Estimates have it that tobacco use, especially cigarette smoking, has seen many deaths in the world with many of these deaths being as a result of lung cancer. People living with smoke caused disease such as lung-related diseases is approximately 25 times more that an annual number of deaths recorded. Cigarette usage is accountable for about 85% of all the lung-related diseases. The health- cost-related issues of illnesses related to tobacco are almost $187 per year. This situation had been very different in the earlier times when tobacco was not predominating in cigarettes, as the results of cigarettes were not a major contributor to deaths. Following the speedy upsurge of the lung cancer mortality rate, the problem can be drawn back from the introduction of the widely used tobacco blended cigarette which makes it easy for lungs to get the smoke inhaled therefore catalyzing the present nicotine to the brain thus cigarette smoking addiction. Earlier used cigarettes brand included Chesterfield, lucky strike, and Camel, which were introduced before 940. As the marketing of cigarettes grew, the competition of touting the mildness of cigarettes and inhaling ability increased among companies. Consumers of cigarette started dying of lung cancer in large volumes becoming difficult to persuade the detrimental effects of smoking on the health on the public. Although industries had moved a step ahead and introduced filters and low yield cigarettes to discourse the concerns of health as a result of cigarette smoking, this innovation played reduced roles in decreasing smoking of cigarettes diseases. People had been asked to start using the new products with an assumption of them being safe. This article provided an evidence-based review of tobacco control policies contributing to the reduced smoking initiation and increased quitting the behavior.
Adverse Effects of Tobacco use on Health
At the 20 th Century, most of the tobacco consumed was consumed through cigar-chewing. The evidence of the negative impacts of tobacco started appearing in medical history as a result of the acceleration of death rates. Paoletti et al. (2012 ) note that reports about there being an association between usage of cigarette and lung diseases were recorded in hospital journals until a journal article was published on “Cancer research.” Its reports showed that people with cancerous tumors had been exposed to cigarette tar. This article was publicly received and pressured more nationwide survey on the adverse effect of using tobacco on health. Hill et al. (2014 ) note a larger percentage of men and women were current smokers, and this came with an evidence that smoking causes cancer. Effective “population-based tobacco control” intervention includes rising tobacco price, creation of “comprehensive smoke- free policies” and creation of “high- impact anti-tobacco mass media campaigns." Wilson et al. (2012 ) note that evidence has it that personal implementation of the provided strategies well as a “comprehensive tobacco prevention and control” struggle can help decrease the initiation of smoking and tobacco use for the youths. Among the “comprehensive tobacco prevention and control” struggles include there being enforcement of “population-based” intrusions to reduce tobacco initiation to the youths by promoting quitting, eliminating the tobacco-related disparities and also eliminating the exposure of second-hand smoke.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Tobacco control Policies and Programs
According to Malone, Grundy & Bero (2012 ), declining the cigarettes consumption corresponds to the improved cognizance of tobacco effects by the public as well as modifying tobacco norms with the governmental schedules aiming to control the sale, advertisement, and tobacco usage. A wide change has been on both the attitude and the rules placed on smoking. Restricting smoking places has helped in the relegation cigar smoking as a putative societal behavior. Communication about the adverse health effects smoking is the main goal which is to regulate the effects of tobacco. Providing individuals with warnings on their health and inclusion of information of the product on the packages of tobacco represents the way of informing the consumers that smoking comes with health risks and it is the first adopted step to changing behavior. Virtually, Hoffman & Tan (2015 ) notes that all countries need this awareness where the packaging labels are included with warnings.
Tobacco products advertising ban
A Senate amended the “Public Health Tobacco Smoking Act” that made cigarettes advertisement on the social media illegal, and this began to be operative. This congress extended their prohibition of broadcast advertising to other little cigars and other tobacco products that are smokeless. This federal regulation prohibition of cigarettes marketing on radio, television and any other media is included in the clause preemption of both the state and the locals for regulating and prohibiting tobacco advertising or promotion for the health reasons. McNeill & Munafò (2013 ) notes that the main purpose of the preemption was for the avoidance of chaos by any conflicting regulation of tobacco smoking. The effects of this preemption were that many states and local areas had tried to control the tobacco products promotion on the public. In the recent past, many cities and countries have gone a step ahead to restrict all forms of advertising, be it the free tobacco products sample distribution of the samples or even advertising on the point- of- sale. As included in the MSA, the cigarette manufacturers agreed with the discontinuation of billboard advertising and magazine advertising as this had been reported to affect a higher percentage of underage readers. DiFranza (2012 ) notes that misleading descriptor labels which were placed on the tobacco products were banned as the producers had transformed their packs with diverse schemes of conveying misleading information and perceptions on the strengths of cigarettes. This meant that cigarette consumers continued to be deceived on the facts that smoking cigarettes has no benefit in their health status.
