California's smoking age change policy
Introduction
Smoking of tobacco is extremely harmful to body health. As there are many regulations there is no safe way to smoke. People try to make it safer by replacing the cigarettes with a cigar, pipes or even hookah but that does not the health risk associated with tobacco products. One cigarette contains about 600 different ingredients that produce more than 7000 different chemicals when burnt (Abreu-Villaça et al, 2015). The reason for trying to regulate these chemicals is due to the fact that they are poisonous. Some of the poisonous chemicals produced cause cancer. Smoking of cigar is more harmful to the body as they contain ingredients that have a high level of carcinogens, tar, and toxins compared to a cigarette. When hooked pipes are used they produce many toxic compounds which expose the people to more carbon monoxide. Therefore the use of hookah produces second-hand smoke that is harmful to the non-smokers. Regulations of smoking in California have been brought about by the numerous disadvantageous effects they have on the human health.
Smoking regulation in California declared smoking of tobacco is a health hazard for the general public in the state. The local government has regulated smoking in a manner that is consistency with the law. The laws regulating smoking are enhanced as there are non-smokers who should do not have adequate means of protecting themselves. The law recognizes the damage that is inflicted upon the non-smokers who involuntarily inhale the poisonous gas emitted by the smokers (Messer, & Pierce, 2010). The legislatures understand the need to have regulation of smoking in a public place in order to safeguard the health, welfare, comfort, safety and the environment for non-smokers. This has led to the inaction of this law which aims at achieving the welfare of non-smokers. The law also prohibits smoking of tobacco in public transportation vehicles.
The law governing smoking has also prohibited smoking at various designated areas which are publicly owned. According to the section of the law, it prohibits indoor rooms smoking, indoor places such as the assembly and the chambers while conducting public business. In areas where public anticipation is required and forms not less than 50 % of the total area of the room the room is declared a non-smoking area (Yule et al, 2016). The law also says that such an area should have sufficient signs displayed as a non-smoking area while the meeting is still in progress.
The code of regulation in California regulates smoking at workplaces. The law prohibits an employer from allowing any smoking activity of tobacco to take place in the working premises that are an enclosed space. The law also requires the employers to take reasonable steps that prohibit nonemployees from smoking in the premises (Yule et al, 2016). The law also says that such signs should be placed at entrances places and at very visible points stating that smoking is prohibited in the building except for the designated areas. The employers should also urge nonemployees to refrain themselves from smoking at enclosed workplace. The law has also extended at restricting smoking of tobacco in restrooms, lobbies, and lounges, waiting areas, stairwells, and elevators (Yule et al, 2016).
The law also governs smoking at health facilities and clinics to comply with certain procedures and make reasonable efforts in assigning patients to rooms according to smoking preference. The health facilities are also supposed to prohibit smoking in the cafeteria and the dining area that is occupied by more than 50 people or not less than 20% of the area is occupied should be declared a non-smoking area (Yule et al, 2016). Signs should be displayed stating there is no smoking in such areas (Yule et al, 2016). The law also allows health facilities to ban smoking in the entire area in order to safeguard the interest of the majority.
In a publicly owned building that is open to the general public for purposes such a music recital, stage drama, motion pictures, and others should have signs that prohibit tobacco smoking in certain designated areas. The signs should be sufficient and readily visible to the people. This law only applies to buildings that open for the public and not in the indoor sporting events. The law prohibits smoking in restaurants and retail food production that during the hours that they are open to the public and when the capacity is more than 50 people (Yule et al, 2016). The provision does not apply to areas set aside for employees smoking as they are not open to the public.
The smoking law also mandates that all the transportation services should have designated areas where there is no smoking. This should also be made available in waiting room for all the passengers. It is mandatory that 25 % is the maximum area that can be set aside for smokers (Yule et al, 2016). The prohibition extends to all persons waiting to purchase a ticket within the area of a building. However, the law does not prevent any local ordinance from being more restrictive on the benefits of the nonsmokers. The law allows any person to apply for an injunction to compel a public entity to comply with requirements regarding smoking.
The purpose of the law governing smoking of tobacco became law due to the effects that tobacco has on the human body. Smoking policy was made into law in order to safeguard the majority. This includes women, children and also men who do not smoke. According to the research carried out the risk associated with smoking mostly affects nonsmokers than it does to the smokers. The inaction of the policy to the law was mostly because of the health complications and increase in mortality levels (Messer, & Pierce, 2010). The policy was made into law in order to regulate smokers by age and at different places. This was done in order to make sure that the young people such as the under-aged citizens do not engage in smoking (Webster, 2016). The policy was also made into law to make sure that smoking by the tobacco smokers was regulated at all time and they never violated the non-smokers freedom by assigning designated areas for them to smoke.
