Smokers in Great Britain and the USA - Personal Statement Example

Smokers in Great Britain and USA are Increasingly Treated as Social Pariahs. Introduction. The change witnessed in the attitude towards smoking overthe last three decades is noticeable. In the past smoking especially in the work place was the norm. The habit of leaving a building to smoke outside in the rain had not begun and many people were smokers. Majority of the population were smokers. All over sudden, things began to take a new direction and the government realized the need to educate its citizens on the risks of smoking. This decision was difficult one considering the income in taxes that are collected from sale of cigarettes (Crystal, 2014). However, the cost of handling many health issues caused by use of cigarettes outweighed the income. Governments have taken the initiative of ensuring that manufactures printed warning messages on packets to warn consumers of the dangers cigarette smoking was likely to cause to their health. Lately, this has gone beyond having warnings on packets to politicians going a step further and turning smokers into social pariahs. Cigarettes are no longer displayed on supermarkets shelves but have to be hidden behind. Smoking in public is now banned almost everywhere in the world and in a matter of time; smokers may find themselves being registered (Campbell, 2015). Smokers are increasingly facing restrictions the ever before as various government around the world sponsor cancer campaigns to create awareness to the public. Cigarettes smoking remain legal but smokers are at a risk of being perceived as social pariahs with decreasing civil rights. In the UK, the government has launched a 10-year strategy aimed at decreasing the number of people using cigarettes to less than 10%. Smoking in public places has succeeded since the government strategy main aspect is heath and preventing individual choices from interfering with others (ASH, 2014). Initially, ban on smoking was welcomed with a lot of resistance in the UK. Smokers lobby groups and cigarette manufacturers were not happy about these measures and believed that the governments would end up putting measures that discriminated against smokers. Ban of smoking in public places has worked in the UK in terms of not smoking bars, work place, parks and other public areas (ASH, 2014). The number of smokers has also significantly decreased over the past 10 years though it is not clear whether this is because of the ban. Most people have agreed with the ban bearing in mind that smokers would even smoke around children, something that can be classified as abuse. For smokers, many see this move as being treated as second-class citizens. Smokers feel like social pariahs since most anti- smoking adverts concentrates of the unhealthy view of smoking meant to make them realise the consequences of continued smoking (Young 2005). The adverts also focus on aspects such as wrinkled skin, passive smoking and bad breath, which makes smokers increasingly ashamed. The shame and the aspect of feeling discriminated and unwanted in the society is forcing many people to quit smoking whether willing or not (Sandro & Bruce, 2008). For health, smoking is harmful and there is no doubt that ceasing smoking has benefits. The main concern is that cigarette is a legal drug, then why decrease rights of those smoking. Bias against smokers has grown and many employers are not willing to employ smokers (Campbell, 2015). Several cases of smokers losing their jobs after being found smoking off premises have been reported in the UK. Though employers are restricted from discriminating employees on basis of region or race, smoking is a different issue. Employers are within their rights when they decide not to employ smokers are fire them. However, in the US, some states have gone an extra mile to ensure that smokers are not discriminated by passing a legislation that restricts employers from discriminating on grounds of smoking (Campbell, 2015). In the US, the first outdoor ban on smokers was brought forward in 1975 in a county in California, which restricted smoking public parks everywhere in the county (ASH, 2014). This idea did not take off well as it took another two decades before the idea of banning smoking in public parks, play grounds and beaches spread through California and finally throughout America. By 2011, all states in the US had laid a ban on smoking in public areas (ASH, 2014). However, this impressive flight has had an abrupt public perception that that has followed it. Researchers on public health argue that actually there is little of scientific evidence supporting ban of smoking. In the United States, smokers have their own share of trouble particularly while paying for health insurance (Badager, 2013). It might be noted lot of health issues are associated with smoking this includes lung cancer, brain damage. The health insurance in the United States believes smokers have to pay for a higher rate compared to the non-smoker because they have a higher chance of getting disease related to their smoking habit. This is a typical example of smokers being treated as social outcast cause of their smoking habit. Evidence has shown people who have been smoking for a long period especially the elderly and have not been affected by any of the diseases related to smoking (Badager, 2013). Many smokers in the United State feel they are being discriminated by paying high amount of health insurance because of cigarettes they enjoy smoking as a hobby. In my own opinion, lot of research need to