drugs is expected to decline after the addicts overcome their dependency. In the end, smoking will not be eliminated by a prohibition on the sale of cigarettes since individuals should cultivate their own for personal use. Instead of criminalizing the possession, its time to put a stop to sales. As a result, in a liberal society, enforcement should be of secondary importance. On the other hand, smoking a cigarette is not a celebration of freedom but rather a theft of that freedom. People are putting corporations at a disadvantage by portraying themselves as defenders of freedom. Smoking poses a threat to individual liberties, and as a result, it should be discouraged.

Prohibitions are dismissed as impractical or totalitarian by the industry, which has been the case for many years. On the other hand, the freedom argument falls short when taking into account how individuals experience addiction. For most smokers, the only reason they enjoy smoking is to stave off nicotine withdrawal symptoms; they need it to feel normal. Cigarette enjoyers, those who profess a love for the product, are an extremely rare breed. A majority of smokers want to stop but are unable to; many often regret starting the habit. Its been known for a long time. In spite of product control, price, denormalization, and smoke-free laws aimed at reducing or eliminating cigarette usage, it is achievable. Even now, certain counties still ban the sale of alcohol, just as some municipalities did in the 1930s.

Cigarettes have been the most harmful invention in human history. Because of this, it is a huge financial and political drain, a contributor to both climate change denial as well as global warming itself, and a costly burden on cash-strapped nations alike. For decades, tobacco firms have said that if their products are shown to be dangerous, they would cease production. Since cigarettes have no recreational value, banning their sale is the best way to prevent people from smoking in the first place. Generally speaking, small towns and localities have the ability to outlaw the selling of cigarettes fairly instantly. The worlds leading cause of death and respiratory illness can be eliminated if people realize they have more power than they think.

Works Cited

Baron, Yves Muscat. Incidence and Case-Fatality Ratio of COVID-19 infection in relation to Tobacco Smoking, Population Density and Age Demographics in the USA: could Particulate Matter derived from Tobacco Smoking act as a Vector for COVID-19 transmission?. medRxiv (2020).

Havermans, Anne et al. Feasibility of Manufacturing Tobacco with Very Low Nicotine Levels. Tobacco Regulatory Science, Volume 6, Number 6, November 2020, pp. 405-415(11).

Leung, Janice M., and Don D. Sin. Smoking, ACE-2 and COVID-19: ongoing controversies. European Respiratory Journal 56.1 (2020).

Recher, Vedran. Tobacco smuggling in the Western Balkan region: Exploring habits, attitudes, and predictors of illegal tobacco demand. Radni materijali EIZ-a 1 (2019): 1-24.

Ritchie, Hannah and Roser, Max. Smoking. OurWorldInData.org. (2021). Web.

World Health Organization. Web.

A research design is a methodical plan to investigate a problem (Gnich, 2004). Every research utilizes a specific design in the methodologies depending on the type of the study to be carried out. Notably, the designs for the quantitative researches are descriptive, correlational, quasi-experimental, and experimental. The paper below analyzes an article from an online database (Gnich, 2004). The article analyzed is Community-Based Interventions to Promote Non-Smoking by Wendy Gnich.

The research articles design is experimental. An experimental design attempts to come up with the cause-effect association among a collection of variables by means of scientific approaches (Gnich, 2004). As such, the article seeks to determine the effect of community based interventions aimed at enhancing non-smoking behavior.

Another feature of an experimental research is that it tries to recognize and enforce control over all other variables excluding one. In the above research paper, efforts that tried to reduce smoking based on interventions aimed at prompting numerous risk factors affecting health issues were included (Gnich, 2004). However, community mediations assessed in terms of the intermediary outcome process, investigations that comprised of the standard measurement of outcomes, and investigations that did not comprise of a control of the community were rejected.

As an experimental research, the study collected numerous forms of data from the literature reviews and experiments (Gnich, 2004). As such, the researchers collected descriptive evidence, information on the reliability of the study, information on the measure of the intermediation, and information about the research findings (Gnich, 2004). Similarly, the experimental research utilized logistic regression, linear regression, and t-tests in its statistical analysis part (Gnich, 2004). Based on the above features, it is apparent that the research articles design was experimental.

Reference

Gnich, W. (2004). Community based interventions to promote non-smoking. Web.

Everybody knows about the harmful effects of smoking tobacco. It does significant damage to ones lungs, as well as teeth and skin. Moreover, smoking is addictive, and quitting the bad habit once it has been acquired becomes a serious problem with time. In addition to that, smoking strongly affects ones budget: heavy smokers go through one or two packs a day. However, people still prefer using regular cigarettes daily to using such devices as vapes. There have always been concerns about banning smoking in public places and there are several reasons that prove this ban is necessary.

First of all, passive smoking may be just as bad for ones health as regular smoking. Unfortunately, in this case, an individual is not able to control the fumes intake because he is not the one with this bad habit. Cigarette smokers are responsible not only for their health but also for the health of those around them. Since there are always many children in public places, there is a high risk of them being affected by smoke. According to Wenzel, smoking causes early damage to the adolescent body (p 5, par 4) that can be applied to passive smoking as well. Children are more prone to suffering from its effects, according to Monson and Arsenault (par 33) many people have certain respiratory conditions, like asthma, and the effect that tobacco fumes can have on their health is severe. Even breathing in drifting tobacco for a short period can be fatal.

Moreover, it is annoying for most people to be exposed to smoke involuntarily and have no other option but to breathe in the fumes instead of clean air. Not all non-smokers can stand the irritating smell of tobacco; the fact that the smoke tends to linger on clothes and hair for days annoys people even more.

Restrictions on using tobacco products could solve that problem. In addition to this, the ban on smoking in public places will benefit the environment, as there will be less litter. Not all people are responsible when it comes to using bins and trash cans to throw away the rubbish. Cigarette butts can be found not only on the streets but also on playgrounds, sandboxes, and beaches, which makes them a potential hazard for children. The remains of cigarettes still contain harmful substances that can damage ones health. It is also important to mention that not only children may be in danger: birds and animals may accidentally swallow cigarette butts. Establishing a ban will protect wildlife as well as people.

Restriction on smoking in public places may contribute to achieving several important benefits. It will solve certain environmental issues, protecting animals and birds and making cities cleaner. Little children will not be at risk of touching possibly contagious remains of cigarettes. The ban may help smokers quit their bad habit, making it inconvenient and even impossible for them to maintain it. It will improve the overall health of the worlds population by getting rid of the cause of many illnesses. Apart from that, the ban will remove the potential allergen that triggers people with respiratory conditions, like bronchitis or asthma. Not everyone will indeed follow the law right away, but establishing it in the first place is an important step towards a better future for the planet.

Works Cited

Monson, Eva, and Nicole Arsenault. Effects of enactment of legislative (public) smoking bans on voluntary home smoking restrictions: a review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, vol.19, no.2, 2017, pp.141-148.

Wenzel, Amy. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology. SAGE Publications, 2017.

Introduction

The method utilized in the analysis of the smoking issue among adolescents is a qualitative data collection approach. The given methodological framework seeks to understand the underlying cues that lead teenagers of low and middle-income households to try tobacco smoking. Data collection will occur in the form of questionnaires, which will thoroughly assess the role of tobacco marketing, representation of tobacco smoking in media, the influence of adult smokers, and income-dependent factors that promote such an unhealthy habit development. The approach will enable the research to derive the most critical insight regarding the overall attractiveness of smoking among adolescents.

