A Brief Note On Public Smoking Bans And Smoking Behavior

Tobacco has and still is the most important public health issue faced in Australia and internationally. (Jochelson, 2006). Many countries such as North America, England, Australia, Canada and Ireland have introduced policies regarding smoking in public areas and restriction of smoking in indoor areas. (Thomson, Wilson & Edwards, 2009). The government, community leaders and policy makers work towards introducing policies that will stop consumers from smoking in public areas. (Pizacani, maher, Rohde, Drach & Stark, 2012). Government intervention should extend public smoking bans so that second hand smokers can be safe, a better environment and less death incidents relating to smoking.

Every year, there are over 400,000 smoking-related deaths in the United States. A large percentage of these are due to lung cancer, whose leading cause is smoking. However, not all deaths are smokers themselves. Anyone in the vicinity can fall victim to second hand smoke. These people, through no action of their own, can have their lives threatened.

If 90% of United States smokers could have another chance to redo it, they reported that they would not even have their first puff that initiated their tobacco addiction (Winickoff, Gottlieb, and Mello 2014). The Tobacco 21 bill is a fairly new legislation and already it has shown a decline in underage smokers as a result of its implementation. The results of the survey presented that the public opinion was largely accepting and supportive of the bill. The main argument against the bill is the harm that will come to retailers of tobacco products. Correspondingly, the argument is proven inaccurate and in favor of the bill. The past has shown the improved outcome of the country from the raise in the minimum alcohol age, and researchers regard

Tobacco use and the effects of second hand smoke have been an ongoing issue for many years. Looking at the attitude of the 1950’s and 1960’s when smoking was thought of as cool, suave, mature, etc., there has been a major turnaround in the way society looks at the use of tobacco. Now the issue is not just smoking and the damage to health that it causes, but now there is the additional awareness of what second hand smoke can do to individuals.

History has proven that government penalties, in the form of taxes, deter smoking. The 2000 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report, Reducing Tobacco Use, found that raising tobacco-product prices decreases the prevalence of tobacco use, and tobacco tax increases produce significant long-term improvements in health. From its review of existing research, the report concluded that raising tobacco taxes is one of the most effective tobacco prevention and control strategies (7). Along with price increases, mass-media campaigns and smoking bans have made cigarette smoking pretty much unacceptable in today’s society. “Today, approximately 22 percent of adults age twenty-two and older are smokers, compared with 33 percent in 1979” (Thorpe 1440). It is clear, from these examples, the use of penalties to deter the unhealthy behavior of smoking is a successful intervention.

The article gives information about the nationwide regulation restricting nicotine cigarettes in the U.S in terms of their promising outcomes such as reducing smoking among the youth and several trends of using tobacco-related products in a 10-year period. Furthermore, the authors also point put some possible challenges associated with cigarette withdrawal.

The purpose of this economics report is to illustrate the economic concerns and arguments around smoking in Australia and the methods of taxing aimed at reducing the smoking rate. The report will use a variety of research articles, economic theories and models to report on this issue so that the CEO of the Cancer Council of Australia has a thorough understanding.

In the article ‘Cigarette tax hike sparks panic buying’, Hall (2010) discusses the effects of tax increase on cigarettes. The government has decided to raise the tax on cigarettes by 25%, costing $2.16 more on a pack of 30 cigarettes. This government intervention is an attempt to stop people from smoking and reduce the health bill caused by those who smoke. The increase in tax is expected to save $5 billion more of the people’s tax dollars and the government decided that it will be put into a better use for its health and hospitals reparations. This contractionary fiscal policy is expected to reduce the total tobacco consumption by approximately six percent and drive down the number of smokers by 87,000.

Walking down Boston’s Boylston Street at the late hours of the evening, the sidewalks are crowded with smokers taking their last hauls before entering the bars for a night of drinking.

As he is pulling out his lighter and lighting the cigarette. There is a little boy sitting at the table next to him. The man just say to himself “ It's ok to smoke if everyone else is.” As the littler boy breathes in th3e smoke not only the smoke is unhealthy but the smoke is also increasing the chance for the little boy to have cancer. How would you react if that boy was your son? This brings up the debate on banning smoking in public. There are many pros and cons of banning smoking in public.

Health economics can be used also prospectively together with the programmer or individually to inspect the influence of health promotion and health promotion procedures. For example, independent examination of the influence of a strategy can be used to measure the effect of tax changes on smoking behavior between unalike social groups. review the likely influence of an increase in the excise tax amount on cigarettes on the number of adolescent smokers, telling that a 23% rise in the price of cigarettes would result in a discount of 16% in the number of adolescents who would then smoke, and a decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked by adolescents of 14% ( December 1,

There are many cities who have implemented bans on cigarettes, but China overall is still the leading consumer of cigarettes in the world. A countrywide tax on cigarettes has been proposed to their Ministry of Finance, and Ministry of Economics and Trade, but a decision has yet to be made. Tobacco production provides substantial revenue to the government and a tax increase will have a significant effect on the central government and reduction of consumption of cigarettes. According to a study done by the group proposing the tax, “a 25% tax increase will have an overall monetary benefit that far exceeds the negative impact on the cigarette industry and tobacco farmers. In financial terms alone, not counting the number of lives saved and medical care cost savings, the gain of the central government tax revenue (24.58 billion Yuan) twice exceeds the loss of tobacco farmers’ earnings, tobacco industry workers’ earning and loss of industry and local government revenue (11.74 billion Yuan)” (Hu TW 107). There many components to this calculation, but some factors included the reduction of cigarette consumption, the number of lives saved, savings in medical care costs, gains in productivity due to avoidance of premature death, industry revenue lost, lost jobs in cigarette industry, loss of tobacco income, and loss of local government

The magnitude of the off-set would determine the overall impact of the cigarette taxes on the health outcome. However, if a person’s only concern is weight management, then a reduction in exercises due to reduced cigarette consumption would both have negative effects on weight management and hence reduce person’s health. One shortcoming of the theoretical framework is, its assumption that exercises yield disutility to the person. In other words, it is assumed that persons dislike exercising and only exercises for its beneficial effects on health. This assumption seems unrealistic since it is very probable that people gain utility from exercising itself. If this assumption is relaxed, it is possible that people will not off-set the reduction in cigarette consumption by a reduction in exercise, which would then have a positive effect on the overall health function.

The European Union has taken serious measurements as a response to tobacco usage in the line of their health politics. Focus is on smoking prevention and control of tobacco products with the motivation that smoking is the primary source of death that could be avoided. However, the results of attempts to decrease the consumption of tobacco and the number of smokers are not satisfactory (http://ec.europa.eu, accessed 3.12.2008). The Council also claims in its reports that tobacco advertising and marketing increases the consumption which in turn affects the smoking related mortality. They also accuse the producers of using strategies focused on youngsters and students to replace the people dying from smoking, a fact that is supported by research that proves that 60% of smokers start using cigarettes before the age of 13 and 90% before they turn 18 (http://ec.europa.eu, accessed

This study will focus on examine the implications and impact of tobacco taxation increases on achieving the Smokefree 2025 goal in New Zealand. Firstly, I would review literatures about use of tobacco taxation around the world, the research methods and implications on smoking control. Secondly, I would carry out a survey about attitude and reaction of smokers and their families (potential smokers) for increasing tobacco taxation in New Zealand. Thirdly, in order to assess whether taxation will be an effective strategy associated to the future Smokefree goal, I would draw tables and diagrams to find the trend of percent of smoking prevalence from now to year 2025. Finally, we can form a conclusion about impact of tobacco taxation.