Policies of Comprehensive smoke- free laws
Kozlowski & Abrams (2016 ) notes that the introduction of policies which aims at restricting the smoking places has corresponded to the changing of attitudes on the use of tobacco as well as in reducing the smoking behavior. By adopting the comprehensive smoke- free laws, many states and the individual communities worldwide have helped in prohibiting the use of cigarette in workplaces. Currently, the diverse health impacts of smoking, such as heart- related diseases and lung cancer of the “second-hand smoke” is clear. Research has it that “smoke- free ordinances” decreases the exposure to secondhand smoke and also yields some measurable improvements in the health of the public. Smoke-free policies are both the public and private segment regulations prohibiting publicity smoking of cigarettes. Both the local and the state orders establish “smoke- free standards” for all people or workplaces and other public outdoor places. When it comes to private sectors smoke- free policies, tobacco use may be a ban on private property as well as smoking restrictions on designated outdoor locations. Nagelhout et al. (2012 ) carried out a research and came up with a meta-analysis which documented that there was 19% reduction of the people admitted in hospitals for “acute myocardial infarctions” following “smoke- free law’s” passage. Smoking restrictions have helped in increasing the quit efforts among the cigarette users and aiding the lessening of the total consumption of cigarettes. Evidence has it that “smoke- free worksites” yield about 45 drops in the total tobacco use in prevalence with fewer cigarettes being consumed per day.
Tax policy increasing the price of tobacco products
Chaloupka, Yurekli & Fong (2012 ) recognizes the economic theory that states that the decisions of purchasing a product are based on its affordability. Pricing of cigars set by the manufacturers and the wholesale hikes of taxes imposed on tobacco. A straightforward way and a reliable way of reducing the use of cigarettes is increasing their price by levitation of taxes. During the first century, Méndez, Alshanqeety & Warner (2013 ) notes that taxes imposed on tobacco products were low, and this was primarily used in generating revenue, but they were raised infrequently. Views on taxing cigarettes changed after the proclamation of “Surgeon General’s Report” on cigarettes usage which pressured many countries to increase taxes levied on tobacco products with efforts to lessen the behavior of smoking and the adverse health effects. Studies have been produced on how cigar taxes and the raised cigar prices are responding, and this most particularly is on the youths and young adults.
Findings from these studies led to the growth of pressure from public health groups on the increase of both the federal and the state cigarette taxes. Bilano et al. (2015 ) note that this estimated to a rise of cigar price by 10%, decreasing the consumption rate by 5%. Researchers have argued that if this policy is implemented comprehensively, it can help prevent more than 16 million smoking-related deaths worldwide. Youths are considered to be more price-sensitive and therefore, increasing taxes on cigarettes would be a useful tobacco prevention intervention. Chaloupka, Yurekli & Fong (2012 ) notes that, while smoking cigarettes represents almost daily means of influencing the consumption of tobacco products, other pricing strategies can also be used to modify the smoking behavior. Some of these pricing policies include the charging of higher “health insurance premiums” to the smoking staffs. Regulation and litigation of tobacco products also have an effect on raising the price of tobacco products which involves passing the cost directly to the customers through their purchases.
Tobacco Control Programs
Moodie et al. (2013 ) note that the implementation of tobacco control programs is very important for a wider reach, and it should be ensured. Although these programs have limitations at times, such as lack of advocacy in eradicating tobacco at its source, they play a vital role in tobacco consumption curtail. Many states have implemented this policy by offering incentives to the tobacco farmers for them to deal with other alternative crops making this part of tobacco eradication policies. Tobacco farmers are also educated about the acute and the chronic effects of having a relationship with the use of tobacco. Reports show that more than 55% of tobacco farmers, together with their families, experience green tobacco sickness and cute toxicity syndrome which is associated with the tobacco exposure ( Gourdet, Chriqui & Chaloupka, 2014) . To combat these health issues, especially in rural areas where tobacco farming is what they rely on, community- based initiatives should discourage these families from cultivating tobacco but offering them help to grow other alternative crops. The government can intervene further by making the alternative crop profitable, which can help create a tobacco-free society.
The Future
The policies which have been described have helped to decrease the consumption of cigarette worldwide, a step that has aided the decline of lung-related diseases resulting from smoking. Although the researchers’ consumption drop prediction has its levels at the near trivial, the trend has been reported not to be so positive. The global effort for reducing the health effects of using tobacco is supported by the “World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control," which is a worldwide agreement ( Bush et al., 2012 ). It is, therefore, more serious that the health community and public medical organization adopts the “evidence-based guidelines” in ensuring that people adopt all these policies and programs for effective reduction of tobacco use and its health effect. Products regulation including rules on products sold and the disclosure of their correct information offers opportunities of reducing the harm caused by tobacco products Decision on how to implement tobacco products regulations will help reduce the harm that is caused by cigarettes as well as banning them. It is very clear that cigarette smoking is harmful as addicted people are exposed to compounds of tobacco smoke which leads to cancer and other illnesses ( Farley et al., 2015) . In theory, engineering tobacco products should be very essay so that they do not get to addictive levels. Lowering of tobacco delivery can also help users to stop smoking behavior for today’s cigarette consumption.