The primary reason for using the qualitative approach is the fact that there a wide range of studies illustrating the numerical or statistical aspect of the problem. However, there is no to little knowledge of the underlying reasons for teenagers getting involved in smoking addiction. Therefore, this methodological framework will fill the gap in current understanding of tobacco addiction prevalence among adolescents of low and middle-income families. Qualitative data collection will provide a more in-depth and detailed basis for developing possible theories that could set new research directions with more precision. By increasing the general comprehension of the factors that lure adolescents into smoking in the first place, it will be feasible to develop effective prevention programs. The latter will either eliminate or reduce the overall influence of the derived factors on the target group.

Literature Review

In order to build a proper understanding of the subject, it is critical to assess the current literature on the subject. The study suggests that the main predictors and catalyzers of tobacco consumption among adolescents are subjective norms and behavioral willingness (Barati, Allahverdipour, Hidarnia, & Niknami, 2015). In other words, the overall attitude of a teenager and his or her perceived set of behavioral norms dictate whether or not he or she will adhere to the given addictive habit. It is important because it shows that adolescents are easily influenced by their incorrect perception of social norms, which means that the surrounding prevalence of tobacco smoking can greatly promote such behavior. The information in the introduction focuses on the topic of male teenagers, and they are assessed through the Prototype Willingness Model (PWM) (Barati et al., 2015). The researchers applied a descriptive-analytical study, which utilized the multistage sampling method. The data was collected through a questionnaire, which was built on the concepts of the willingness model.

Parental and peer influence also require extensive assessment as factors that promote tobacco smoking behavior among the target group. The research indicates that pluralistic ignorance on the danger of nicotine increases drug consumption among teenagers (Jawad et al., 2015). Such ignorance is comprised of a number of elements, such as peer and parent tobacco use, low religiosity, and advertisement (Jawad et al., 2015). The article is relevant to the subject because it reveals more underlying reasons behind cigarette smoking among adolescents. It shows that both parents and peers can have a major impact on the subjects. In addition, exposure to nicotine promoting advertisements can contribute to collective ignorance on the topic. The introduction specifically addresses the problem of water-pipe tobacco smoking and its growing popularity. The method used in the study is a quantitative approach with extensive use of logistics regression models (Jawad et al., 2015). The data was collected through questionnaires that targeted sixth and seventh-grade students.

Moreover, it is critical to consider the overall role of income in a family as a contributing factor in tobacco use. It is stated that socioeconomic status directly affects the prevalence of alcohol and tobacco consumption (Allen et al., 2017). In addition, members of lower and lower-middle income groups were more likely to lead an unhealthy lifestyle in general, which is manifested in poor dieting and an exhibition of a wide range of risk behaviors. The article is important to the subject because it demonstrates that families on the lower end of the socioeconomic status spectrum are more inclined to adhere to nicotine consumption. The introduction outlines that it is a systematic review that assesses ones socioeconomic status and four harmful risk behaviors, such as physical inactivity, unhealthy diets, tobacco use, and alcohol (Allen et al., 2017). The researchers analyzed primary source publications from 1990 to 2015. The data collection method utilized a database review, where the most relevant articles were selected.

One should understand that adolescent smoking prevalence among low and middle-income households occurs due to a specific set of underlying reasons. The current literature indicates that advertisements, parents, and peers heavily influence a teenagers eagerness to smoke a nicotine product. It was also established that low socioeconomic status is associated with higher use of tobacco products. Therefore, it is important to fill the gap of how low and middle-income families increase smoking among adolescents. It is also vital to analyze the underlying influences in order to design proper preventative measures and set the direction for further research. For example, parents can act as both a facilitation and protection factor of smoking among teenagers (Urrutia-Pereira, Oliano, Aranda, Mallol, & Solé, 2017). In other words, a parent can promote such a habit by setting an example or offer parental guidance to discourage nicotine adherence.

The given area of research is paramount due to the elevated popularity of e-cigarette smoking, such as vaping or heat-not-burn. A study conducted among high school students stated that e-cigarette significantly increases the overall chance that an adolescent will become an active tobacco smoker (Wills et al., 2016). Some forms of nicotine products are becoming highly popular among teenagers due to their youth-targeted advertisement approaches. With such trends at hand, it is critical to understand the underlying influences behind tobacco smoking among youth. This will help to establish the next steps regarding prevention and discouragement. Depending on the nature of the findings of the proposed research, it is possible that media and advertisement plays a major role in nicotine promotion. It is also plausible that adolescents begin to smoke due to parental cues, and thus, parental guidance needs to be promoted through active campaigns. Lastly, there is a probability that the problem occurs due to low socioeconomic status, which means specific government programs can be designed to address the issue.

It is important to establish the main factors in the attraction of tobacco to adolescents, which may be maintaining relationships with peers or a desire to overcome stress. Moreover, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the stress factor may become more pronounced among adolescents, which indicates an increase in mental issues. It should also be noted that a particular teenager may consider smoking as a factor in filling their free time. The data obtained can help in the development of measures to strengthen psychological assistance to adolescents, their enthusiasm for healthy activities, and filling up their free time. In addition, you need to study the opinion of adolescents about the cons of smoking tobacco. It was determined that the prevailing part of adolescents could consider addiction as the main negative factor of smoking. However, for poorer adolescents, material costs may be of particular importance.

The consumption of tobacco products is a real threat at the level of the family, individual, society, state, and, therefore, a threat to national security. The importance of the tobacco problem was repeatedly pointed out by the leaderships of the countries, and the concepts of state policy were developed. Smoking is killing, despite all the research and laws, more and more people. The forms of tobacco use, package designs, and their contents are changing. The level of morbidity associated with the smoking remains unchanged. Even a complete smoking cessation will not make up for the damage that has already been done to health. Therefore, the best way to stay healthy is to completely quit smoking, including passive smoking. Only by paying enough attention to ones own health, he or she can be sure of a healthy future.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the given study will utilize a qualitative methodological framework due to the lack of sufficient data in this area. Such an approach will allow the research to identify the underlying reasons for the prevalence of tobacco use among adolescents of low and middle-income households. On the basis of the current literature, the plausible factors can be found in advertisement and parental or peer influence. In addition, there is evidence that low socioeconomic status directly associated with increased tobacco consumption. Therefore, it is important to fill the gap in knowledge regarding the effect of the latter statement on adolescents.

References

Allen, L., Williams, J., Townsend, N., Mikkelsen, B., Roberts, N., Foster, C., & Wickramasinghe, K. (2017). Socioeconomic status and non-communicable disease behavioural risk factors in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: A systematic review. The Lancet Global Health, 5(3), 277-289.

Barati, M., Allahverdipour, H., Hidarnia, A., & Niknami, S. (2015). Predicting tobacco smoking among male adolescents in Hamadan city, west of Iran in 2014: An application of the prototype willingness model. Journal of Research in Health Sciences, 15(2), 113-118.

Jawad, M., Nakkash, R. T., Mahfoud, Z., Bteddini, D., Haddad, P., & Afifi, R. A. (2015). Parental smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke are associated with waterpipe smoking among youth: Results from a national survey in Lebanon. Public Health, 129(4), 370-376.

