Smoking Laws: Are They A Social Contract?

Federal Restrictions and Guidelines in Smoking and Politics by A. Lee Frischlet and James M. Hoelfer

The 1997 Declaration of the Environment Leaders of the Group of Eight countries on Children’s

Therefore, we find the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act from 1992, the Tobacco Regulations from the year 2007 that amended the 1987 law or the Public Health (Tobacco) Act of 2008. With these policies, the Australian government wanted to reduce the sale and consumption of these carcinogenic products that are killing an average of 15,000 Australians a year and costing the Australian society and economy approximately $31.5 billion a year.

The 2017-2018 Ethics case of Smokers Need Not Apply presented the issue of tobacco use amongst hospital employees. The hospital job posting had stated that smokers need not apply, as concerns regarding, “the interests of employee productivity, as well as saving on the cost of employees’ health insurance” have become major hiring considerations (NHSEB, 2017, p. 7). This job application caused much controversy amongst smoke-free advocates and the pro-smoking community. After deep analyzation of this case, I would like to answer the question presented: “when, if ever, is it morally permissible for employers to discriminate on the basis of tobacco use?” (NHSEB, 2017, p. 7). In addition to clarifying my final answer, I would like to use the theory

The immediate concerns in the policy are the property sites that are not required to be smoke-free and the exclusion of e-cigarettes and vaping units. Both leave numerous tenants exposed to secondhand, especially those with shared ventilation systems. According to Browne et al., (2015) the social determinants of health are significantly central to everyone’s lives. Public health starts where individuals “live, learn, work, and play”, i.e. the resources that are available, the conditions in homes and surrounding community, where children play, where individuals work, and their behavior and lifestyle choices. Therefore, appropriate and necessary, that public housing and immediate surroundings should be smoke-free.

The research design is appropriate for answering the research question, which was determining the consequences and perspectives from patients and health care providers on the new policies mandating smoke-free hospital properties. The research design is appropriate because ethnographic research is based on studying patterns of behaviour within a culture. This study was based on studying patterns of behaviours on smoking-policies but the study mostly aimed to gain perspectives from a variety of individuals. Ethnographic method is great for the study in the fact that it can be used to include behavioural and cognitive perspectives, which in this case the study focused on observing behaviours of smoking and if the policies were being followed and also included the perspectives on the new smoke-free policies. Also ethnographic research usually focuses on studying one culture. This study did try to focus on one specific culture, but the population had “diversity” consisting of smokers and non-smokers. The culture that was viewed in the study was tobacco use and management.

Cigarette advertising has changed throughout history from how it has been advertised, what is being advertised, and who the intended audience is. In the 60’s seeing a cigarette advertisement in the Sunday paper would just be like any other advertisement, but recent generations would be appalled to see such a gruesome product being publicized. The annual deaths from smoking cigarettes are increasing each year and doctors and scientist are teaming together to try and help prevent more. Realizing that advertising may be playing a role the controversy over cigarette advertising has lead to the censoring of harmful products in other public advertising which still has a lasting effect today.

Tobacco remains legal and the treasury is said to make around 10 billion each year from taxing it. Coincidentally many states still have smoker-friendly bars. The smoking ban is said to be bad for business as well. Despite more efforts to prove otherwise, pubs and clubs are dying, in part, because of the business lost as smokers find somewhere else to drink they can smoke in peace. Where and how smokers think will always be beyond my understanding. They believe that the smoking ban is technologically backwards. It is not difficult, with decent modern air filtration technology, to make smoke virtually unnoticeable and certainly harmless. The smoking ban does not stop people from smoking. Even if it were appropriate to

cigarettes  used  to  symbolize  wealth  and status in society. Today, smoking seems to be more of a

Social Regulation applies to the regulation on tobacco. Basically social regulation are aimed at such important social goals as protecting consumers and the environment and providing workers with safe and healthy working conditions. In the discussion President Obama provided a new law the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with power not only to forbid advertising geared toward children but also to regulate what is in cigarettes. President Obama used social regulation protecting consumers (which are the kids and smokers) by creating regulations on tobacco products.

The United States of America is a country who wants the best for its people. For centuries we have been a melting pot of immigrants and people have come here to pursue a better life. America cares for its citizens and looks out for their best interests. One of the many ways this is done is by the banning of harmful substances. When something is deemed overly harmful we ban it to stop our citizens from using it and therefore protect them. This is done when drugs such as LSD are banned or firearms without a proper permit are not permitted. One substance this is not done with is tobacco. Tobacco is harmful and causes death. Cigarette smoking is responsible for over 400,000 deaths a year in the United States. There are no benefits to smoking tobacco,

I will be creating a law stating that smoking should be banned from all public places. I am creating this law because I think it's important that people feel free to go out in the community without having to worry about breathing in secondhand smoke. By enforcing this law it will also encourage people to stop smoking since they will no longer be able to smoke public places. By doing this, it will increase business for all the restaurants and bars that used to allow smoking. People will be more likely to go there now because they will know longer have to breathe in secondhand smoke. The social goal I believe this law is based on is Economic Equity because I believe that if you asked a random group of citizens they would agree that smoking should

The people that support the government plan on banning Tobacco Companies from advertising their product, believe state had the right to intervene in the overall interest of the citizens. They also cited the example of drugs like cocaine, which was, banned in the world over. Most of the people that support the ban believe that so far it as happened in some international countries like France, Finland and Norway, it is constitutional to ban the product from advertising.

According to the case analysis, the ban on Tobacco Ads by the Government of India began in 2001 when the government stated that it would be putting forth a discussion on whether or not a bill should be passed banning Tobacco Companies from advertising their products and sponsoring sports and cultural events. It was widely debated by both sides both ethically and morally, and substantial points were made both for and against the subject. I will give a summary of the reasons and justifications both for and against the topic, made in the essay.

The discussion of advertising tobacco products is a controversial topic, there are relevant points on both sides of the argument, so it is hard to determine a true ethical decision. India’s government announced the bill banning tobacco companies from advertising their products in February 2001, their goal is to prevent adolescents from taking up smoking or any other form of tobacco products. Initiating this bill is the government answer to an ethical challenge, they are protecting the health of the entire country, rather than the financial future of one industry. (Bauer, 2016) Immediately, there was an uproar that sparked this intense debate, arguments between health concerns versus constitutional rights. In this paper I would like to discuss the pros and cons of banning the advertisement of tobacco products and the conflict of interest that it presents.