Treatment of Smokers in the USA, Great Britain, and Canada - Case Study Example

TREATMENT OF SMOKERS IN THE USA, GREAT BRITAIN AND CANADA by Contents INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….3 TREATMENT OF SMOKERS IN THE UK AND THE US…………………………….....3 The issue of smoking and social factors in Great Britain ............................................3 Governmental bans on smoking in the UK and the US …………………………….......4 Derogation of smokers’ rights by the governmental policy of the UK and the US…...5 TREATMENT OF SMOKERS IN CANADA……………………………………………....5 Canada’s democratic anti-smoking campaigns……..……………………………………5 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE UK, THE US, AND CANADA……………………......6 Social equality of smokers and non-smokers in Canada compared to the humiliated state of tobacco consumers in the UK and the US………………………………………6 CONTRAST BETWEEN THE UK, THE US, AND CANADA ….………………............7 Strict anti-smoking rules of the UK and the US have little effects on decreasing of tobacco using in contrast to Canada’s more effective results…...……........................7 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………....7 References………………………………………………………………………………….8 Treatment of Smokers in the USA, Great Britain and Canada Introduction The question of smoking and its perception by the public is an issue that has touched every nation in the world. People’s attitude to its health effect and its effect on smokers are those factors, which determine the situation. As a matter of fact, the common belief of smoking governs social relations to the extent that tobacco users have become social misfits due to their bad practce. In particular, governmental programs of different countries with their controlling instruments add to the adverse state of the problem and shape perception of smokers in regardful or disrespectful manner. Smokers’ treatment in the United Kingdom, the USA, and Canada differs insofar as it acts for their different public position, as well as the percentage of tobacco consumption. Treatment of Smokers in the UK and the US Governmental policy of any country directly touches the citizens’ rights through adoption of laws. This fact finds its easy confirmation on the position of smokers as an evident example in this regard. Individual governments create legislation, which may affect the acceptance of smokers in a negative way. Moreover, in some cases laws are so strict that they cause almost universal hate for smoking and promote the perception of tobacco users as evil men who carry harm to everything and everybody in their environment. Consequently, smokers fall into the category of social pariahs whose habit negatively influences society. It is natural that human beings are afraid of negative effects of smoking for their health, and an important concern is related to cancer as a result of smoking. For that matter the policy of various countries is called for restriction of tobacco consumption in order to prevent the disease. Great Britain’s government is one of governments which have turned to such a strategy. “Smoke-free legislation was introduced in England in 2007, banning smoking in nearly all enclosed workplaces and public spaces…” (Hse.gov.uk. 2008) There is a smoking ban in public places, as well as a prohibition of open tobacco products sale. This fact leads to smokers’ perception as potential threat for healthy society of non-smokers. On the one hand, such laws meet the demands of society, and are recommended for protection as this for the well-being of the citizens. Still they play a somewhat contradictory part, as they work against smokers on the subconscious level, and the latter begin to be treated as social outsiders. So it is obvious that the enactment of relevant smoking legislation is the result of changing social cultures, which diminish smokers’ rights day by day. The challenge of smoking also manifests itself through its unclear status, that is, tobacco consumption is legal, while tobacco consumers face diminishing civil rights. The question is in the flip-flop policy of government with constant attempts of different bans, which turn smokers into losers with limited liberty. Notably, the legal systems of both the United Kingdom and the United States advocate the public more than smokers in the way that some of the smoking countermeasures act against smokers’ universal human rights. For example, America’s severe restrictions in some states function even at home and a personal car, if smoking disturbs neighbors (Paddock, 2013). Alongside there are limitations on smoking in public places and nearby them, as well as in some companies, where employees must refuse the habit during working days. Statistical data show that “…Almost half of the American population is covered by a state or local smoking prevention law” (Landau, 2012). As for Great Britain, the governmental plan supposes the removal of brand names from tobacco products, and a ban on vending machines selling cigarettes. All this aims to decrease the number of smokers by approximately 20 %. The experience of the last decades has shown the perception of smoking as a social ill due to its addictive nature and the negative influence over the public relations, which results in almost totally hostile attitude of non-smokers toward tobacco consumers. Though, today the social status of smokers maintains its low position. It appears somewhat striking, if one compares this fact with approaches to drug abuse, which several states have reformed, and it isn’t seen as a social issue any more (NIDA Notes, 2012). The smoking phenomenon finds the activity against it everywhere. The rise of the US and Britain’s anti-tobacco programs is one of the most evident and strongest confirmations of the fact that people support such a policy of their governments and thereby derogate smokers from rights. The effectiveness of the UK and America’s active anti-smoking steps can be evaluated in comparison to the legislation of Canada. Treatment of Smokers in Canada Canada’s law upholds smokers’ rights for tobacco consumption in most provinces with a simultaneous respect for the human rights of non-smokers as well, that is, prohibition in public places or rather division of the latter onto spaces for smokers and non-smokers with a good air ventilation in them (Tilson, 2010). Moreover, the conditions for possible support of the habit, such as high prices for cigarettes, stimulate a natural reduction of tobacco consumption. So such policy does not only prevent the increase of number of tobacco consumers’ number, it reduces its negative effect on society and contributes to a less negative treatment of smokers in public, by the means of local unions of two groups of people with the same interests (smokers and non-smokers). Such somewhat friendly laws benefit for tobacco consumers’ treatment as ordinary members of society not social pariahs. As a result, smokers are not viewed as unwanted representatives for the rest of public. So even without strict anti-tobacco campaigns Canada has managed to reach the greater results in decrease of smokers’ number than the UK and the USA (Non-Smokers’ Rights Association, 2011). The case is that “In Canada, smoking is not one of rights and freedoms … In a socialist country like Canada, they want regulations that will help people make the choices that will help the common good” (Jablonowski, 2012). Comparison between the UK, the US, and Canada As mentioned above, Canada has rules of a somewhat milder nature when compare to the anti-smoking rules of the United Kingdom and America. “…Canada remains close to the head of the pack of nations when it comes to implementing effective tobacco control measures” (Global Tobacco Control Forum. 