Urrutia-Pereira, M., Oliano, V. J., Aranda, C. S., Mallol, J., & Solé, D. (2017). Prevalence and factors associated with smoking among adolescents. Journal of Pediatrics, 93(3), 230-237.

Wills, T. A., Knight, R., Sargent, J. D., Gibbons, F. X., Pagano, I., & Williams, R. J. (2016). Longitudinal study of e-cigarette use and onset of cigarette smoking among high school students in Hawaii. Tobacco Control, 26(1), 34-39.

Introduction

A smoker is any person who consumes burned tobacco or its vapors, either through tasting or through inhaling. Smokers are classified according to the number of cigarettes they smoke per day. Different countries use different standards to classify smokers based on their consumption rate. Thus, we cannot say a heavy or light smoker consumes an exact number of cigarettes per day. This paper will look at various types of cigarette smokers.

Main Body

Casual smokers

Smokers are classified into casual, moderate and chain smokers. The casual smokers only smoke when socializing with friends. Most the casual smokers do not consider themselves smokers because they do it casually. However, you either smoke or you do not.

According to studies done in the United States, college students constitute the largest number of casual smokers. They are also referred to as social smokers. A casual smoker is usually resistant to any efforts that are geared towards antismoking. This is because the individual does not consider himself as a smoker. Such people do not consider that they can become addicted or even that their casual smoking may pose health risks to them. It is important for them to note that, no matter what category one falls into; smoking causes many diseases and many a time the practice poses health hazards.

Moderate smokers

Secondly we have the moderate smokers. These people consume an average of 1-2 packets of cigarettes a day. They mostly smoke under stressful conditions. Compared to the casual smokers, moderate smokers stand a better chance of quitting smoking. This is because most of them admit that they are smokers and in case they are well educated on the harmful effects of smoking, they can easily quit.

Chain smokers

Thirdly are the chain smokers. This category is composed of those smokers who smoke one cigarette after the other. These smokers will consume more than three packets of cigarettes in a day. Such people are addicted to cigarettes and they have to smoke non-stop failure to which many will report of headaches. Chain smokers find it very hard to quit smoking largely because most of them are long time smokers. They know that smoking is harmful to their health but console themselves when they see other chain smokers who have lived for many years. For example, British prime minister is said to have lived 85 years despite being a chain smoker.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Cigarette smoking is a habit that has been with mankind for a long time. Many of the different types of smokers have tried to quit. Some have been successful while others have not. However quitting smoking is a tall order that requires willpower. A smoker has to make a decision to quit and should have self discipline and motivation in order to achieve this objective. This is because cigarette smoking is harmful to both the health of the smoker and the people around him who are referred to as passive smokers. Studies have shown that smoking affects the immunity of an individual making him or her prone to several diseases.

For instance, smoking is highly attributed to being the main cause of certain liver diseases such as liver cancer. This information should be disseminated to the population about smoking and its effects on human health. The information should be factual so as to deter those who would be considering to begin smoking and remove misconceptions such as those who smoke casually are in no danger.

Smoking is one of the major causes of death in the world. Cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are associated with prolonged exposure to tobacco smoke. Many countries have stringent laws that prohibit smoking in public because of its negative health effects. The major argument for the implementation of such laws is that secondary smokers suffer the debilitating effects of inhaling polluted air against their will. This is a controversial debate in many states because tobacco consumption has several economic benefits and smoking in public places is an expression of peoples freedom. However, it is more harmful than beneficial. Smoking should be banned in public because of its serious health consequences, environmental pollution, and the portrayal of the habit as worthy of emulation.

One of the main arguments to support the banning of smoking in public is the negative health effects of secondhand smoke. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), tobacco smoke contains approximately 4,000 chemicals, of which 250 cause health complications and 50 are associated with cancer (as cited in Rodgman & Perfetti, 2016). Smoking in public exposes both smokers and non-smokers to these harmful chemicals. The organization also estimates that about 700 million children around the world inhale air that is contaminated with tobacco smoke (Heffernan, 2016). Government statistics revealed that in 2004, more than 30% of deaths attributed to second hand smoke involved children (Krosnick et al., 2019). The health effects of tobacco in adults include respiratory diseases, cardiovascular complications, and sudden death syndrome. Women who are exposed to tobacco smoke during pregnancy give birth to low-weight babies (Krosnick et al., 2019). This is evidence that tobacco smoke is harmful to both children and adults.

The WHOs Framework Convention on Tobacco Control states that the three major effects of exposure to tobacco smoke are disease, death, and disability (Rodgman & Perfetti, 2016). The organization recommends the implementation of laws that protect the public from second-hand smoke. Research has shown that the temporary effects of exposure to tobacco smoke include nausea, headaches, and breathing difficulties (Heffernan, 2016). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has revealed that the risk of a heart attack from inhaling tobacco for a period of at least 30 minutes is similar for both smokers and non-smokers. This risk is higher for people with immunocompromised immune systems (Krosnick et al., 2019). It is evident that tobacco smoke has both short-term and long-term health implications that can be avoided by making public places smoke-free.

Smoking in public is one of the most ignored sources of pollution. Studies have provided evidence of the social concern for cigarette littering due to smoking in public places, and the mounting support for bans. A study conducted by Basto-Abreu et al. (2016) in Baja California, Mexico revealed that 45% of all cigarettes smoked were improperly disposed because they were thrown on the ground. According to the studys findings, the researchers estimated that about 27 million cigarette butts litter the environment (Basto-Abreu et al., 2016). The studys sample comprised 800 adults from Baja, California. The majority of the participants (98%) perceived smoking as a negative habit that should be controlled through bans (Basto-Abreu et al., 2016).

According to the WHO, cigarette butts are classified as toxic hazardous waste that should be properly disposed (Loddenkemper & Kreuter, 2015). Smoking poses challenges for disposal regulations because more than 5 trillion cigarettes are smoked around the world every year, the majority of which are improperly disposed (Basto-Abreu et al., 2016). For example, they are thrown on the ground or thrown in dustbins without regard for their toxicity and effect on the environment (Loddenkemper & Kreuter, 2015). A report released by Keep America Beautiful indicated that 30% of waste material along shorelines and on land is comprised of cigarette butts (Heffernan, 2016). These pieces are made up of three components: a paper wrap, a filter, and tobacco. Each of these components presents a different environmental concern.

For instance, filters undergo slow degradation (Loddenkemper & Kreuter, 2015). Therefore, they accumulate and form a mass of toxic waste that has serious health effects. Smoking is one of the major causes of air pollution, as it is responsible for 10 times the amount of gases produced by the diesel car exhaust. Tobacco is more dangerous than diesel because it produces particulate matter, which has been greatly reduced in cars due to improved technologies (Basto-Abreu et al., 2016). One of the dangers of pollution is its effect on health. Studies have shown that environmental tobacco smoke and the particulate matter associated with it increase asthma symptoms and compromises proper lung function (Heffernan, 2016). Their proinflammatory qualities increase lower airway inflammation in asthma patients (West, 2017).

