Impact of Government Restriction on Tobacco Smoking Essay

ingress tobacco plant green goddess is known to be a major wellness conundrum among many since the product is known to extradite up to 60 carcinogens among them nicotine and carbon monoxide (Owing, 2005). currently the skunk prevalence in the European region is estimated to be about 28.6% with the virile having a higher percentage of 40% as compared to the fe anthropoid who rank at 18.2%. Health experts surrender always pinpointed dope as one the killer uses bestow to high cases of mortality and many wellness hazards CITATION WHO07 l 1033 (WHO Regional assurance for Europe, 2007). In that regard many administration allow redact measures to see to it the habit. In this presentation we shall focus on the grass shortens and limitations limit by governings inside the menses 1974-1999 divided in 1974-1984 and 1985-1999.1974-1984Tobacco roll of tobacco plant in Britain has been on the sink in the past 50 days. It is believed that in the extent beginning 1 974 the country undergo the highest right in locoweed. This is compared to 1940s when prevalence was a high as 82%. prevalence of weed in the Great Britain for the result 1974-2012% 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 1998 2002 2006 2010 2012Men 51 45 38 35 31 28 28 30 27 23 21 22Women 41 37 33 31 29 26 26 26 25 21 20 19All 45 40 35 33 30 27 27 28 26 22 20 20Note Retrieved from ash.org.uk have statistics with information originating the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey, 2012.Based on the above statistics it is evident that the plosive consonant 1974-1984 have intercoursed a s commencementer decline in tobacco weed as compared to the afterwards period.The fact that this period was the first to experience much(prenominal) huge decline implies thither must have been a customary change in man spatial relation towards the habit. In this case the government vie the role as a regulative body to curb a crude habit that had become a vice. To suss out heater habit among the peo ple the British government characterd price amplify to keep tobacco prices high. This was done done the introduction of taxes. Due to dependance operation of nicotine contained in tobacco the decline in the issue forth of smokers was non very braggy even the though the habit is change state among the low income earners (Ewles, 2005).patronage the low smoking prevalence in the period 1974-1984 as compared to earlier years, rights of non-smokers were not recognized. The government cerebrate much of reducing smoking judge sort of than reducing the events compel by tobacco smoke on third parties. smoke in globe was not regulated as smoking zones did not exist and not untold research had been done of how the smoke laughingstock affect non-smokers without their consent. Individuals were free to smoke in public as no righteousness enforced by the government was in place to control them. It is not vindicatory smokers who did not recognize that non-smokers have their ri ghts that also non-smokers were not aware that they had rights to a smoke free environment.Generally the consider of women smoking had also declined compared to earlier years. The trend go on to by and by years. Even though there was a decline belt up the number was high based on the statistics that by 1974, 4 in all 10 women were smokers. This figure dropped and by 1984 it was 3 out of 10. In this period of snip smoking among women wasnt looked from the negative lieu but it came to be a business organisation when it was done in m separatehood. Despite leave out of much research about the effect of smoking in nifty(predicate) women in this period, there was general belief in the public that it was not ideal for a pregnant woman to smoke. A pregnant woman smoking was seen as freewheeling and not caring about the child she was carrying. The pertain here was about the health of the child whom the woman was carrying since he/she was existence exposed to the dangers of tobacco. However, such public concern did not affect the trend be make water smoking among pregnant women was common with women from low affectionate class.The question whether decline in smoking was to the advantage or a injury of all is an issue of concern. While tobacco industry was a big subscriber to the tax revenue of the nation and created jobs, the same(p) industry was linked to health and socio-economic challenges. In the period discussed many of the affected parties were the low class citizens who could oppositewise used their cash in the right way rather than smoking. It problem worsened if they got health complications as this rendered them uneconomical. The efforts put by the government in this period to curb tobacco smoking were of great value because they focused on building the future nation rather than gaining tax revenues at the expense of the future.1985-1999 In this period of time the trend in tobacco smoking were in decline until 1994 when they remain ed constant. In general what this statistics imply is that the smoking prevalence in Britain may have begun to be constant at a rate of one smoker in every for individuals among the