2008) while "The United States’ legal crusade against the tobacco industry will one day rank as one of the worst developments in American public law in the twentieth century” (Heartland. 2014). As for the anti-smoking laws of Great Britain’s governors, “having failed to persuade the most committed smokers to save themselves, they could use proof that passive smoking harms non-smoking wives, children and co-workers to make the case for criminalizing smoking” (Mooney, 1996). It is undoubted that by effective rules Canada assists smokers’ perception as equal to non-smokers in a social position. So tobacco consumers are not treated as pariahs, whose civil rights suffer from impairment. Another aspect of Canadian success in smoke-free policy is its increased media promotion on television. On condition that the UK, as well as the USA practice the development of numerous anti-tobacco campaigns, Canada on the contrary describes its population not only negative effects of smoking, but also particular positive ones. There is an example of traditional tobacco benefit for people’s health in comparison with commercial tobacco, being practiced by Health Canada in its journal (Benedict, 2006). So it is one more point contrasting totally negative perception of smoking by Great Britain and America. Contrast between the UK, the US, and Canada In the respect of the number of smokers in three countries, it becomes clear that first place in tobacco consumption belongs to the UK: “There, the smoke free ban proved to be a trigger for some adults to quit with the largest drop in smoking in England - from 29% in 2005 to 27% in 2007 and down to 21% by 2011” (Roxby, 2012). It is followed by America - “The percentage of U.S. adults who smoke cigarettes was 17.8 percent in 2013, a drop from 20.9 percent in 2005” (Gholipour, 2014) – and finally Canada with its democratic anti-smoking rules comes, depicting the lowest figures of tobacco users: “In 2012, the overall prevalence of smoking in Canada was 16.1% ...” (Reid, & Hammond, 2014). The conclusion is obvious from the information, that is, the scale of the laws severity are directly connected with their aftereffects, but according to the evident data, friendly rules are more effective than strict bans. Conclusion All things considered, Canada’s treatment of smokers appears to be the most democratic, as well as useful one both for people and the country. The percentage of smokers in the United Kingdom and the United States on the contrary gives the evidence of poorer results of their non-smoking campaigns. Probably, the main reason for such a state is the strictness of laws which make smokers feel themselves social outfits, and as a result, this bears their opposition and ineffectiveness of the policy. References Benedict, E., 2006. Traditional tobacco is a healer. [Online] (updated 05 Sep. 2006) Available at: < http://www.tobaccowise.com/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=46134 [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Gholipour, B., 2014. Smoking in US declines to all-time low. [Online] (updated 26 Nov. 2014) Available at: < http://www.livescience.com/48923-usa-smoking-declines-to-lowest.html > [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Global Tobacco Control Forum, 2008. The framework convention on tobacco control in Canada [Online] (updated 2008) Available at: < http://www.smoke-free.ca/eng_issues/global/content/globalforum-shadow-report-2008-final-web.pdf > [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Heartland, 2014. In defense of smokers [Online] (updated 03 Sep. 2014) Available at: < https://www.heartland.org/ideas/smokers-rights > [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Hse.gov.uk, 2008. Advice on smoking at work [Online] (updated 23 Feb. 2008) Available at: [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Jablonowski, A., 2012. Anti-smoking advocate fears movement’s gone too far [Online] (updated 20 Feb. 2012) Available at: < http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/20/anti-smoking-advocate-fears-movements-gone-too-far/ > [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Landau, E., 2012. Anti-smoking laws spreading in large cities [Online] (updated 15 Nov. 2012) Available at: < http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/anti-smoking-laws-spreading-in-large-cities/> [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Mooney, L., 1996. Smoking out bad science. [Online] (updated 18 Feb. 1996) Available at: < http://www.smokingaloud.com/badscience.html > [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. NIDA Notes, 2012. Drug Facts: understanding drug abuse and addiction. [Online] (updated Nov. 2012) Available at: < http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/understanding-drug-abuse-addiction> [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Non-Smokers’ Rights Association, 2011. Canada’s federal tobacco control strategy: investing in our future. [Online] Available at: < http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/file/files/FTCS_submission.pdf> [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Paddock, C., 2013. Most Americans have smoke-free rules for home and car. [Online] (updated 18 May 2013) Available at: [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Reid, J. & Hammond, D., 2014. Tobacco use in Canada: patterns and trends. [Online] (updated 2014) Available at: [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Roxby, P., 2012. Smoking ban’s impact five years on. [Online] (updated 1 Jul. 2012) Available at: < http://www.bbc.com/news/health-18628811> [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Tilson, M., 2010. Country reports on smoke-free policies in Canada. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015]. Read More