be carried out to determine if smoking really causes some of the diseases suspected (Prasad, 2005). Most states in the US also, had a policy where the employees who smoke when they are off duty risked violating the Employee Retirement Security Act (“ERISA”). This means that most employees have no right to smoke while off duty (Badager, 2013).The main reason that employers thought of restricting employees from smoking is to avoid giving them large health benefits. Employees also have planned to fire employees who smoke while off duty. The act remains controversial in the United States where there is constant cases of employees premiums being reimbursed after there were taken away. A company known as Weyco and Scotts had instituted policies, which were aimed at firing smokers at worker even if the said individuals did not smoke at the workplace. The companies cited increased health costs as the main reason why they wanted to terminate smokers but interestingly enough there is no reliable data to support their claims (Lawler, 2014)). The liberal and other human rights groups in the United States have condemned such cases strongly terming them as victimisation of the employees .Such a scenario gives evidence further of employees being denied their rights because of smoking or being a smoker while off duty (Alamar & Stanton, 2006). In Australia the smokers have been segregated in many places where cigarettes smoking in public places and buses,recreactional places like beaches,cars,balconies of houses or personal gardens backyard has been banned (Scollo & Winstanley, 2012). People looking for jobs have also not been spared with job application advertisements stating the applicants should be non-smokers. The kind of jobs banning smokers from applying range from office jobs to field jobs. In Australia, smoking has become a controversial topic where the law bans smoking in many areas where there is social interaction of people and at the same time, the law stating no one should be againist (Scollo & Winstanley, 2012). Many liberal groups believe smoking is like any other legal activity however these groups accepts smoking can be harmful to those nearby thus smokers should smoke far away from non-smokers (Evershed, 2014). Some have compared tobacco to other substance, which affect human such as food. Australia anti-smokers group’s thinks employers working in the health sector especially hospitals should not employ smokers. This is because smoking affects workers productivity because of the constant smoking breaks taken. Other groups argue the smell left in the mouth of smokers may put off other employees and clients (Evershed, 2014). Australian employees see it as was of time and money while training smoking workers because of the risk on their health (Stuber, 2009). Australian law is clear by stating discrimination occurs when someone is treated unfairly because they belong group of people or have particular characteristics(Smoke Free Public Regulations 2005).Clearly this law is broken when job advertisements demands all applicants be non-smokers. The Australian Anti-Discrimination Board states no one should be discriminated on the grounds of sex,race,age,religion.marital or domestic status,sexual orientation,pregnancy,transexuality or other form(Scollo & Winstanley, 2012).This laws does not list smoking as a form of discrimination thus making the smoking issue legally unclear. Conclusion Smokers in the UK and US are paying a heavy price comparing to their counterpart in Australia. The UK and US have both charge smokers high costs with regards to health insurance. Smokers in US, UK and Australia believe smoking near a non-smoker is harmful to their health. Australia, UK and US governments have taken a step to minimise smoking in public places while at same time given information on the effects of tobacco. More research need to be conducted to prove the real effects of smoking and whether the health effects are real or imagined. Treating employees unfairly because they smoke should stop until when enough research and evidence has been collected. References Alamar, B. & Stanton, A. G. (2006) Effect of Increased Social Unacceptability of Cigarette Smoking on Reduction in Cigarette Consumption. American Journal of Public Health 96 (8). P. 1359–63. ASH. (2014) Smoking Statistics: Who Smokes and How Much. Action on smoking and health fact sheet. 20th January. Badager, E. (2013) It Really Only Took About 20 Years for the U.S. to Turn Smokers into Pariahs. The Atlantic. 10th July. Campbell, D. (2015) Call for New York-Style Ban on Smoking in Public in UK. The Guardian. 26th September. Crystal, G. (2014) FAQ: Are Smokers Losing Their Civil Rights? Civil Rights Movement. 20th November. Evershed, N. (2014) Is Smoking Increasing in Australia ? The Guardian. 6th June. Lawler, D. (2014) From Marlboro Man to Smoking Ban: A Timeline of Tobacco in America. The Telegraph. 14th November. Prasad, B. (2005) Stop Smoking for Good: Forget the Patch, the Gum, and the Excuses with Dr. Prasads Proven Program to Permanent Smoking Cessation. New York: Penguin. Sandro, G. & Bruce, G. L. (2008). Smoking and the Emergence of a Stigmatized Social Status. Social Science and Medicine 67 (3). P. 420–30 Scollo, M. M. & Winstanley, M. H. (2012) Tobacco in Australia: Facts and issues. 4th. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria. Stuber, J. (2009) Stigma and Smoking: The Consequences of Our Good Intentions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Young, L. (2005) Another Ancient Pleasure Gone. The Guardian. 4th June. Read More