The Social Costs of Tobacco Promotion - Research Paper Example

Unit Tobacco Tobacco is believed to have originated from the Americas where it grew as early as 6000 B.C. American Indians had begun using tobacco for medicinal and religious purposes (Randall 1). The Indians believed that tobacco had medicinal properties that could cure many ailments. Popular uses among the Indians included the use of tobacco as a painkiller and wound dressing medicinal cover. According to Randall chewing of tobacco was popular in relieving toothaches. History has it that Christopher Columbus was offered dried tobacco as a gift by the Indians during his exploratory expeditions. Soon after its arrival in Europe, the crop became widely cultivated. The growth of its popularity in European nations was due to the supposed medicinal capability of the plant. In 1571, Nicolas Monardes authored a book on medicinal plants in which he praised tobacco as a medicinal plant. According to Monardes tobacco would cure approximately 36 health problems. It is such popularization, which spurred the use of tobacco in 1600’s to an extent that tobacco was used as a value exchange product. Tobacco was as good as money in the early 1600 period. The world did not know that what had become misleadingly acceptable would become a leading respiratory disease causing agent with carcinogenic effects (Randall 1). Currently, there are millions of men and women across the globe that smoke, chew and sniff tobacco products. However, smoking is the most popular form of tobacco use, and among the leading causes of preventable health conditions and death (Jiloha 64). This is partly due to the fact that there are numerous cigarette manufacturing firms, and cigarettes are easily available in most retail points. All these factors coupled with prolific advertising, encourage the development of smoking habits among the youth. According to Jiloha (64), an estimated 1.3 billion people smoke tobacco worldwide, and half of this population will prematurely succumb to some form of tobacco-related illness. Tobacco smoking accounts for 5 million deaths annually, with tobacco related illnesses being the second major cause of death (Jiloha 65). Modest estimates show that if the current trend persists, tobacco may cause approximately 10 million deaths per annum by 2020. The health sector is the most affected by the use of tobacco because it causes many health problems such as respiratory and cardiovascular complications. The most common respiratory conditions resulting from prolonged tobacco use include chronic bronchitis, emphysema, cancer, and airway obstruction. Cancer is perhaps the leading cause of tobacco-related deaths among the respiratory complications partly because it lacks a cure. In addition to the respiratory diseases, smoking also results in various cardiovascular conditions including peripheral vascular disease, aortic aneurysm and coronary heart disease, which is a leading cause of deaths in America. Smoking has also been implicated in the cause of other problems such as hearing problems and ear development in the foetus (Stavros et al. 783). It is clear from this analytical review that tobacco causes more harm than any good in relation to health. The popularly touted fallacies about the medicinal power of tobacco have clearly failed to stand the test of time and science. Instead of being a health benefit, tobacco has instead proven to be a threat to human health. There is currently no explicitly known, health-related value in tobacco. As such, it is expected that it would be agreeable to have tobacco use banned and declared a threat to human health. However, this has been long overdue because governments are reluctant to enact prohibitive laws partly due to the allure of heavy taxes on the tobacco industry. Virtually all nations levy significant taxes on tobacco products, and the collected revenues fund a significant part of the budgetary provisions. In addition to benefiting the government, tobacco production provides significant returns for most tobacco processing companies, middlemen, farmers, advertisers and promotional companies (Sung et al. i6). The returns from these economic channels are enticing to involved parties that still view tobacco production as a beneficial engagement and an important source of return for their livelihood. These are a few of the supposed benefits that keep tobacco under production and processing. However, there is a need for an objective analysis to be conducted so as to determine the overall benefits and losses resulting from tobacco. However, it is rather agreeable that the losses exceed the benefits because tobacco presents more than just health challenges. Tobacco also causes significant economic challenges, which cost nations and communities a lot of time and finances in their management. Patients affected by various conditions resulting from tobacco smoking also lose working hours spent in treating their conditions. The reduced productivity negatively affects their ability to support their families because of poor health. Therefore, there are numerous working hours and finances lost as the affected seek medical attention. In addition to the reduced productivity, tobacco use deprives families their breadwinners and reduces society’s healthy working force due to the high mortality and morbidity rates resulting from tobacco-related illnesses (Sung et al. i7). This reduction in productivity negatively affects the economy by either reducing the population’s ability to work or causing death. This deprives the economic sector an educated and trained workforce. This is usually the case because tobacco begins causing negative effects at a users’ prime age after prolonged use during the youthful times and the middle ages (Herbert 487). In addition to the losses of productivity, tobacco causes significant financial losses, which result from the expensive medical care accorded patients that acquire tobacco-related illnesses such as cancer and chronic bronchitis. Nations have to invest heavily in their health sector so as to develop their capacity to handle the increasing cases of patients with tobacco-related health conditions. Similarly, the care of such people costs their families and insurance firms a lot of money. Families have