According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), smoke-free laws serve two major functions. First, they help tobacco smokers to quit and fight their addictions (Anyanwu, Craig, Katikireddi, & Green, 2018). According to a study by Mayne et al. (2018) published in the American Journal of Epidemiology showed that the risk of smoking drops among college graduates when they live close to areas that have smoking bans. The researchers established a relationship between bans and gains in attempts to quit smoking (Mayne et al., 2018). They also found out that the bans were effective at helping people with higher levels of education quit than people with lower education levels. For instance, smoking lowered by 20% among college graduates (Mayne et al., 2018). Another advantage of banning smoking in public places is that it reduces the risk of individuals becoming heavy smokers (Anyanwu et al., 2018). In areas where bans were introduced, people smoked less than 10 cigarettes a day and reduction in smoking levels was only observed among people with a bachelors degree (Mayne et al., 2018).

The influence of the bans among low-income people involved the likelihood of quitting. Research has shown that individuals with lower education levels experience more exposure to secondhand smoke compared to those with higher levels of education (Loddenkemper & Kreuter, 2015). The study did not establish a positive relationship between bans and the risk of smoking. However, they were beneficial in motivating them to try to quit. Second, they prevent the initiation of children and young adults into tobacco smoking. Studies have shown the effectiveness of smoking bans in reducing the prevalence of smoking in workplaces and other public areas. Imitation is one of the ways that children use to acquire knowledge and experience. In that regard, they copy the behaviors of adults and act them out. Smoking in public sets a bad example for children who perceive the activity as fun and healthy, and that should be emulated (Loddenkemper & Kreuter, 2015).

Opponents of banning smoking in public argue that smoke-free laws will impinge on peoples freedom, reduce collections in government taxes, and destroy businesses. They maintain that since smoking is not a crime, it should not be banned or limited in any way. The tobacco industry contributed greatly to the nations economy. Therefore, bans will lower sales and the industrys tax contributions. They also argue that bans will destroy businesses carried out by farmers and manufacturers as sales will plummet due to the loss of customers. These arguments are misleading because non-smokers have a right to enjoy healthy spaces and protection from secondhand smoke (West, 2017). It is unethical for smokers to expose other people to tobacco smoke. The argument that bans will lower taxes is invalid because smoking causes health complications that are expensive to treat (West, 2017). Therefore, bans will lower health care costs, as fewer people will be treated for smoking-related illnesses.

Tobacco smoking is one of the main preventable causes of diseases and deaths around the world. Many states in the United States have implemented smoke-free public places laws in order to protect the public from the effects of secondhand smoke. Smoking should be banned in public because it causes negative health outcomes, encourages littering and environmental pollution, and promotes smoking among children and adolescents. The health effects of exposure to tobacco smoke include stroke, coronary heart disease, lung cancer, pulmonary disease, and miscarriage. Poorly disposed cigarette butts are a major source of air, water, and land pollution. Opponents of smoking in public bans argue that they will infringe on peoples freedom, lower tax contributions, and affect businesses negatively. However, these arguments are flawed as Americans have a right to a clean environment and healthy public places. The health care costs associated with tobacco smoking are larger than the tax collected from the tobacco industry. Banning smoking in public places should be encouraged because it will improve public health, lower pollution, and help addicts quit.

References

Anyanwu, P. E., Craig, P., Katikireddi, S. V., & Green, M. J. (2018). Impacts of smoke-free public places legislation on inequalities in youth smoking uptake: Study protocol for a secondary analysis of UK survey data. BMJ Open, 8(3), 1-7.

Basto-Abreu, A. C., Christine, P. J., Zepeda-Tello, R., Romero-Martinez, M., Duque, J. I., Reynales,-Shigematsu, L., & Barrientos-Gutierrez, T. (2016). Behaviors and opinion towards outdoor smoking bans and cigarette littering in Baja California, Mexico. Health Policy and Planning, 31(3), 309-313.

Heffernan, T. (2016, August). The impact of active and passive smoking upon health and neurocognitive function (Editorial). Front Psychiatry, 7.

Krosnick, J. A., Malhotra, N., Mo, C. H., Bruera, E. F., Chang, L., Pasek, J., & Thomas, R. K. (2019). Perceptions of health risks of cigarette smoking: A new measure reveals widespread misunderstanding. PLOS One, 14(2), 344-356.

Loddenkemper, R., & Kreuter, M. (Eds.). (2015). The tobacco epidemic. New York, NY: Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers.

Mayne, L. S., Auchincloss, A. H., Tabb, L. P., Stehr, M., Shikany, J. M., Schreiner, P. J., & Widome, R. (2018). Associations of bar and restaurant smoking bans with smoking behavior in the CARDIA study: A 25-year study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 187(6), 1250-1258.

Rodgman, A., & Perfetti, T. A. (2016). The chemical components of tobacco and tobacco smoke (2nd ed.). New York, NY: CRC Press.

West, R. (2017). Tobacco smoking: Health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychology & Health, 32(8), 1018-1036.

During the 19th century, not many people of the developing industrial era were in favor of restrictions and policies, which banned smoking. However, at the turn of the next century a number of moral and social reformers irritated and annoyed with the local people who used to consume tobacco and alcohol started to demand that the state and federal lawmakers take certain stern actions against them. At first, the Americans believed that the prohibitions were for their good but slowly they became disillusioned and began to defy the laws. In addition, the powerful and rich people in the American society conspired with the gangsters who suffered losses due to the bans in order to maintain usage of tobacco among the public. (Cutler & Rosenthal, 2002)

Back in 1818, smoking on the streets was banned in Lancaster, Pennsylvania and their mayor was even penalized when he broke the law. Later on in 1840, Boston, Massachusetts, also banned smoking. More than fifty years later legislations were also introduced in Washington in 1893 that banned both the consumption and sale of cigarettes. Later in 1907, Washington also passed a legislation that banned the manufacturing, selling, exchange and distribution of cigarettes along with cigarette wrappers and papers. In 1898, Tennessee imposed a total ban on cigarettes and this was soon followed by Indiana in 1905. On 21 January 1908, the Sullivan Ordinance was passed by the New York City Council for prohibiting the women from smoking tobacco at places other than their homes. However, the mayor vetoed it after 14 days of its enactment. In 1914, one of the strongest steps against smoking was taken by USA when smoking was even prohibited in the American Senate. Nevertheless, later by 1927, most of these states had repealed their prohibitions on the trade of cigarettes and Kansas was the last state to do so. These bans turned out to be unsuccessful experiments and had many disastrous consequences since most people were against it and finally all the prohibitions were lifted in 1933. (Rabin & Sugarman, 2002)

USA had to wait for 40 years before Arizona, in 1973, became the first state in a new generation of smoking prohibition policies to impose a complete legislation that restricted smoking in almost all public places. That same year Florida also passed a total law that restricted smoking in virtually all their public areas. Later, Florida even made this smoking ban a part of their state constitution in 2002. Soon Minnesota followed in the footsteps of Arizona and in 1975 became the first state that banned smoking in most of the public spaces including public schools, day care centers and at health care facilities. Their no smoking policy also enclosed that restaurants include No Smoking areas but the bars were exempted from the law. In Maine, the Workplace Smoking Act came in to being in 1985 that banned smoking in all workplaces that were not for the common public. North Carolina passes a state law in 1993 that completely prohibited all the smoking restrictions that would be passed by any of the local government. Also in Maryland policies made in 1995 prohibited smoking in virtually all of their office workplaces. Another big step for the no smoking policies came when San Luis Obispo, California, in 1990 banned smoking from all indoor public places that included restaurants and bars and was the first city to do so in the entire world. In addition, later, in 1998 a total smoking ban was enacted in California, which again included restaurants and bars. (Slovic, 2004)