The potential impact of the treatment of tobacco use hinges on both the efficacy also the range that it reaches to those who need to benefit. Today, less evidence has been given in support of the ideas that tobacco addiction therapy treatment has affected the rate at which people use tobacco on the level of the general population. This failure results from the minimum application of these remedies, which might lead to the healthcare workers failing to offer assistance to the tobacco addicted patients to help them in quitting those behaviors. Policies that can increase reaching an appealing the tobacco use operative “cessation treatments” such as the promotion of line numbers for quitting on the cigar packages, creating and publicizing of some appealing treatment methods that are appealing to the tobacco users and adopting of healthcare schemes that requires the “cessation treatment” to be presented as routine care can help lessen the general occurrence of smoking and grow the discrepancies in the future usage of tobacco. Clearly, the government should be doing more in reducing smoking consisting of funding the comprehensive tobacco control programs that help accelerate the declines of the smoking behavior, which helps in reducing cancer and heart disease mortality rates. Implementation of product regulation can help reduce addictiveness, reducing the consumption of cigarettes worldwide.
References
Bilano, V., Gilmour, S., Moffiet, T., d'Espaignet, E. T., Stevens, G. A., Commar, A., ... & Shibuya, K. (2015). Global trends and projections for tobacco use, 1990–2025: an analysis of smoking indicators from the WHO Comprehensive Information Systems for Tobacco Control. The Lancet , 385 (9972), 966-976.
Bush, T., Zbikowski, S., Mahoney, L., Deprey, M., Mowery, P. D., & Magnusson, B. (2012). The 2009 US federal cigarette tax increase and quitline utilization in 16 states. Journal of environmental and public health , 2012 .
Chaloupka, F. J., Yurekli, A., & Fong, G. T. (2012). Tobacco taxes as a tobacco control strategy. Tobacco Control , 21 (2), 172-180.
DiFranza, J. R. (2012). Which interventions against the sale of tobacco to minors can be expected to reduce smoking? Tobacco Control , 21 (4), 436-442.
Farley, S. M., Coady, M. H., Mandel-Ricci, J., Waddell, E. N., Chan, C., Kilgore, E. A., & Kansagra, S. M. (2015). Public opinions on tax and retail-based tobacco control strategies. Tobacco Control , 24 (e1), e10-e13.
Gourdet, C. K., Chriqui, J. F., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2014). A baseline understanding of state laws governing e-cigarettes. Tobacco Control , 23 (suppl 3), iii37-iii40.
Hill, S., Amos, A., Clifford, D., & Platt, S. (2014). Impact of tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: a review of the evidence. Tobacco Control , 23 (e2), e89-e97.
Hoffman, S. J., & Tan, C. (2015). Overview of systematic reviews on the health-related effects of government tobacco control policies. BMC public health , 15 (1), 744.
Kozlowski, L. T., & Abrams, D. B. (2016). Obsolete tobacco control themes can be hazardous to public health: the need for updating views on absolute product risks and harm reduction. BMC Public Health , 16 (1), 432.
Malone, R. E., Grundy, Q., & Bero, L. A. (2012). Tobacco industry denormalisation as a tobacco control intervention: a review. Tobacco Control , 21 (2), 162-170.
McNeill, A., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Reducing harm from tobacco use. Journal of Psychopharmacology , 27 (1), 13-18.
Méndez, D., Alshanqeety, O., & Warner, K. E. (2013). The potential impact of smoking control policies on future global smoking trends. Tobacco Control , 22 (1), 46-51.
Moodie, R., Stuckler, D., Monteiro, C., Sheron, N., Neal, B., Thamarangsi, T., ... & Lancet NCD Action Group. (2013). Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. The Lancet , 381 (9867), 670-679.
Nagelhout, G. E., Levy, D. T., Blackman, K., Currie, L., Clancy, L., & Willemsen, M. C. (2012). The effect of tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence and smoking ‐ attributable deaths. Findings from the Netherlands SimSmoke Tobacco Control Policy Simulation Model. Addiction , 107 (2), 407-416.
Paoletti, L., Jardin, B., Carpenter, M., Cummings, K. M., & Silvestri, G. A. (2012). Current status of tobacco policy and control. Journal of thoracic imaging , 27 (4), 213.
Wilson, L. M., Avila Tang, E., Chander, G., Hutton, H. E., Odelola, O. A., Elf, J. L., ... & Apelberg, B. J. (2012). Impact of tobacco control interventions on smoking initiation, cessation, and prevalence: a systematic review. Journal of environmental and public health , 2012 .