to give away their savings so as to save their loved ones that engage in smoking, and while this is necessary, it costs families their future and dreams because they have to give substantial financial resources. The economic costs of smoking are extremely high for most nations and they constitute a significant portion of health care expenses. For example, a study by Sung et al. (i10) revealed that the economic cost of smoking in China alone stood at $5 billion US dollars in 2000. This was equal to $25.43 dollars for one smoker within the population. Men were found to be the most contributors to these costs, and the fact that they form a major portion of the active workforce implies that more economic losses also resulted indirectly from reduced productivity. The study conducted in China also revealed that 3.1% of the nation’s health expenditure was dedicated to handling health problems resulting from smoking (Sung et al., i9). These figures show that smoking has significant economic effects, and if these were to be projected on a global scale, then, the costs would be huge. The great losses of life, finances and productivity resulting from tobacco smoking clearly indicate that tobacco causes more harm than good. The little revenue acquired from tobacco sales and production, as well as the jobs created in the related economic sectors are not worth the losses that result from tobacco-related health problems. In fact, the losses resulting from tobacco cause deleterious effect that renders the pursuit of tobacco production useless and costly (Sung et al., i10). In spite of all these clear losses, it beats reasoning to find that tobacco has not been totally banned in any nation. There is totally no reason why tobacco should not be banned because it has no single benefit for the humans that use it. It is often argued that other substances cause similar or greater harm, but they have never been banned. However, it is good to be cognizant of the fact that some of these substances at least have a health benefit or unique use. For example, alcohol is often used in various other industrial and research processes such as disinfection. Therefore; it has a good reason for not being banned. On the other hand, tobacco has no single beneficial use other than smoking. Additionally, other substances with beneficial, but limited health benefits such as cannabis sativa (bhang) have not been legalized in spite of their known, but limited legal use. Cannabis is often used in treating specific psychological problems, but in spite of this medicinal use, the substance has not been legalized (Rafael et al. 53). It is thus not clear why tobacco is not yet banned, and it is totally unreasonable because it has no other beneficial use other than smoking, which is clearly harmful to health. A ban on tobacco would be the best solution for the problem because it would save the nation and families a lot of money. The savings that would be made from reduced healthcare needs and tobacco purchases would probably overcome the losses it causes in society. Additionally, resources put into its production such as land, manpower, finances and energy would perhaps find better use that would contribute positively to the economy. A number of studies conducted on partial bans and possible total bans have shown that such a measure would result in significant benefits to the population and nations at large. According to Emery, Won and John (84), an economic impact analysis conducted revealed that a total ban on tobacco advertisements would result in financial benefits of $3 to $43billion US dollars in terms of savings on healthcare costs, premature deaths and loss of productivity. This study conducted by the FDA (“Food and Drug Administration”) based its estimates on the fact that an estimated one million teenagers start smoking every year (Pierce et al. 64). The study estimated that by instituting a total ban approximately 50% of the new smokers would be deterred from engaging in this harmful habit, and half of them would most probably become non-smokers in adulthood (Emery et al. 85). The conservative assumptions in this study showed that a ban on tobacco advertising-which commonly encourages smoking-would yield great positive effects (Emery et al. 84). It would be agreeable that a total ban on tobacco would even yield greater benefits for the nation, but the pursuit of this is not yet in site. This dilemma would best be expressed as the challenge of belling the “fat cat,” which is the tobacco industry (Dwivedi 164). Works Cited Emery, S. Won, S. C. & John, P. P. “The social costs of tobacco advertising and Promotions.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 1.1 (1999): S83-S91. Print. Dwivedi, S. “World no tobacco day 2011: holes on both sides of mouth and both legs amputated–when something is so dangerous, why is it not banned?” Indian Journal of Medical Specialities, 2.2 (2011): 164-165. Print. Hebert, R. “What’s New in Nicotine & Tobacco research?” Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 7.4 (2005): 485–490. Print. Jiloha, C. R. “Tobacco smoking: How far do the legislative control measures address the problem?” Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 54.1 (2012): 64-8. Print. Pierce, J. P., Fiore, M. C., Novotny, T. E., Hatziandreu, E. J. & Davis, R. M. “Trends in cigarette smoking in the United States: Projections to the year 2000.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 261.1 (1989): 61-65. Print. Stavros, K. Riga, M. Balatsouras, D. Papadakis, C. Kanellos, P. & Ferekidis, E. “Influence of smoking on developing cochlea: Does smoking during pregnancy affect the amplitudes of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions in newborns?” International Journal of Paediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 71.5 (007): 781-786. Print. Sung, H-Y. Wang, L. Jin, S. Hu, T-W. Jiang, Y. “Economic Burden of Smoking in China, 2000.” Tobacco Control Supplement, 15.1 (2006): i5-i11. Print. Rafael, B. Modamio, P. Lastra, C. F. Mariño, E. L. “Medicinal Use of Cannabis in Spain.” Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine, 17.5 (2011): 52-54. Print. Randall, R. V. “History of Tobacco. Boston University Medical Centre,” 31st August, 1999. Web. 2nd December, 2012. Read More