Impact of Anti-cigarette Smoking Campaigns - Essay Example

? Impact of Anti-cigarette smoking campaigns in the United s Introduction Cigarette smoking has been a big issue not only in the United States but also in other parts of the world such as United Kingdom, China, Asia, Africa to mention just but a few (Goldberg p.148). The impacts of cigarette smoking are numerous and affect not only the smoker but also the entire economy. The United States government through department of Food and Drug administration (FDA) has established measures to curb high increased cases of cigarette smoking due to its severe impacts to individuals and the entire economy. For instance, the government established a burn aims on advertising cigarettes on television, radios, news papers and other social media. In addition, the United States government established a Policy on Family smoking prevention and tobacco control act that aimed to control the habit of cigarette smoking (US Department of Health and Human Services,paras2-10). Additionally, community health advocacy campaigns’ against smoking and substance abuse was established the through the ministry of health to address the problem of cigarette smoking. The campaigns have been extended not only in schools and institutions of higher learning but also at homes. The campaigns aimed to sensitize the public on the negative impacts of cigarette smoking and substance abuse (Wolfson p.217). . It was reported that the burn helped to reduce cases of cigarette smoking from 40% in 1970 to 19% in the year 2004 (Ferrence, Boisclair and Bader paras6-7). Therefore, this study aims to investigate impacts of smoking, advantages and disadvantages of ant-cigarette smoking campaigns, suggested solutions to address smoking problem as well as summary based on research findings. Advantages and Disadvantages of Cigarette Smoking Campaigns In the United States Anti-cigarette smoking campaigns have helped to reduce the number of deaths attributed to smoking complications such as lungs and throat cancer. Additionally, anti-cigarette smoking campaigns have proved to be cost effective in the long run (F?rat, Begu?m and Aylin p. 142). This is because despite having incurred huge expenditures to carry out anti-cigarette smoking campaigns, the government and health professional have been able to reduce the number of people diagnosed with cancers and smoking related ailments. Connectively, productivity has increased because of having a healthy society where people can work without spending time and resource in taking care of ailed members of the society (F?rat, Begu?m and Aylin pp.142-143). On the contrary, anti-cigarette smoking campaigns have numerous disadvantages especially among cigarette manufacturing companies like Reynolds Tobacco. For example, anti-cigarette campaigns have led to a decrease in companies’ sales volume and profitability. This is because the campaigns utilize deglamolization strategy which aims at making attractiveness of cigarettes among consumers to decline (Glen, Peter and Annette p114). For example; the use of great labels indicating severe consequences of cigarettes brands tends to discourage consumers from taking cigarettes. In above connection, anti-smoking campaigns have caused smoke addicts to be taken as social misfits (Steve, para2). Reaction Summary/personal opinion According to the Centre foe diseases and control, Paras1-3, cigarette smoking campaigns has been reported to increase not only smoking related ailments but also has led to an increase in number of annual deaths in the country. For instance it was reported that cigarette smoking had led to an increase in number of adults deaths by a figure of 443,000 every year (Center for Diseases Control and Prevention, para1). Additionally, cigarette smoking was reported to increase the annual medical expenses by ninety six billion dollars. Connectively, the United States government computed a loss of approximate ninety seven billions dollars in productivity due to increase in cases of people diagnosed diseases related to cigarettes smoking. In above connection, cigarette smoking has led to increased cases of persons with disability ranging from visual impairment to lung and throat complications (Center for Diseases Control and Prevention, para14). Therefore, it can be scrutinized that the problem of cigarette smoking has not just been an individual issue but a global issue because of it affects the entire economy. Research has identified the impact of smoking to individuals and entire economy. Among the major impacts of smoking include; health impacts such as increases cases of lung cancer, throat cancer, stroke and pregnancy related complications (Center for Diseases Control and Prevention, para10). In addition, cigarette smoking has caused severe economic impacts making the governments to incur huge expenditures in financing hospital bills. The resources allotted for taking care of patients diagnosed with cancer and other cigarette smoking related complications could be used to promote economic development. In above connection, the advantages of anti-smoking campaigns have been reported to outweigh its disadvantages because such campaigns help to create awareness especially among the young people on the risk and dangers of smoking (Glantz, pp.193-200). Additionally, smoking campaigns have proved to be cost effective in the long run because it helps to prevent huge medical expenditures that could have been incurred due to negative impacts of cigarette smoking. On the other hand, anti-cigarette smoking campaigns have numerous disadvantages not only to the individuals but also to those companies that manufacture cigarettes. This is because anti-cigarette smoking campaigns aims to eradicate smoking behavior among the people. Those people who have failed to quit smoking are taken as social misfits. This further subjected them to conflict because they find it difficult to quit smoking(Steve, para2). On the other hand, the aim of many organizations is to maximize wealth while at the same time minimizing cost. Therefore, the campaign contradicts with the objectives of cigarette manufacturing companies of maximizing wealth. This is because it tends to discourage consumers from taking cigarettes leading to a decline in sales volume as well as decline in profitability of cigarette manufacturing companies. Therefore, to address the problem of smoking, the government should not destroy the existence of cigarette manufacturing firm but rather; measures should be put in place to address the problem (Mankiw pp.215-217). For instance, the government may increase taxation on cigarettes in order to discourage its consumption rather than placing weird labels on cigarettes packets. Additionally, the government and health providers should collaborate to carry out community health advocacy campaigns aimed to educate public on importance of adopting a healthy leaving. Works Cited Center for Diseases Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States.US Department of Health and Human service. Clifton Rd. Atlanta, 9 November 2011.Web 19 April 2013 < http://www.cdc gov/mmwr/ preview/mmwrhtm l/mm6144a2.htm>. Ferrence Roberta, Boisclair David, and Bader Pearl “.Effects of Tobacco Taxation and Pricing on Smoking Behavior in High Risk Populations: A Knowledge Synthesis”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. (26 October 2011): 4118–4139. Print. F?rat, Begu?m O, and Aylin Kuryel. Cultural Activism: Practices, Dilemmas, and Possibilities. Amsterdam [etc.: Rodopi, 2011. Print. Glantz, Stanton A. The Cigarette Papers. Berkeley., California: University of California Press, 1996. Web.20 April 2013. < http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebook s/view?docId=ft848 9p25j &brand=ucpress >. Goldberg, Ray. Drugs Across the Spectrum. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Hanson, Glen, Peter J. Venturelli, and Annette E. Fleckenstein. Drugs and Society. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2006. Print. Mankiw, N G. Principles of Microeconomics. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2009. Print. Wolfson, Mark. The Fight against Big Tobacco: The Movement, the State, and the Public's Health. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2001. Print. US Department of Health and Human Services.U.S Food and Drug Administration: Protecting and Promoting Health.12 April2013.Web 19 April 2013. < http://www.fda.gov/forconsu mers/consume rupd ates/ ucm 198176.htm>. Steve. Doughty. Ant-Smoking Campaigns Turn those who Light up into Lepers Warns Department of Health Advisors.8 February 2012.Web.19 April 2013. Read More