revision reserch-

POLICY ANALYSIS: TOBACCO CONTROL POLICY

Note: there was verbiage that was taken directly from your source without citation or quotation marks. Please review and do the necessary correction with citation or quotation marks

POLICY ANALYSIS: TOBACCO CONTROL POLICY

Introduction

In the past years, smoking was a usual thing for people, and it could be done anywhere with no worry. Due to the legitimate health concerns, however, the past years have experienced a surge in anti-smoking regulations. Through the introduction of the rules, there has been a great decline in chronic illnesses such as lung cancer among others. Lots of public health scholars assume that the change has been increased by the public policy regulations to lower tobacco consumption (Slade 1993). The studied literature purports that the most intense demand decreasing impacts on smoking have been efforts to raise the financial expense of consuming tobacco commodities significantly through heavy taxation, smoke-free legislations, comprehensive marketing ban, and paid counter-advertising commercials and campaigns.

Policy history

Programs and initiatives to discourage tobacco products use to have a great history in America and other nations. The conflict between Peruvian native and Christian religious customs which resulted in 1586 Papal decree declaring is a sin for any priest to consume tobacco before celebrating or receiving holy communion https://www.nature.com/articles/1205810?code=17e72690-fc5f-478e-8ca5-e4aad7bdcea9&error=cookies_not_supported brought about the first recorded prohibition against smoking. On the other end, in the 1600s an attempt to reduce smoking was implemented through heavy taxation on the commodity, and there were executions of individuals caught using tobacco. Despite the great fight against smoking, the use prevalence was high, especially in America that garnered economic advantage from growing and selling the tobacco leaves around https://www.nature.com/articles/1205810?code=17e72690-fc5f-478e-8ca5-e4aad7bdcea9&error=cookies_not_supported the world. There was widespread use of tobacco in the nineteenth century though the amount consumed decreased largely. That means that smoking has been a long persistent problem that needs accurate measures to eradicate or reduce. Medical professionals have linked tobacco use as a primary cause of chronic illnesses, and there is need to raise awareness to people and make them understand the danger they are putting themselves as well as other people (Warren Grant Magnuson, 1969).

Policy development and implementation

The development and implementation of the public policies are intended to inform the consumers concerning the health risks of tobacco products https://www.nature.com/articles/1205810?code=17e72690-fc5f-478e-8ca5-e4aad7bdcea9&error=cookies_not_supported consumption or that makes the commodities expensive, discourage use of tobacco indirectly. It means that the policy focuses on educating the consumer of the danger they are exposed to following tobacco products consumption. In that case, I will take the both the government and the stakeholders efforts to ensure that the problem is dealt with accordingly or the risk the consumer is exposed to gets reduced. That means the problem does not only demand the implementation of the policies only but making sure that they are efficient and applied objectively. On the other end, another division of systems impacts tobacco use more significantly by reducing places where tobacco can be consumed, and by restrictions placement https://www.nature.com/articles/1205810?code=17e72690-fc5f-478e-8ca5-e4aad7bdcea9&error=cookies_not_supported on the tobacco products sale and advertising.

Regulations on places tobacco commodities are used

In 1964, the laws restricting smoking in public places such as learning institutions, public transportations, administration residents, elevators, and restaurants. However, as scientific research concerning the health passive, some effects exposure started to emerge, there was also an increase in policies limiting where individuals could smoke (NCI, 1996). In the present time, almost all states and localities have enacted the regulations https://www.nature.com/articles/1205810?code=17e72690-fc5f-478e-8ca5-e4aad7bdcea9&error=cookies_not_supported restricting public places smoking and places of work. There has been an institution of no smoking policies in many fast food joints and restaurant chains. Apparently, the federal law restricts smoking on public transport locomotives, buses and airline flights. It is clear that the restrictions have a common motive which is ensuring that the affected individual is not put at risk and also the smoker becomes aware of the danger they are exposing themselves to through tobacco use. The American military does not allow smoking on work regions. It is clear that these policies were limiting where individuals can smoke made it less socially acceptable and have played a part in smoking behaviors reduction, although it is hard to quantify the precise effect on smoking. Apparently, we can confidently argue that while the restrictions are limiting the areas where individuals can smoke have the intention of protecting the nonsmokers’ health, the regulations have assisted in redefining the smoking conduct in our community, making it less acceptable, increasingly inconvenient and less pleasurable, thereby raising cessation and discouraging smoking uptake.