The risk associated with smoking was and is diverse hence the need for some regulation (Duarte et al, 2013). This facilitated the process of making the policy into law in order to curb the smoking menace. More deaths were reported as a result of smoking hence there was the need of regulation. Despite how safe one may consider smoking tobacco will still remain harmful to the entire body. Smoking of tobacco is associated with various health complications (Messer, & Pierce, 2010). A puff of smoke is considered to be a mood stimulant. When the body is used to smoking in order to stimulate moods a person body cannot stimulate the moods natural which leads to addiction. Due to the smoking, one may experience poor eyesight. Smoking leads to malnutrition as it suppresses the appetite. Smoking eliminates the urge of eating which results to a weak immune system that cannot fight small diseases. People experience a lot of anxiety and irritability when they have used to smoke (CALLISON, & KAESTNER, 2014). This causes addiction which makes them smoke even more resulting in deterioration of health. Smoking of tobacco also causes coughing as the body is incapable to toxins sufficiently resulting into some toxins being trapped in the lungs. This makes breathing difficult and increases the risk of respiratory infections, flu, and colds. Apparently, the whole body systems are affected including the reproductive system (Eisner, & Iribarren, 2007). When pregnant mothers are exposed to second hand smoking they give birth to children who are underweight. There are also birth defects and asthma attacks due to difficulties experienced during smoking (CALLISON, & KAESTNER, 2014).
The law changed policy as a result of inadequacy to deal with the rising number of smokers and the increase health threats exposed to the general public. The law changed a policy because it allowed smoking for any person who had attained 18 years (McGreevy, 2016). The policy aimed at raising the age in order to reduce the number of smokers (CALLISON, & KAESTNER, 2014). The law had no rules and regulations governing the use of electronic cigarettes in public places which the policy aimed at regulating. The policy aimed at regulating smoking in public schools by making them non-smoking areas in which the current law did not recognize. These adjustments aimed at tightening the smoking menace and the existing law in order to create a conducive environment
Another factor that contributed for the law to change into policy is to have the approval of the local taxes charged on tobacco to pay for all the medical cases that are as a result of tobacco-related illness (McGreevy, 2016). California being one of the states that have the lowest cigarette taxes sought the inaction of the policy in order raise the age of smoking for the current 18 to 21 years. The aim of rising the age that could allow people to smoke was to save more lives (Webster, 2016). According to the governor, the aim of having this policy was to disrupt the chain tobacco addition to the adolescent. This was because of the significant number of the young people that was engaging in smoking. The policy was to be more expansive in order to control the use of tobacco in the country. The policy of the bill aimed at changing the approach of tobacco in California State (Berlinger, 2016). The policy also considered the use of tobacco and how to reduce astronomical costs that relate to health care. The policy has strategies that will safeguard the interest not only for the current generation but also for the future generation. This was because of the deadly impact that is associated with the use of tobacco that the law did not recognize. The initial bill that was the law argued that 18 years was individual was old enough to make the right judgment. The new policy also had a stipulation of an active duty to the military personnel who are on duty (Berlinger, 2016). These are some of the factors that made the law change into policy.
As the policy suggested that tobacco taxes to be used to cater for all medical bills that are associated with all tobacco related illness. The illnesses include cancers and other respiratory diseases that are medically expensive to treat will mean that the tobacco companies will have more to lose. This is because catering for such medical bills the rate of tax will be an increase in order to cater for the bills in full (FALLIN & GLANTZ, 2015). As a result of the increase in tax the stakeholders in the tobacco business will have lesser profits. This will translate to a reducing of a number of staffs will be on the losing edge as they will not have any source of employment income. Increase in the taxes in order to cater for the medical bills will mean that the consumers of the tobacco will have to dig dip into their pockets in order to purchase the product. The consumers will strain to buy the product but an increase in price will not mean that they will not purchase as they are addicted to tobacco (FALLIN & GLANTZ, 2015).
On the other hand, non-smokers will greatly benefits as their health is safeguarded due to the new regulations. The regulation will mean that less growing individuals will be allowed to smoke. The mortality levels will go done with the new inaction of the electronic cigarettes and its use in public places. Families of the patients affected by the use of tobacco will also benefit as they will not cater for the medical bills (Rose et al, 2015). This means that they can use their resources for other things to benefit them. The medical association will benefit together with the medical insurances as bills will be paid in full for all the medical costs and they will not have to incur medical expenses for the patients of tobacco illness respectively.
