Strategies of Reducing the Impact of Cigarette Smoke on People - Essay Example

Smoking Ban The number of people suffering from secondhand smoke in UK and US has increased tremendously over the years. A lot of money which could have been used to start projects that will spearhead growth of the economy is being directed to treat these diseases. Majority of the affected population are young children. However, research has indicated that the largest number of these children emanates from family where none of the parent is a smoker. This is an indication that they inhale the cigarette smoke while on the streets and other public places such as restaurants (Sandford 2003). The government has a mandate of protecting its people. Young generation holds the future of these countries on their hands. As a result, every administration has a responsibility of protecting this generation. In an attempt to protect the whole population, these governments have come up with several measures that are aimed at reducing the exposure of the people to this kind of smoke (Callinan, Clarke & Kelleher 2010) The number of smokers in these countries is smaller compared to non-smokers. As a result, the governments are protecting the majority of the population through developing various strategies that will reduce the impact of cigarette smoke on the people. The smokers should stay outside the homes, restaurants and shops until they finish their activities. Although this will viewed as a way of segregating the smokers from the rest of the society, the move will play a significant role in preventing the younger generation from adopting the smoking behavior. Furthermore, it will protect the members of the public from the cigarette smoke. Some people are allergic to smoke (Great Britain, 2005). As a result, the government should create designated places where smokers can congregate and smoke freely without the fear of disturbing other people. This should be followed by strict rules and stiff penalties to all those who violates these laws. This is to ensure that bus stops, government buildings, social places, and the streets are safe for the people. Smoking in the open disturbs children and seniors. Many adapt this behavior because they feel that it is the right thing to do. Therefore, excluding the smokers to a particular place and making them pay for their behavior by staying away from other people while smoking will discourage the young people to stay away from the smoking behavior. The UK and US governments have implemented some of these measures, an aspect that has not augured well with the smokers. This is because they feel that the society is excluding them and denying them their right to social life. However, the fact that their behavior is affecting innocent people is making it hard to gain support from the members of the public (Lewis 2005). Many people feel that the government should put more strict measures to make life very hard for the smokers. Therefore, both countries are against exposing the members of the public to cigarette smoke. However, in Saudi Arabia, the government has tried to avoid this issue as it finds weird to segregate some of its population based on their social behavior. Therefore, lack of political goodwill has made it hard for the government to set up strict rules that will regulate the smoking behavior in the public. Increasing the prices of tobacco is reducing the number of smokers. In United Kingdom and United States, the governments are using the taxation system to minimize the number of people who are smoking in these countries. In the past five years, these governments have been increasing the prices of tobacco. After increasing the prices of tobacco, the cigarette manufacturing companies are shifting this burden to the members of the public who consumes their products. As a result, many of the smokers have found it difficult to maintain their behaviors. Therefore, they are looking for help in the rehabilitation centers. This aspect has reduced the number of smokers significantly. In addition, these measures have deterred the young generation from engaging in this vice after seeing their senior members directing a lot of money towards their expensive behaviors (Budak & Jelena, 2008). On the other hand, maintaining the rehabilitation centers in these countries is an expensive affair. Many of these centers are supported by the government through taxes that have been collected from the members of the public. As a result, the governments are taking these stiff measures in order to save the largest population segment which is made of non-smokers from the tax burden. However, here in the country, the government has different sources of revenues. With the government having diversified its sources of taxes, it is looking at taxes to be collected from non-smokers as insignificant. Furthermore, the government fears that putting stern measures to curb the smoking behavior might make it to be unpopular among the citizens. As a result, it is relying heavily on campaigns by non-governmental organizations which warn people on the risks of engaging in this risky behavior (Romero 2014). The UK and US governments have made it hard for any investor to invest in the tobacco industry. Farmers in these countries are complaining that they are being paid very little amount of money by the tobacco companies. Lowering the number of companies dealing with these products is reducing the bargaining power of the