Tobacco sales restrictions

A complete prohibition on tobacco sales is not practical, especially with over forty million adult cigarette smokers. However, in America, there is the belief of limiting underage tobacco products access. The reasons for restricting tobaccos sales to underage people is based on the perspective that kids and young adults may not be mature enough to understand the long-term impacts of smoking sufficiently. Increased evidence indicates that lots of youth who start tobaccos use not efficiently to understand the addiction nature and as a result, it becomes hard for them to avoid the lethal effects of smoking by cutting smoking after a short period. Regulations intended to reduce the sale of tobacco to minors date back to the century turn off. In 1964, the prohibition of tobacco sale to minors was in almost all states except two. The laws were not being enforced, and there was the re-appeal of their tobacco access laws by several states. However, the government paid full attention and began to address the menace of tobacco access by the youth (Borland, 1997). Currently, the law that restricts the sale of smoking to children has been enacted by all states. Although the emerging evidence implies that the effect is likely to be substantial, the impact of youth access laws enforcement on deterring tobacco use by minors remains unclear. The enactment of these statutes encourages retailer compliance but the greatest win would be the impact it would have on young people smoking behavior. However, the most significant public health advantage of a reinvigorated effort to reduce children and young adolescents’ tobacco access may not directly lie on its impact on smoking conduct of the youth, but rather on direct effects of reinforcing the fundamental norm that does not approve the use of tobacco.

Tobacco product marketing restrictions

In America, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) bears full power under the Federal Trade Commission Act to control the consumer commodities of advertising to prevent unfair or deceptive activities or operations in business. Over the past times, the FTC restricted the RJ Reynolds organization from claiming in its marketing operations of cigarette manufacturers. There was a recommendation by the FTC to prohibit cigarette advertising on public domains (radio and television). In the broadcast media effective starting in 1971, the Congress passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act that prohibited cigarette advertising in 1969. A clause preempting states and localities from controlling or restricting advertising of the cigarette or campaigns for health aspects was included by the federal law banning advertising of cigarette on television and radio. The preemption reason was to do away with chaos designed by various, potentially antagonizing regulations. However, the general preemption impact is that several states and localities have made an attempt to control tobacco products advertisement. It has been the role or cities and reported to regulate transit advertising, tobacco commodities samples distribution, and point-of-sale marketing was revoked recently on the violation of the federal preemption basis on advertising of cigarette.

Product regulation

In America, almost all consumer goods are subject to some federal restriction statutes made to ensure that product safety is guaranteed and consumers have full information concerning the possible risks. However, there is an exception on tobacco products. Congress has comprehensively excluded the tobacco goods from regulatory control both for political and practical reasons, with the warning labels exception. New York State enacted the design of cigarette administrative law for the first time. The regulation demands cigarette manufacturers to make the product in a manner that there are highly readily easy to extinguish, thus reducing the fire risk resulting from cigarette smoldering. There remains less incentive for manufacturers to make and formulate less dangerous cigarette especially with some regulatory oversight. That is the case because incentives that have been operational to impose changes in the industry in past years have had a correlation to customer demand and risk liability. The manufacturers introduced filtered and little cigarette tar as a result of high consumer awareness of the smoking health hazards during the 1950s and 1960s. Apparently, it is not clear whether the product regulation legislation has great impact on addict behavior.

