Smoke Free Work Places Better than Taxation
'Smoke-free work place' better than taxation say Researchers"Smoking kills" is no longer a myth. Scientific research has also shown that those who don't smoke can get ill and die from effects of tobacco smoke. A team of researchers led by Professor SA Glantz from the Centre for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, has reviewed several scientific studies on effects of smoke-free work places on smoking behaviour. They concluded that 'Smoke-free workplaces' not only protect non-smokers from the dangers of breathing in other people's smoke; such places if enforced also encourage smokers to quit or reduce consumption. Their research was published in the July 27th 2002 issue of the British Medical Journal. They found that implementing smoke free work places led to 4 out of every 100 smokers reducing the amount they smoked. The reviewers looked at effectiveness of various means of containing the problem of smoking in the population. They compared effectiveness of totally smoke-free workplaces versus smoke-free areas, effects of legislation including increasing taxes, and effects of smoke-free workplaces and clean air legislation on teenagers.
It appears we in Britain have little leverage to take decisions on this issue. Increasing taxes on cigarettes requires agreement and cooperation from producers and purchasers as well as all countries that trade in it. Voluntary measures are more difficult to enforce, as they have no sanctions, lack clarity and authority. They found that to get a reduction of about 3 employees out of 10 in consumption would require tax increases of over 47% in the USA and over 24% in the United Kingdom on a pack of cigarettes. In the EU for instance, all countries except the UK and Germany have specific legislation on smoking in public places and the work place. smoke-free areas including workplaces, adequately enforced clean air legislation and increasing taxes should be encouraged if we have to get a good control over the health effects of smoking. They (non-smokers) will have the liberty to breathe free air and not be forced to breathe polluted air and suffer or die from the diseases caused by breathing in air polluted with products of cigarettes in smoke through no fault of theirs. The widespread practice of smoking in buildings exposes nonsmoking occupants to toxic waste of tobacco under conditions where airborne contaminant removal is slow and uncertain. Lobbying of our EU partners should therefore be pursued vigorously. We are all witnesses to the fact that interventions designed to restrict the purchase of cigarettes have no effect on the prevalence of smoking among teenagers. Also in the USA, passive smoking is said to kill one person who does not smoke anytime smoking kills eight smokers. Should such a policy which improves health but have a heavy toll on the economy be allowed or not has been argued by different people and the industries producing the cigarettes. Public attitudes towards smoking have changed a lot over the last two decades. Tobacco smoke is a major hazard to health of both smokers and non-smokers. Smoking restrictions in public places in the United Kingdom are currently left to individual organisations to frame voluntarily.
Common topics in this essay:
Medical Journal,
America USA,
Lobbying EU,
Kingdom Government,
UK Germany,
United Kingdom,
Health Safety,
San Francisco,
Kingdom Tobacco,
Researchers Smoking,
passive smoking,
united kingdom,
public health,
clean air,
increasing taxes,
smoke free,
tobacco smoke,
smoke-free workplaces,
clean air legislation,
smoke-free smoking,
specific legislation,
implementing smoke free,
toxic waste tobacco,
|
Acceptance Essays