suppliers. In an attempt by these companies to increase their profit margins after heavy taxation by the governments, they are reducing the amount they are paying to their suppliers (ODowd & Adrian 2012). This pressure is yielding results as more farmers are moving away from growing tobacco, an aspect that is consequently increasing the price of the commodity in the market. However, in our country, the government is sympathizing with farmers who rely entirely on tobacco crop for their living. As a result, there are no stringent laws to prevent new entrants in the tobacco industry. This has made the industry attractive as the increasing level of competition for raw materials has attracted the interests of the farmers who have shifted from growing food crops to growing of tobacco plants (Sommer & Parker 2013). This aspect has increased the number of tobacco farmers in the country. Therefore, there is an increase in the price of the product in the market. This is directly affecting the supply of cigarettes in the market. The fact that the product is easily available in the market and at a cheap price has made many youth to engage in cigarette smoking. The decision to force smokers in United Kingdom and United States to quit the behavior is based on the urge by these countries to become more environmentally friendly. In these countries, their population has been instrumental in ensuring that the environment remains clean. Other programs such as reducing the number of cars in the street have been implemented. These governments have been in the forefront in supporting any measure that will help improve the environment through reducing the level of pollution. This has been necessitated by the increasing levels of global warming which is affecting the climatic conditions in the world. Therefore, the governments with the support by the citizens are implementing these measures with the aim of reducing the release of harmful gases in the atmosphere. Initially, the governments had implemented policies to ban smoking in indoor places. However, the laws have been expanded to cover outdoor spaces that have other people who are non-smokers. This is pushing the smokers to the extreme end. This aspect will play a significant role in reducing the number of smokers in these countries. However, in Saudi Arabia, the government has banned smoking in the indoor places. However, this has not reduced the threat posed by smoking in public (Institute of Medicine (U.S.) 2010). This is because people continue to smoke in open places such as bus parks, and outside restaurants. Therefore adopting these measures from other governments is not having a major impact in the country. Moreover, while the governments of United Kingdom and United States have invested heavily in the implementation of the set laws, Saudi Arabia is doing very little to implement the few existing rules. As a result, people continue to smoke even indoors despite being aware of the existence of the laws. People are also finding it difficult to follow these rules because they have used to smoke in public places (Bellenir, 2004). Furthermore, the members of the public in Saudi Arabia are yet to take the issue of environmental conservation more seriously. This is making it very hard for the government and other relevant authority to implement the regulations. In conclusion, the governments are doing a very good thing in order to conserve the environment. For many decades, non-smokers have suffered from smoke-related diseases. The governments have been spending a lot of money on treating people who are suffering from these diseases. Moreover, a lot of money that could have been directed to other important economic activities has been used to rehabilitate those who want to quit smoking. Nevertheless, these measures will not succeed unless the governments offer the smokers with alternatives to help them stop smoking. For instance, the government should introduce the electronic cigarettes which are less addictive than normal cigarettes. These will enable smokers to start the slow process of quitting their behavior. References Bellenir, K. (2004). Smoking concerns sourcebook: Basic consumer health information about nicotine addiction and smoking cessation. Detroit, MI: Omnigraphics. Budak, & Jelena. (2008). Global Efforts to Combat Smoking. An Economic Evalution of Smoking Control Policies. Croatian Economic Association c/o Institute of Economics, Zagreb. Callinan, J. E., Clarke, A., & Kelleher, C. (2010). Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4, 1-126. Great Britain. (2005). Smoking in public places: First report of Session 2005-06. London: Stationery Office. Institute of Medicine (U.S.). (2010). Secondhand smoke exposure and cardiovascular effects: Making sense of the evidence. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Lewis, S. (2005). Public health measures to reduce smoking prevalence in the UK: how many lives could be saved? Tobacco Control, 14(1), 251-254. ODowd, & Adrian. (2012). UK will review partial smoking ban in 2010, MPs committee told. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Romero, R. A. (2014). Voluntary Smoking Restrictions: Promises and Challenges in Protecting Nonsmokers. NY: Oxford University Press. Sandford, A. (2003). Government action to reduce smoking. Respirology, 8(1), 7-16. Sommer, M., & Parker, R. G. (2013). Structural approaches in public health. Abingdon, Oxon [England: Routledge. Read More