Policy effectiveness

Tobacco control policies have proliferated, especially in the wake of unassailable medical study to prove that smoking’s dangerous consequences. Based on statistics the rate of mortality as a result of cigarette consumption has been the cause of high mortality on the globe population. In that case, policies and enactment of the regulations and restrictions are necessary. Litigation has also been made part of the restriction measure in addition to legislation and regulation. The increased civil waves and class action lawsuits have been as a result of evidence of the tobacco sector’s long history of deception and suppression of data concerning the health risks of the commodities.

The enactment of the family smoking prevention and tobacco control act in 2009 shed some light in the fight against tobacco products use. One thing that is clear is the fact that there has been a reduction in smoking behavior among individuals. With awareness reduction taking place more slowly in subsequent years, the observed fall in tobacco marketing awareness was greatest immediately following the enactment of the regulations. Except billboard advertising and arts sponsorships that were decreased more sharply, http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/2/321/pdf the reported changes in tobacco marketing knowledge have been similar across distinct socioeconomic strata. Though that has been the case, evidence shows that given channels go on being used by tobacco organizations in reaching the significant smokers percentages in each country regardless of the fact that it has been suggested by and big tobacco marketing regulations associated with reduced exposure to pro-smoking cues among all age groups (National Cancer Institute, 1993). Needs quotation marks

For the cigarette sector to change the status quo there is no real incentive as it stands today. By educating consumers about the factors in tobacco, commodities contribute to disease risk the competition to produce increased consumer acceptable medicinal nicotine goods. Amazingly, it is clear that many individuals who smoke do not know the distinction in health hazards between tobacco products with no smoke, nicotine medications, and cigarettes. In comparison to the disease risk difference between smoked and smokeless goods, it is evident that all nicotine commodities were placed on a risk balance the real difference between smokeless and nicotine medications would be seen as pretty little. One thing that is clear is that the status quo will likely remain until the smokers are given sufficient data to offer them the opportunity to choose commodities because of reduced health hazards (Blum & Myers, 1993).

Conclusion and Recommendations

It is significant to state that the FDA’s potential to collaborate does not fall with any limits. Congress laid down clear boundaries on the FDA’s operations especially in the enactment of the Tobacco Control Act. It means that FDA has to operate within its jurisdiction and surpassing the limits set by the regulatory body is not allowed. It implies that the regulation limits the operating scope of the FDA and hence the tobacco products use regulations becomes limited. It means that there is a broad range of tobacco regulation and restriction programs that may require more than the people support cannot receive funding from FDA. There is perfect significance for the Tobacco Control Act to be amended and eliminate the clause that limits FDA operations jurisdiction (Mitchell, 1999). That is the case because, in coming years, there will be plenty opportunities for FDA to run its operations in line with its partners. One vital component might be the tobacco commodity control, tobacco control new component, but at the end, it stands as a single aspect of what needs to be a multi-extended approach.

References

Bates C, McNeill A, Jarvis M, Gray N. (1999). Tobacco Control, 8: 225-235.

Blum A, Myers M. (1993). Tobacco use: An American Crisis Houston TP (ed) Chicago: American Medical Association, pp. 63-71.

Borland R. (1997). Addiction, 92: 1427-1435.

Slade J. (1993). Nicotine Addiction. Principles and Management Orleans CT and Slade J (eds) New York: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell B. (1999). Review of documents on tobacco package warning and toxic constituent labeling Report to the Center for Behavioral Research and Program Evaluation, National Cancer Institute of Canada.

National Cancer Institute. (1993). Major local tobacco control ordinances in the United States NIH Publication No. 93-3532. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health.

National Cancer Institute. (1996). The FTC cigarette test method for determining, tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yields of U.S. cigarettes. Report of the NCI Expert Committee Smoking and Tobacco Control, Monograph 7 NIH Publication No. 96-4028 Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health.

Warren Grant Magnuson, ( Paul Rand, D., & Committee on Commerce., S. (1969). Public health cigarette smoking act of 1969. 29p.