The following specify which state of USA has a smoking ban and which does not:

1. The states that have imposed a statewide smoking ban are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont and Washington.
2. Those states having partial statewide smoking bans are Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Tennessee.
3. States with a Commonwealth wide smoking ban are Kentucky, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico.
4. Pennsylvania and Virginia are the states with a partial smoking ban.
5. Statewide smoking bans have not been imposed on the states of Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
6. The state, which does not have a territory wide, smoking ban, is American Samoa. (Slovic, 2004)

Smoking was banned in the state of Arizona when in November 2006 more than 50% of voters supported their Smoke Free Arizona Act that banned smoking at workplaces, restaurants and bars and people were not allowed to smoke within 20 feet of any exit or entry. This bam was imposed on first may, 2007. California banned smoking in 1994 and additionally people were not allowed to smoke within 20 feet of any window or door of government building, public university or private firms. It is also banned on the streets, outside shopping malls and the outdoor patios of restaurants and people caught smoking in these areas are fined almost $500. On 1 April 2004, Connecticut imposed the Clean Indoor Air Act that prohibited smoking at almost all workplaces and enclosed public areas that included restaurants and bars. However, cigar bars, private clubs and correctional facilities were exempted from the ban. (DeCicca, 2008)

Delaware declared a statewide smoking ban on November 2002 in all of its casinos, bars, workplaces and restaurants. On 16 November 2006, in Hawaii smoking was banned in all partially and completely confined workplaces that included bars and restaurants. Individuals breaking this policy had to pay fine of $50 and were even had to attend to court hearings or else warrant to arrest them was issued. The Smoke Free Illinois Act came into force on 1 January 2008 and banned smoking in indoor workplaces that included casinos, restaurants and bars. This act replaced all the other local smoking policies, which had little limitations allowing the local government to impose more constrictive laws. (Hassan, 2008)

The Smoke Free Air Act came into effect on 1 July 2008 after it was signed by the governor of Iowa and it banned smoking inside all bars and restaurants and almost all indoor workplaces, private and public schools, on properties leased and owned by the state government and city and state parks. Individuals who do not follow the terms, of this policy are fined $50 and for businesses, the fine goes up to $500 per violation. Smoking was prohibited in the restaurants of Maine from September 1999 and in bars from 1 January 2004. On 1 September, smoking was also banned in cars having children below 16 years old. (DeCicca, 2008)

The Clean Indoor Air Act was signed by the governor on 17 May 2007 in Maryland and it came into force on 1 February 2008. It banned smoking in all indoor workplaces that included bars, restaurants and clubs. However, some of the private homes, tobacco distributors, wholesalers, importers and manufacturers, and few hotel rooms were exempted from this policy. The Freedom to Breathe Act in Minnesota came into being on 1 October 2007 and enhanced upon the actual Clean Indoor Air Act of 1975 prohibiting smoking in enclosed workplaces that include public transportations, bars and restaurants. This policy also replaced all other weak and limited local smoking policies allowing the cities and counties to impose their own more rigorous policies. (Hassan, 2008)

In Montana, the statewide smoking policy came into effect on 1 October 2005 banning it in almost all public places and buildings, restaurants and workplaces. Later a compromised smoking policy came into being on 15 April 2007. In New Mexico, the Dee Johnson Clean Indoor Air Act came into force on 15 June 2007 banning smoking in almost all of the enclosed public areas and workplaces and at the entry points of buildings. However, it exempts some businesses, indoor areas of restaurants and bars, some hotel rooms, tobacco stores and producers, private residences, cigar bars, non-profit private clubs, bingo halls and casinos. The penalties for violating these policies are $100 the first time, $200 the second time and $500 for the subsequent times. (DeCicca, 2008)

Utah was the 12th US state to enforce policies banning smoking on 1 March 2006 when legislatures were passed by the Utah State for amending the Clean Air Act of 1995 for completely banning smoking in taverns and bars and has taken effect from 1 January 2009. This new policy also bans smoking in workplaces having ventilated smoking areas, religious, social and fraternal companies, private institutions and day care centers. The Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act came into being in 2006 and Colorado was the 13th US state to impose a complete indoor public smoking ban. This law bans smoking in almost all indoor public places and confined workplaces that include casinos, public bathrooms, bingo halls, restaurants and bars.

In New York City policies banning smoking in restaurants, bars and indoor workplaces came in to being in April 2003. However, tobacco retail shops, private clubs, cigar bars and casinos were exempted from these policies. Later these policies were made stricter when smoking was banned in almost all tobacco retail shops, private organizations sampling and promoting tobacco, private clubs, bars having separate smoking rooms, bars operated by owner and tobacco bars, making these policies among the toughest in all of USA. The Smoke Free Ohio was approved on 7 November 2006 and this policy prohibits smoking in all workplaces, bars and restaurants. On 7 December 2006, it came into force and the Ohio Department of Health began enforcing the law on 3 May 2006. Under this law, individuals were fined up to $100 and businesses up to $2500. (Hassan, 2008)

The smoking policy of Rhode Island came into force on 1 March 2005 and banned smoking in virtually all enclosed workplaces but not for the gambling services. The state of Vermont on 1 September passed three laws prohibiting smoking in public areas and workplaces. The Smoking in Public Places policy bans smoking in public areas, like restaurants and bars. Smoking on School Grounds policy bans smoking in public schools and school events. In addition, an individual standing 8m away from a window or door that leads to intake ventilation is not allowed to smoke.

Although Louisiana has a partial smoking ban, it prohibits smoking in restaurants, workplaces, casinos, city parks, retail stores, malls, day care centers, sport arenas, hospitals, bus stops and museums of Terrebonne, Shreveport and Mandeville. Even Georgia has a partial ban and during 2005 and 2006, smoking was banned in the restaurants, bars and workplaces of Morrow and Athens-Clarke County. Florida bans smoking in workplaces and the Sarasota County has banned smoking in some special areas of their beach. After a bill was passed by the governor of New Hampshire on 19 June 2007, a law prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants came into effect on 19 June 2007. The State Senate of Tennessee has also passed a bill on 24 May 2007, signed by their governor that bans smoking in almost all of the public places and in restaurants. The Non-Smoker Protection Act was also passed by the Tennessee House on 31 May 2007, for the protection of the health of the common people but it too has a number of exceptions. (Powell & Chaloupka, 2007)

In 2007, USA also passed the Freedom to breathe Act under which even smoking in selected smoking areas, at places of public transportation and employment centers were completely banned. Last year, in 2008, California declared that smoking in front of a minor in a vehicle is to be a misdemeanor offense and Berkley banned smoking in commercially zoned public sidewalks. On 13 March 2008, in the Hawaiian County smoking was banned in almost all indoor public recreational places like beaches and parks. Although the anti-smoking policy of Oregon, the Clean Air Act, was signed on 26 June 2007, it came into force on 1 January 2009. It banned smoking from all indoor public areas, like bars, restaurants and taverns. In addition, people within 15 feet of the entrance of any building are banned from smoking. In Boston, Massachusetts, the Boston Public Health Commission enforced policies for banning smoking in the terraces of restaurants and bars. Under their policy, smoking is also banned in hotel rooms and stores and pharmacies cannot sell tobacco products any more. Nebraska is one of the nations that are yet to properly enforce a statewide smoking ban although it has already been passed on February 2008. (DeCicca, 2008) The smoking policies are due to come into force on 1 June 2009 and it has been planed according to the Lincolns Ordinance. However, policies banning smoking from enclosed public buildings and workplaces are present in the cities of Lincoln, Omaha and Grand Island. In addition, in South Dakota the statewide policy will only come into force later this year on 1 July 2009, and will ban smoking from all indoor workplaces, like restaurants and bars.

