Non Smoker Policy

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 18.5% of adult in Texas smoke cigarette. Among all 50 States, Texas ranks 27th for having such a high percentile of current adult smokers, and ranked 31st in mortality rate amongst the 50 States in the USA, (CDC, 2010). The incidence of smokers is high in adults aged 25-44, in males who do not complete high school degree, and in American Indian/Alaska Native. (CDC, 2010). Unfortunately, Texas ranks high among

Although it remains a large portion of the U.S’ economy, tobacco smoking can lead to a variety of diseases and disorders that affect the user. The effects of smoking tobacco not only affect the user but surrounding people as well: permanently destroying their lungs and children, increasing the chances of diseases and of cancer.

In the state of Oklahoma, 24.7% of the adult population (aged 18+ years)—over 677,000 individuals—are current cigarette smokers. Across all states, the prevalence of cigarette smoking among adult’s ranges from 9.3% to 26.5%. Oklahoma ranks 47th among the states (State Highlights Oklahoma 2011). Tulsa’s smoking community has a 24.6 percentage for smoking making the city relative to the state of Oklahoma’s current smoking percentage (Health on the Horizon Tulsa County 2014). Approximately 16% of the annual revenue generated from Oklahoma excise taxes and settlement payments fund Oklahoma 's tobacco control program. However, in 2007, Oklahoma 's funding for tobacco control was 25.8% of the recommended level making it 19th among the other states.

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

In calculating the economic influence of smoke-free policies and laws, the Surgeon General considered their constructive effect in decreasing health care costs. Utilizing a simulation prototype, the Surgeon General concluded, if all U.S. workplaces implemented an all-inclusive smoke-free policy, it would result in 1.3 million smokers renouncing, 950 million less cigarette packs being smoked, 1,540 heart attacks and 360 strokes being prevented, and $49 million passive medical cost savings being attained within the first year.” The costs saved would increase over time. (American for nonsmoker’s rights,

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 Courier Journal analyzed how tobacco impacted the life of six Kentuckians: a farmer, a tobacco retailer, a cigarette factory worker, a smoker, a small business owner, and a cancer patient. The farmer argued that tobacco kept their family farm in business and that tobacco was no more harmful than coffee. The tobacco retailer talked about how his sales would fall if the price of a pack of cigarette was raised. According to the cigarette factory worker, she was intrigued by how the government would choose to spend the money that they would make from the taxes. The smoker argued that he had begun smoking when he was 9 years old and that teens would continue to smoke no matter what. The small business owner was concerned that her business would go under if farmers no longer had the money to spend at her store. And according to the cancer patient, she had been charged over $235,000 in medical bills. (Hopkins

It was in 1964 that the Surgeon General of the United States first published a report on the ill-effects of smoking cigarettes, and within a year the first law requiring health warnings on cigarette packages was in effect. From that point, the government has slowly, but continually, imposed more and more restrictions on the use of tobacco products. Throughout the 1960s, 70's, 80's, and 90's, the both individual jurisdictions within the State of California, as well as the entire state, continued to impose tougher and tougher restrictions on smoking cigarettes until 1994, when California became the first state in the union to pass a law which completely prohibited smoking in most enclosed workplaces. ("Secondhand Smoke Exposure") This law, which took effect in 1998, restricted smoking in all enclosed places of employment including offices, factories, bars and restaurants. But by the early 21st century, the current restrictions were not enough for California's lawmakers and a push was started to ban smoking in all public places. Since the passage of these restrictions in the 1990's, there has been a great deal of change in the state with advocates of the smoking ban pointing to the increased health benefits for the citizens of the state, while opponents focus on the economic damaged in the business community caused by the restrictions. It is therefore necessary to examine the State of California and its ban on smoking and how it has

East Tennessee State University should continue to be tobacco-free, because tobacco has an overwhelming effect on all individuals’ health. Smokers of tobacco harm their body

The American Lung Association in its 2015 State of Tobacco Control has given Maryland the following grades: “F for Tobacco Prevention, A for Smokefree Air, D for Tobacco Taxes and D for Access to Cessation Services”. The following CDC data details what basic demographic information is behind these grades and details the characteristics, conditions, and processes of person, place and time of tobacco product usage in Maryland. The most troublesome of Maryland’s tobacco data is that “Among youth aged 12–17 years, 8.8% smoke in Maryland. The range across all states is 6.5% to 15.9% and Maryland ranks 6th among the states.” (CDC) Additionally, among adults aged 35+ years, “over 6,900 died as a result of tobacco use per year, on average, during 2000–2004. This represents a smoking-attributable mortality rate of 261.9/100,000.” Maryland's smoking-attributable mortality rate ranks 23rd amongst US states. (CDC)

This report provides a study and analysis on the smoke and tobacco-free policy that the University of Alaska Anchorage adopted in 2015 in line with the state program. Specifically, this study aims to discuss:

For years, in states such as, New York and Minnesota, they have attached high taxes to cigarettes in an attempt to both deter smokers and raise money for government programs. Missouri, however, has the lowest taxes on cigarettes in the United States; lower even than tobacco producing states such as Virginia and South Carolina. With many important state programs going unfunded, including transportation, increasing the tobacco tax could aid in the state debt of Missouri. Even former opponents of raising the taxes have begun expressing their own plans to move Missouri more in-line with the rest of the nation. Raising taxes on tobacco for the state of the Missouri’s unfunded projects could drastically open doors for more jobs for residents in the state. The raising of the tax can also fund for children initiatives and reduce the bad habits of smoking for younger adults. In my opinion raising the state taxes on tobacco can help with countless causes for the state of Missouri and the cities. Raising the taxes on tobacco products can aid in the debt of not only the state of Missouri but for the entire country of the United States.

The use of tobacco is a very controversial topic here in the United States. The harmful side effects of tobacco are well known and consequently, many believe that it should be outlawed. Though this has not yet occurred, constant regulations on the industry and

Since the US Surgeon General’s report on the dangers of Tobacco in 1964, Americans have gradually learned about the dangers of tobacco use, and the number of Americans who smoke is steadily decreasing. There are many forms of tobacco use, and numerous ways for someone to die from using tobacco. Even for those individuals who have never smoked, just being around secondhand smoke significantly increases one’s risk for a multitude health issues. Slowly, but surely, businesses, cities, and states are starting to protect themselves from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Policies are being implemented to create smoke-free environments, which need to later be evaluated to confirm their effectiveness.

The tobacco industry is important to the economy. In 1991, worldwide tobacco sales exceeded $59.8 billion and in 1992 the industry was rated as one of the top one hundred advertisers (Pechmann and Ratneshwar, 1994). However, there are high prices to pay - socially, economically, and personally - as a result of this industry. Annual mortality figures indicate that cigarette smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in the United States. An estimated 390,000 people die each year of smoke related illnesses, which is greater than the combined mortality for cocaine, crack, AIDS, homicide, suicide, and alcohol abuse (Botvin, G., Baker, Botvin, E., Dusenbury, Cardwell, and Diaz, 1993).