Introduction
A decision to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes has been delayed, as the U.K waits to see how the policy worked in Australia. Doctors and health campaigner groups have criticized the government’s decision to lower the price of alcohol to a minimum. This idea has formally been abandoned. Ben Wright who is a BBC political correspondent has suggested that these policies have proved to be unpopular with the voters. They have put their focus on economic messages, which will run up to the next election period. Ministers have shown their interest in the packaging proposal (Clarke, 2005, P. 447-463). This proposal will discourage young people from smoking or easily picking up the habit. Plans to standardize cigarette packets will carry the same font, color and a conspicuous warning on the danger of cigarette smoking. The U.K government has however has faced criticism from various health organizations for delaying the critical decision
Objectives of the discussion
The reason for choosing this article is to highlight the dangers of cigarette smoking amongst the youth. The cigarette smoking problem has been aggravated by the fact that the packets come in appealing colors which attract young people to smoke. Graphic warning is put in very small fonts which are not easily noticeable. This makes cigarette smoking behavior seem less dangerous (Farnsworth, 2006, P. 817-842). Understanding the impacts of cigarette smoking is important to the society. Lung cancer, which is caused by cigarette smoking, can be avoided if advertising and production of plain packets are heavily controlled. Statistics have shown that more young people are lured to smoking because cigarette packets tend to be attractive. The following objectives were organized by the healthy people 2020 in three key areas (Farnsworth, 2006, P. 817-842).
- Implementing policies which discourage or reduce tobacco use among adults and the youth.
- Adopting policies to health system changes such as affordability of treatment and smoking cessation services.
- Environmental and social changes where smoking zones should be put in place to avoid other people from suffering from the effects of inhaling second hand smoke. Restriction and controlled advertising policies should be implemented and an increase in the price of tobacco products. People who sell tobacco products to minors should be prosecuted to deter other people from doing the same.
Research findings on issues related to Labour's cigarette U-turn' claim
In a research finding carried out recently, 53 percent of the respondents were in favor of plain cigarette packaging, while 43 percent opposed the idea. 43 percent of citizens who voted against the decision urged the government that it was not an important issue and no action should be carried out. Health Minister Diane made a disgraceful announcement after the delay to pass the policy that the government had chosen to ignore the health of the citizens. The interest of the citizens to discourage cigarette smoking among the young people was sacrificed because the government saw that Tobacco use was a huge business venture. Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston has openly attacked the decision to delay the policy due to political expediency in the U.K. citizens who voted against the policy suggested that changes and decisions should not be made hurriedly (Dean, 1998, P. 1565). In an analysis by political correspondent Ross Hawkins, there was evidence that the packaging was responsible for recruiting more smokers. This view was earlier addressed by the health secretary Andrew Lansley in 2010. The government which had earlier held a consultation was open to suggestions before making a final decision. The decision would be based on the study of how the policy would work in Australia. The opposition targeted the Conservative strategist Lynton Crosby about public health and not just lobbying. The U.K Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said that the delay to pass the policy was to find out how it in Australia before a final decision was to be made by the government.
Prejudices about the article and how to deal with reluctant or disengaged members
The British Medical Association and doctors have said that colorful packaging is the key reason many young people opt to smoke. Citizens have been disappointed by the fact that the government has given in to the pressure of the tobacco industry instead of prioritizing their health interests (Brookshire, 1999, P.251). People who are exposed to secondhand smoking especially infants are also at great risk. Children who are exposed to smoke develop asthmatic attacks, respiratory infection, ear infections and sudden infant death syndrome. Deaths caused by tobacco smoking are preventable. One in every 20 individuals who smoke suffers from an illness caused by tobacco smoking. More than £193 billion yearly is used in the U.K in lost productivity and direct medical expenses caused by tobacco smoking. Non-smokers have provided a framework of how to reduce cigarette smoking because it has become a major concern to the affected states. Many factors influence the use of cigarettes in the society. These factors include age, race, socio-economic status, and education. The differences in the prevalence of smoking among different states depend on smoke-free protections, tobacco prices and prices. In order to achieve a reduction of people who smoke the government should take an initiative in setting rehabilitation centers which will help more people to quit smoking.
How members can get side tracked and how to manage these issues
Smokers who listened to the argument said that consumers should be given freedom of choice instead of the government exercising excessive regulation on cigarette packaging. The government has been advised to track black market trade and punish people who sell cigarettes to children who are underage as opposed to introducing a plain packaging policy. Plain packets are easy to imitate and the government is likely to lose £8m in tax revenue to the black market (Dean, 1998, P. 1565). The toll of tobacco smoking on communities and families can be reduced by funding cigarette smoking control programs, increase in the purchase price of tobacco products, controlling easy access of tobacco products by underage children, implementing policies on smoke free zones and encouraging and rehabilitating cigarette smokers to quit smoking. Controlling and preventing cigarette smoking improves the quality of life among all ages. The benefits are greater for people who quit earlier because it prevents premature death. Some of the emerging issues caused by tobacco use are easy to manage. The government needs to put the health of the citizens first even if it means they would lose on the revenue that they get from tobacco products. Some of the emerging issues include premature death, broken homes because people who are addicts can barely take care of their families and medical expenses which are on the increase due to treatment of cigarette smoking related illnesses.
Conclusion
The government however prefers to wait and see how a similar legislation will work before approving it. Scientific knowledge on cigarette smoking and its health effects has increased since a report on tobacco use was published in 1964. Tobacco smoking causes premature birth among pregnant women, cancer, heart disease, low birth weight and still births. Exposure to second hand smoke is not risk free according to doctors. The government can only control the number of people who are exposed to cigarette smoke by implementing a policy of manufacturing plain packets. This would control the number of people who would be attracted to smoking by the packaging.
Reference list
Brookshire, J. H.1999. ‘Speak for England’, Act for England: Labour’s Leadership and British National Security Under the Threat of War in the Late 1930s. European History Quarterly, 29(2), 251. doi:10.1177/026569149902900203
Clarke, J. 2005. New Labour’s citizens: activated, empowered, responsibilized, abandoned?. Critical Social Policy, 25(4), 447-463. doi:10.1177/0261018305057024
Dean, M. 1998. London Labour's health plan under attack. Lancet, 351(9115), 1565. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61135-X
Farnsworth, K. 2006. Capital to the rescue? New Labour’s business solutions to old welfare problems. Critical Social Policy, 26(4), 817-842. doi:10.1177/0261018306068477
Russell, W. 1983. Labour's defence of NHS. British Medical Journal, 287(6402), 1390. doi:10.1136/bmj.287.6402.1390