In the USA, a number of public transportation agencies have decided to ban smoking in their transportation facilities, like trains and busses. In Oregon, the Tri-Met transit agency has policies for banning smoking in all of their centers, bus shelters and train stations. These policies came into being from September 2005 and were enforced demanding fine and sometimes-even arrest. Illinois also has anti-smoking policies that bans people from smoking in the public school premises, both outdoor and indoor. In addition, from 2006 smoking was prohibited in their colleges and universities, especially in the dormitories. There are similar policies in Wisconsin and New Jersey too. Tennessee, South Dakota, Kentucky, Virginia and Mississippi, have even banned smoking in their government buildings. To make our future better the federal and state governments need to pass laws that make the people aware of the dangers they are putting themselves and their future generations. As the city of Bangor in Maine has, a controversial law passed in 2006 banning smoking from cars having children below 18 years old. Although they do not charge a fine, the suspected smoker may be pulled over and warned by the police. California, Louisiana, Colorado and Arkansas also have similar laws. In addition, Bill Clinton, on 9 August 1997, signed an executive order for banning smoking in the interior areas that were leased, rented or even owned by the federal government or all the outdoor areas that were under the control of the executive branch positioned near intake air ducts. (Rabin & Sugarman, 2006)

Most people, especially the retail tobacconists and the tobacco wholesalers, manufacturers, distributors and importers do are not in favor in any of the laws and policies that are present against smoking. Although we have enough proof that these policies on smoking have actually helped to improve not only our health but also the air around us, the businessmen and some of the powerful people who benefit from the tobacco industry are continuously working together to discharge all these laws. For example, the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2007 which is present in the state of Maryland permit that businesses can apply for discharges against the law in which case they can be relinquished from the terms of the law. These smoking policies can only be successful in the future if none of the cocktail lounges, night clubs, casinos and bars are exempted from the polices, like those of Montana which have been exempted from the smoking ban till 1st October, 2009. The state government along with the federal government of USA needs to enforce the counties and cities so that they impose smoking policies that are stricter then the present state laws for the betterment of the nation and its people. The federal and state governments need to understand that until and unless the states have a total statewide ban the terms and conditions of the policies will not be met with. The policies should not be rejected by the Senates or the various Houses and the states need to value the laws and regulations of the policies. (Colman & Remler, 2008)

Over the years, these smoking policies have had much advancement. One of them was when the Nebraska Supreme Court invalidated the temporary exemptions enjoyed by some of the tobacco shops, keno parlous and bars on 30 May 2008. Nevertheless, the state and federal governments should not compromise with the policies banning smoking, like in the case of New Jersey otherwise these policies will remain weak and will never be able to fulfill its terms. The future of these smoking polices lies in the hands of the publics and will only show its actual effect if they adopt and implement these policies. The local governments should not exempt the private organizations that function towards the sampling and promotion of tobacco related products but rather need to strengthen their anti-smoking policies. The other states of USA need to make their policies tougher like those of New York City after which it was observed by the Department of Health in 2004 that the levels of air pollution in New York decreased six times after the ban came into effect. All the policies and bans on smoking need to be made state laws so that they supersede all other county and local smoking laws and as a result are more tough and strict. The individuals and businesses that violate any of the anti-smoking policies and laws should be fined, every time, so that they understand that what they are doing is causing harm to their own country. Only then will in future these policies and law be able to implement their terms. Until and unless USA has strict policies against smoking, the health of our future generation will not be safe. In the future, there are many policies, which are more restrictive than the present ones. Like the ban commissioned by the Boston Public Health Commission that will come into effect on 9^th February, 2019 for banning smoking even in cigar and hookah bars. (Tauras, 2006)

The restrictiveness and prevalence of these smoking laws and policies have until date been able to contain the smoking habits of the citizens and has even been able to improve the quality of air in USA. In addition, the success and failure of these anti-smoking policies vary according to their occupation, age, habits and gender of the people. Many reports have also accounted that there have been a steady decline in the quality and implementation of the smoking policies since the smoking rates had been leveled off during 1990 and 1997 in USA but for the last decade, these policies have had a very positive effect on the people of USA.

More and more workplaces, restaurants, bus stations, airports, schools, universities and household all over USA are taking up policies for completely banning smoking and thus, these smoking policies have spread all over the country. The future of these smoking bans look very bright since almost 90% of all the USA states have enforced some policy for banning smoking, although the effects of the ban vary a lot. Some of them were never put into effect until late 2009 or 2010 and others have been dated even five and ten years later. However, no matter how long it takes the states of USA have come together to make their country completely smoke free. (DeLaurier & Kelder, 2004)

References

Colman, G.J. & Remler, D.K. (2008). Vertical equity consequences of very high cigarette tax increases: If the poor are the ones smoking, how could cigarette tax increases be progressive? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(2), 376-400.

Cutler, D.M. & Rosenthal, M.B. (2002). The Economic impacts of the tobacco settlement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(1), 1-19.

DeCicca, P. (2008). Youth smoking, cigarette prices, and anti-smoking sentiment. Health Economics, 17(6), 733-749.

DeLaurier, GF. & Kelder, G. (2004). Reducing occupation-based disparities related to tobacc. Roles for occupational health and organized labor. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 46(2), 170-179.

Hassan, L.M. (2008). Exploring the effectiveness of cigarette warning labels: findings from the United States and United Kingdom arms of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(3), 263-274.

Powell, L.M. & Chaloupka, F.J. (2007). Parents, public policy, and youth smoking. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 93-112.

Rabin, R.L. & Sugarman, S.D. (2006). Regulating tobacco. New York: Oxford University Press US.

Rabin, R.L. & Sugarman, S.D. (2002). Smoking policy: law, politics, and culture. New York: Oxford University Press US.

Slovic, P. (2004). Smoking: risk, perception & policy. San Francisco: SAGE.

Tauras, J.A. (2006). Can public policy deter smoking escalation among young adults? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(4), 771-784.

Veterans form an important cultural group in the society. The saddening fact is that such veterans have always been a major challenge to healthcare givers. Although the rate of tobacco use among American veterans has been declining, those returning from Afghanistan and Iraq are smoking at an alarming rate (Bastian & Sherman, 2010). This has become a disturbing situation because smoking is associated with cancer, heart diseases, and stroke. Some diseases such as Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD), cardiovascular problems, and oral cancer dominate the lives of most of these veterans.