The strategic triangle analysis has been used to hypothesize a more explicit definition of the smoking concept and explore the inner logic of the policy and the dynamic propensities to help in the conceptual framework that will help emulated past developments and focus on future prospects that will be more comprehensible. The analysis made relating to smoking are substantive valuable as there aim at achieving what is best for the majority and not for the minority. They are valuable as they add value to life (McGreevy, 2016). This is because the policy aims at making life better and more comfortable for every person. The analysis has been able to show the importance of human life through the various ways of safeguarding it.
Legally the strategic triangle analysis will be sustainable as it indicates great improvement towards health. By signing of the bill to the law will be beneficial to many humans. Despite the procedural trick used to make the qualification of a referendum the restriction of the electronic cigarettes and increasing the age of smoking will yield positive results (McGreevy, 2016). By reclassification of vapor products to be the same as tobacco and banning them in most public places through the signing of the policy into law will be legally sustainable because there will be a penalty for those who break the law. The strategic triangle analysis will not be politically sustainable because the policy is more advantageous to many. This means that the policy will have formed some political division among the politicians but it will not sustain them due to the science and the evidence that lies in the analysis.
The policy is administratively and operationally feasible as there other nations that aim at endorsing the same law in their country. Administratively the policy needs many stakeholders to work together in order to make it effective. It is operationally feasible as the regulatory process has approved special sessions relating to healthcare in order to make it more effective. The policy has a chance of becoming more effective as it has numerous advantages over the previous existing tobacco law. This is greatly supported by the fact that tobacco has remained the leading cause of deaths that can be prevented (Eisner, & Iribarren, 2007). The policy will become more effective when different stakeholders such as the heads of public schools and the sellers of the electronic cigarettes work together and according to the policy in order to achieve its objectivity (Rose et al, 2015).
Conclusion
The use of tobacco is dangerous to the human health hence the need to safeguard all people either smokers or nonsmokers. The new law has clearly stated that e-cigarettes are just but another system of toxic and addictive nicotine hence it aims at protecting public health. Smoking of tobacco is addictive hence there is the need to regulate the way in which the young people follow suits of picking up of these devices. There is the need to close all smoking loopholes as there is the need to save more lives and reduce preventable deaths.
Reference
Abreu-Villaça, Y., Filgueiras, C., Correa-Santos, M., Cavina, C., Naiff, V., Krahe, T., & ... Ribeiro-Carvalho, A. (2015). Tobacco smoke containing high or low levels of nicotine during adolescence: effects on novelty-seeking and anxiety-like behaviors in mice. Psychopharmacology, 232(10), 1693-1703. doi:10.1007/s00213-014-3801-1
Berlinger J (2016). California raises smoking age to 21. Retrieved from; http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/05/health/california-smoking-age-21/CALLISON, K., & KAESTNER, R. (2014). DO HIGHER TOBACCO TAXES REDUCE ADULT SMOKING? NEW EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECT OF RECENT CIGARETTE TAX INCREASES ON ADULT SMOKING. Economic Inquiry, 52(1), 155-172. doi:10.1111/ecin.12027
Duarte-Salles, T., von Stedingk, H., Granum, B., Gützkow, K. B., Rydberg, P., Törnqvist, M., & ... Haugen, M. (2013). Dietary Acrylamide Intake during Pregnancy and Fetal Growth-Results from the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(3), 374-379. doi:10.1289/ehp.1205396
Eisner, M. D., & Iribarren, C. (2007). The influence of cigarette smoking on adult asthma outcomes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 9(1), 53-56. doi:10.1080/14622200601078293
FALLIN, A., & GLANTZ, S. A. (2015). Tobacco-Control Policies in Tobacco-Growing States: Where Tobacco Was King. Milbank Quarterly, 93(2), 319-358. doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12124
McGreevy P. (2016). California's smoking age raised from 18 to 21 under bills signed by Gov. Brown. Retrieved from; http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-smoking-bills-20160504-story.html Messer, K., & Pierce, J. P. (2010). Changes in Age Trajectories of Smoking Experimentation During the California Tobacco Control Program. American Journal Of Public Health, 100(7), 1298-1306. Rose, S. W., Emery, P. L., Ennett, S., McNaughton Reyes, H. L., Scott, J. C., & Ribisl, K. M. (2015). Public Support for Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act Point-of-Sale Provisions: Results of a National Study. American Journal Of Public Health, 105(10), e60-e67. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302751Webster, K. (2016). Higher California Smoking Age Latest Blow to Tobacco Bonds. Bond Buyer, 1(F371), 2.
Yue, J., Bo, L., Klein, E. G., Berman, M., Foraker, R. E., & Ferketich, A. K. (2016). Tobacco-Free Pharmacy Laws and Trends in Tobacco Retailer Density in California and Massachusetts. American Journal Of Public Health, 106(4), 679-685. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.303040