adults. The trends here show that the number of women smokers was also getting closer to that of their male counterparts of which stand at 28% as compares 29% in men by 1994. Smoking among the juvenile too change magnitude in this period especially among the teenagers. Despite the low prevalence percentage as compared to preceding periods, the worry was about the constancy trend. The trend showed that unless action be interpreted the prevalence rate in Britain would have begun to rise again CITATION Roy00 l 1033 ( royal stag College of Physicians of capital of the United Kingdom. Tobacco Advisory Group., 2000)Smoking during m some former(a)liness was an issue of concern especially among the young and unemployed ones. This is because during this time much sensory faculty had been created about the ne gative effects of smoking especially in pregnant women. Smoking in pregnancy had been known to cause immature birth and the children of mothers who smoked during pregnancy risked neo-natal mortality or sudden child death syndrome, of asthma or reedy illness in the first years of life CITATION Roy00 l 1033 ( Royal College of Physicians of London. Tobacco Advisory Group., 2000). On the other hand there was public perceptual experience that smoking during pregnancy affected the common growth of the child both physically and intellectually. With this kind of information within the public a pregnant woman smoking was seen as not caring of the salubriousness of her child. Although a large number of women continued to smoke during pregnancy, statistics by the Health study Authority (HBE) in 1999 showed that 10% of women who were smoking before pregnancy stopped the habit. often awareness was also created of how smoking is presumable to affect people who are not smokers but come into contact with the smoke. It was well known that an individual smoking in public is interchangeablely to cause more harm to individual who inhale the smoke. In that regard the government came with rules meant to discourage smoking in the public. This was based on bankers acceptance even among the smokers that non-smokers had rights to a saucy environment. It is in this period that the government adopted policies that contain places where an individual could smoke. This was aimed at discouraging push accession in the number of smokers who could be soft influenced and also meant to protect the rights of non-smokers.To curb smoking the British government put more efforts in price increase through the use of taxes. However, this did not been front to work due to various reasons prone to smoking among them being the addictive temperament of the product. It is well known that nicotine substance contained in tobacco is addictive and price increase could not prevent individuals from continuing to use the product. On the other hand the honor of tobacco made it is easier for smokers to get it from cheaper sources that revenue didnt affect.The government also morose to campaigns through the media that targeted the youth to discourage the habit among them being banning of cigarette adverts. However, such campaigns were known to have poor results in terms of outreach among the young people. The hurdle the government was facing here is that in this period the young were affected as compared to the later whereby focus was put more on the adult population.The actions by the government to put restrictions on smoking were of great brilliance to the ships company. Within this period of time about firms in the UK were manufacturing their products outside the country irrelevant in the 1974-1984 when tobacco products were produced locally. This meant that no jobs were created for the locals within the country unless in fields like sales, marketing and distribution. L ooking into the retail area cigarettes were sold as secondary products since retailers had other products they majored in hence low re give ups from the tobacco products. On the side of the consumer it is known that in UK tobacco products are priced in a way that most of the cost is collide with duty. This implied that expenditure on the products did not score the economy high as compared to other goods bought by the consumer (Ewles, 2005).Through the restrictions imposed the society benefited in terms of cost nest egg and a healthier population. This in turn benefitted both the government and citizens through deliver on funds that could otherwise be used for health purposes. On the other hand the efforts to curb smoking were of great help to the future generation which could easily adopt to low smoking rates. Rules on public smoking also play an important role in social wellbeing as they gave non-smokers their rights of a clean and healthy environment.ReferencesOwing, J. H. ( 2005). Trends in smoking and health research. New York Nova Biomedical Books.Royal College of Physicians of London. (2000). Nicotine addiction in Britain A report of the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. London The College.Ewles, L. (2005). Key topics in public health Essential briefings on prevention and health promotion. Edinburgh Elsevier Churchill Livingstone.Source document