The other disturbing trend is that most of the US veterans do not seek medical or personal assistance because they possess certain traits and personalities such as heroism, sacrifice, and service (Miller, 2012). As a result, most of these veterans experience certain conditions such as anxiety disorder, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance abuse. According to Miller (2012), the problem becomes complicated when these veterans begin to use tobacco and other addictive drugs. The practice eventually leads to more health complications and problems. Most of these facts explain why most of the US veterans are homeless or depressed today. Today there are many veterans living in poverty or lacking quality health care.

Smoking is a major problem affecting most of the low-income societies and countries. In the United States, the age of actively smoking ex-soldiers is between 25 and 69 (Miller, 2012). That being the case, experts and healthcare professionals should integrate the three levels of intervention. These levels include primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. The approach will address most of the health problems affecting this cultural group. The concept behind primary prevention is reducing the prevalence of the health concerns related to smoking. A good example is providing timely sessions on the effects of tobacco. Experts should monitor the emotional statuses of veterans in order to address the problems arising from depression (Iversen & Greenberg, 2009).

Secondary prevention is essential because it helps all the veterans using tobacco. The concept at this level is to find the best treatment and ensure the veterans do not encounter further complications. Some appropriate practices include counseling, pharmacotherapy, offering cessation classes, and family support. Tertiary prevention is relevant because it inhibits most the diseases associated with smoking. The approach prevents further health complications. The important thing behind these three methods of prevention is to manage the habit and ensure the veterans live a good life (Miller, 2012). As well, most of the interventions used during the secondary level are relevant and can be essential for tertiary prevention. This ultimate goal is to help veterans have productive and normal lives.

I strongly believe that smoking is a major challenge affecting many people across the globe today. That being the case, it is necessary to understand the dangers of smoking and use the three levels of prevention to deal with smoking. As well, veterans and their socio-cultural aspects are distinctive. This explains why there is a link between smoking and certain conditions such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Doctors and psychiatrists should employ the best measures in order to understand the problem of smoking (Iversen & Greenberg, 2009). By doing so, it will be possible to offer the best measures depending on the unique needs of every veteran in the country. The leadership of healthcare givers and community agencies can play a major role towards managing this problem. The government should also support different healthcare organizations in order to manage the problem of smoking among the veterans.

Reference List

Bastian, L., & Sherman, S. (2010).

Effects of the Wars on Smoking Among Veterans. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(2), 102-103.

Iversen, A., & Greenberg, N. (2009). Mental health of regular and reserve military veterans. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 15(1), 100-106.

Miller, T. (2012). The Praeger Handbook of Veterans Health: History, Challenges, Issues, and Developments. Westport: Praeger.

Purpose

The purpose of the research is to analyze and evaluate the results of the Pharmacists Action on Smoking program and to consider whether its impact on society in the relation to smoking cessation is higher than in comparison with casual pieces of advice from pharmacists.

Rationale

Cigarette smoking is one of the major causes of deaths which may be prevented. The Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation was committed in 1995 and the results showed that the quit rates increased with the increase of the information distribution (Fisher, 1995). However, the rate of community intervention trials becomes higher, the specifically evaluating smoking cessation interventions delivered in community pharmacies (Maguire, McElnay, & Drummond, 2001, p. 326) remain on the lower level. The research in the sphere should be conducted at the results may show the importance and necessity for implementing such programs or their uselessness and ineffectiveness.

Methods

One hundred Northern Ireland and 24 London based pharmacists took part in the research. Each of these pharmacists was asked to register 12 smokers. 44% of pharmacists were specifically trained in accordance with the Pharmacists Action on Smoking (PAS) program and were to behave in accordance with the program. 484 smokers were enrolled in the research. Two groups were randomly created, PAS group numerated 265 subjects and control group consisted of 219 participants. The research lasted for one year during which the control group was just monitored, while the PAS group was impacted by structured counseling courses with information leaflets ones a week during the first 4 weeks of the experiment and once a month further. The research results were measured by means of the number of those who gave up smoking during the year of the experiment with further confirmation of this fact in two groups.

Findings

The research results are as follows. 38 subjects (14.3%) in PAS group gave up smoking. The results in the control group are lower as only 6 participants of the experiment (2.7%) self-reported smoking cessation. However, many aspects could have influenced the results. On the one hand, pharmacists reported about the experiments participants who avoided the classes for several times, if they reported about smoking cessation, but failed to confirm the results. Lack of appropriate communication skill might also affect the results. Lack of time was also considered as one of the barriers on the way to the better outcome of the experiment.

Conclusions

Thus, the research results have shown that the Pharmacists Action on Smoking program is effective and after minor corrections and change may be used as the community intervention initiative. The pharmacy-based intervention is effective as a program for smoking cessation as being aware of the problem and the death rates and being constantly reminded about it. The research results may be a good push for policy development where pharmacies may be pointed as the central suppliers of the services connected with smoking cessation.

Reference List

Fisher, E. (1995). The results of the COMMIT trial. Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation. American Journal Of Public Health, 85(2), 159-160.

Maguire, T., McElnay, J., & Drummond, A. (2001). A randomized controlled trial of a smoking cessation intervention based in community pharmacies. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 96(2), 325-331.

Community Description

Hatch is a small village located in New Mexico, and it sit on an area that is 3.1 square miles. As of 2021 there were approximately 2000 residents living in this village. Originally Hatch was known as Santa Barbara, there were many relocations of the residents due to raids, they moved to different parts but in 1875 they found themselves in the same land and they decided to name it Hatch. Over the years the town has grown both in name and economically because of the variety of peppers that they grow, hence the name Chile Capital of the World. The average age of the people living in Hatch is 24 years.

There are different ethnic groups in Hatch but the largest groups are Alaska native, American Indian and African Americans comprise 0.409% of the population, white non-Hispanic comprise of 12.3% while the White Hispanics are the majority with 80.4% (Data USA, 2019). The majority of the population are US citizens with a home ownership rate of 79.7% (Data USA, 2019). The income that is achieved by most households is $40,885 although 28.9% of the families in Hatch live in poverty. The population consist on farmers who earn their living though farming of chiles, onions, corn and cotton. They use irrigation ditches to irrigate their farms with the help of water sourced from Rio Grande and two other lakes.

Community Assessment

Windshield Survey

Boundaries: Hatch is 64 kilometers of Las Cruces in the northwest and 130 kilometers of El Paso, Texas in the northwest in Don Ana County.

Housing and zoning: Houses in Hatch had a median valuation of $83,100 in 2019, which was slightly lower than the national average. Nonetheless, this was an increase from $78,800 in 2018. On the upper side, the rate of home ownership was higher for Hatch compared to the rest of the country at 79.7% and 64.1% respectively (Data USA, 2019).

Space use: Main use for land in Hatch is for farming of cotton, corn, onions and mainly chiles. Hatch is known for its wide variety of peppers that are grown. The other land is used for settlement and a small project of commercial real estate.

Common area: Hatch has small common areas like the New Mexican flair where art is displayed and showcasing of their chiles. There is also the village museum where people get to learn about historical events. Last but not least the Hatch valley where the Hatch Chile festival is held every year.

Transportation: There is public transportation in Hatch town as it was seen as a necessity to improve the living standards of the residents. There are several services available like the bus service and limousine and chauffer services. As for public schools there are buses that transport the students to and from school. The bus services also connect the town to other towns like Las Cruises.

Service centers: There was a senior center where senior residents go and have discussions on different issues regarding them from time to time the youth also gather there to have meetings. Country Sunset is another center for the elderly where they are well taken care of.

Stores: There are a number of shopping centers in Hatch, New Mexico including a village market. The stores in the surrounding mean that the entire neighborhood can depend on the stores for everything they need. Chile Fanatic is the best place that most people consumer their fast foods, which means that they do not have another option. Iteratively, this means that individuals who live in this area do not have option when they need to prepare their own food. In this regard these cannot dictate on their diet or nutritional eating. In terms of assessing the community health needs, it is important that the community of Hatch, Mexico rethinks its food consumption to enhance its public health outcomes.

Street Scene: There are ever quiet streets than you can find in Hatch, New York. In the village, most people own cars that they use when they are not on farms. In most cases people prefer walking to whatever they are destined to, to ensure that they also keep healthy. Farming, fishing, and forestry is what constitutes the villages main economic activity, which is why these people travel a lot physical. With these economic activities, it is expected that these people have to walk a long way every time.

Community Growth: Fairly, the community has so grown so well. In essence, people have been reproducing at the same rate year over year. Having visited the village, it was apparent that the households were growing at the same rate. With this going forward, it means that the health problems will not last long. It is apparent that in the next few years, the healthcare of this village will be highly sustainable. During the visit it appeared that most of the families were enjoying better sanitation services than most parts of the country. Clearly kept up is the phrase that can best describe that village. In fact, from my observation that should be a model community when it comes to the US public health. I was so astonished about the village that I could not make it on this commentary.

Race Ethnicity, Religion: The majority of the people who live here are Indian by origin. The reason? The village derived its name form a famous Indian fighter who made the village a place to relish and a place that everybody with an Indian origin could believe in up to today. The Indians connect with the village and having been some of the most indigenous people in the United States, they have forever believed in their traditional medicines.

Community Personality: Peace and calmness are what describes this village very well. The people living around here are very harmonious. A lot of activities will be going in here, which allows people to be on a good fight for their health. Most of these people will be in their backyards, which allows them to be on their feet exercising or taking time to relax. Mentally, these people look like they are stable considering that they always welcome to their homes. Tobacco smoking in the United States is prevalent, especially among men. According to Parisis et al. (2019), the prevalence of tobacco smoking in the country leads to numerous diseases. Examples of diseases associated with tobacco smoking in the U.S. include respiratory diseases, lung cancer, and throat cancer, among others. Smokers are at a higher risk of developing tobacco-related diseases than non-smokers (Parisis et al., 2019). The government of the United States has tried several cessation attempts on tobacco, but none has been successful due to its impact on the economy of the country. Tobacco is responsible for creating numerous jobs for many Americans and helps the country to feature well in the international market. According to Parisis et al. (2019), although the health hazards of tobacco remain high, its economic value overrides the hazards; thus, it cannot be wiped out of the market.

Literature review

The article by Li et al. (2020) explores tobacco smoking in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. People with a history of smoking tobacco were cited to be at a higher risk of contracting coronavirus. The reason for the high risk of contracting coronavirus for tobacco smokers is the effects that tobacco smoke has on the lungs. The smoke sniffed from tobacco weakens the lungs and increases the severity of any respiratory disease. According to Li et al. (2020), coronavirus patients with a history of smoking experience more negative impacts of the COVID-19 than non-smokers and are at a higher risk of losing a life. Besides, coronavirus patients with a history of smoking required a more specialized form of treatment in the various healthcare facilities, which turned out to be a financial burden to the government.

Problem Statement

Public health is one of the principal considerations when assessing the needs of a community (Community Tool Box, 2022). Adult smoking is one of the health risk factors with the highest prevalence in Dona Ana County in New Mexico where Hatch is located. Data shows that the county has an adult smoking prevalence rate of 15.8% (Data USA, 2019). This is significantly higher than the national average of 12.5% as reported by the CDC (2022). With the higher prevalence of smoking, adults in Hatch village are at a higher risk of acquiring infections and illnesses associated with tobacco use. In addition to the risk of cancer, the residents are also at the risk of acquiring chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, lung disease, and tuberculosis among others. This implies that reducing smoking could result to better health outcomes in the village.

Intervention and Evaluation

Intervention

It is imperative that approaches to community improvement are based on evidence (Schoon, Porta & Schaffer, 2019).Most people in the Hatch, New Mexico do not know that they can overcome that they can overcome the smoking problem. Considering that these people exercise a lot, they think that the exercises will have a reversing effect on their smoking behavior. However, it is apparent that this village is one of the most smoking compared to the rest of the country. On this regard, it needs to ensure that it reverses its smoking problem. This proposition can be achieved on a number of propositions. Firstly, the individuals who are smoking need to seek help from individuals who have stopped smoking. Individuals who have stopped smoking are the best option for those seeking to stop smoking. However, it is necessary that individuals who are smoking to make a decision for quitting to smoke before they can seek help. This premise is made on the consideration that the decision to quit smoking is made innately and is not mostly affected by the external factors such as being asked to stop the habit. The people I talked with the village told me that they were unable to stop smoking just because they were asked to stop smoking by someone else. Moreover, it was clear from the people of the local community that the persuasion to stop smoking was one of the hindrances to solving this problem. This means that other strategies need to be involved in solving this problem. Most importantly, thinking beyond the telling of people that smoking is a bad behavior could be a solution.

Evaluation

Evaluation of community improvement programs should consider the achievements in the creation of sustainable approaches that focus on the primary causes of chronic diseases (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). In this regard, individual advice and counselling could be a better starting point considering that dealing with an individual personally works in a way much better than addressing a person in the public. Most of the people that opened up during this survey indicated that they wanted to share their problem privately rather than it being addressed publicly. Moreover, more individuals wanted to be provided with nicotine replacements as they improved on their smoking behavior.

This survey recommends that smoking be addressed on a personal level and privately. Privately, persons seeking help to quit smoking should be taken with the utmost urgency considering that it is a public health problem. Moreover, nicotine replacements should be introduced in the village to curtail the behavior. The replacements will ensure that the residents have a new way of reducing their depression, which could have been facilitating the behavior. This intervention will go a long a way in ensuring that the problem is solved.

References

CDC. (2022). Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Community health assessment and group evaluation (change) action guide: Building a foundation of knowledge to prioritize community needs. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Web.

Community Tool Box. (2022). Toolkits. Ku.edu. Web.

Data USA. (2019). Hatch, NM. Datausa.io. Web.

Li, J., Long, X., Zhang, Q., Fang, X., Li, N., Fedorova, B.,& & Lin, Z. (2021). Tobacco smoking confers a risk for severe COVID19 unexplainable by pulmonary imaging. Journal of internal medicine, 289(4), 574-583.

Parisis, D., Bernier, C., Chasset, F., & Arnaud, L. (2019). Impact of tobacco smoking upon disease risk, activity and therapeutic response in systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Autoimmunity Reviews, 18(11), 102393.

Schoon, P.M., Porta, C.M., & Schaffer, M. A. (2019). Population-based public health clinical manual: The Henry Street model for nurses (3^rd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International. ISBN 9781945157752