It has been a battle cry for many health organizations, concerned social groups and parents to eliminate the presence of questionable substances available in the market – namely alcohol and tobacco. Both substances are known to cause negative consequences to its users, which may vary on severity depending on the age of the user and his physical condition upon intake. However, in comparison between alcohol and tobacco, many are pushing for stricter laws on tobacco due to the effects it has on the user and for those who smell the smoke coming from it. Several calls to reduce the tobacco, and its cheaper variant cigarettes, in the market due to the health risks it presents to the public. The government must reduce the cigarette/tobacco market not only because of the high social costs it has, but also due to the health risks it curtails to both user and the public.
Advocates of reducing the cigarette market noted that reduction would also lessen the death toll and health concerns caused by using cigarettes and purchasing them. It has been noted by the World Health Organization that tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death around the globe. Both the user and those exposed to tobacco or cigarette smoke are prone to tobacco-related diseases and may die due to complications. It is noted that almost 5 million people die each year due to tobacco-related diseases and complications. Studies have implicated that by 2020, the number of death cases due to tobacco would increase up to 10 million each year, 70% of these reports would come from developing countries. It is noted that most of the casualties of tobacco had been in their middle ages, or in the top of their prime. Records had also cited that it is most often that tobacco-related deaths are due to the chronic illnesses attached to tobacco use. Given these studies, one could consider tobacco usage as one of the leading causes of death in most nations. In the United States alone, cigarette smoking is the number one killer for its citizens as it increases the risks of acquiring heart disease, and other severe complications. Almost 180,000 Americans have already died each year due to cardiovascular diseases caused by smoking. Others tend to develop lung cancer, heart diseases, and tuberculosis. It has been noted that smoking kills more people than those who have AIDS, poor lifestyles, and accidents. However, what is more visible is the impairment tobacco or cigarette use has on the user. On a short term effect, tobacco is capable of reducing one’s body weight, especially seen in pregnant women who smoke. Risks of still-births and infant mortality had been recorded with smoking mothers. Aside from this, passive smokers or those who are exposed to second-hand smoke tend to develop allergic reactions to cigarette smoke that may cause complications in their breath, and their physical fitness. There are also even studies that showcase that non-smokers who are exposed to cigarette smoke would also inhale and acquire the same complications as that of users . The government, once they reduce the number of cigarettes available in the market, would reduce the chances of health risks for both non-smokers and smokers. Without reduction, it is possible that the WHO report on tobacco-related deaths would double in the foreseeable future, which may include many of the younger generation.
Reduction of the cigarette market would also reduce the demand for cigarettes, especially in the younger generation. Not only is there the risk on health for the younger generation once they start using cigarettes, it would be more beneficial if prevention is done actively by the government than treating the problem. Studies have already noted that almost 90% of first-time smokers in the US started when they were 14-17 years old. Some had even started smoking when they were 7 or 8, given the nature of their environment. The government would benefit if they reduce cigarettes in the market since many would support government officials if they protect children from harm. In the US alone, protecting children have been used as the ideal slogan for politicians given the nature of society in the country. Since minors are too young to make their own choices and be enticed easily by advertisements despite their known risks, it would be up for the politicians to open policies to control these questionable products and enable the government to regulate decisions for the minors. Reduction of cigarettes in the market would also be hard to refute, especially by the cigarette producers since it would showcase that their intended market is really the youth despite vehement protests that they have issued warnings regarding the dangers of using cigarettes. Reduction of the supply of cigarettes in the market would also reduce young users from getting their cigarette supply without being asked of their ages or be caught by the government. It has been cited by many researches that almost 90% of teenagers in both developed and developing countries could easily get cigarettes from the market because it is cheap and others get their supplies for them .
The reduction of tobacco or cigarettes in the market would also do good for the country as it would reduce the chances of economic repercussions. It has been seen in surveys that cigarette and tobacco use intensifies poverty, especially in developing countries as people would often use the money on purchasing cigarettes and paying for health bills related to the complications they acquired from using cigarettes. While the country could indeed get $25 billion worth of taxes while producing cigarettes, it does not add up to the $200 billion worth of tobacco-related costs Americans have spent each year . The developing countries had also recorded the same numbers in both tax collection and social costs of cigarette smoking. Smoking rates are higher in the poorest sectors, making them vulnerable to the consequences of cigarette use as compared to the rich. Reduction of cigarettes in the market, through higher taxes and costs of cigarettes would lessen the demand of cigarettes in the market of up to 5-25%.In the developed countries, the reduction of cigarettes in the market could reduce cigarette smokers of up to 6%, especially if the government imposes a total ban on cigarette advertising. It is seen in most researches that cigarette advertising not only catches the attention of regular cigarette users, but also prospective users. Developed nations are seen by research as possible nations to first implement reduction of cigarettes in the market and also acquire high reduction rates on consumption. If these nations begin to implement reduction on cigarette consumption and production, there is a high decline of over 4-9% and 15-30% in the long run.
In the environmental aspect, tobacco or cigarette smoke also contributes to the growing problem of pollution. The contents of its smoke contribute to the growing temperature of the planet, with some of its contents reaching the atmosphere that traps radiation to the planet. Reduction of cigarettes in the market would also foster the reduction of lands converted into tobacco growing facilities and also remove the chances of trees being cut to become the wrapping paper on cigarettes. Nowadays, many nations are experiencing deforestation as many tobacco companies cut down trees to make cigarette paper. Tobacco farming also pollutes land and ground water since producers would require heavy amounts of pesticide to ensure production. The World Bank had already noted in most of its reports that tobacco use, if not reduced or regulated by law, would cause a large net loss to any economy if all of its risks are taken lightly by the government .
There are several proposals that the government could do to implement reduction on cigarettes in the market. For high-income or developed nations, they could utilize tobacco consumption reduction programs that would prevent the younger generation and current users of cigarettes to stop or refrain from cigarette smoking. There is also the reduction of advertisements and implement monitoring on cigarette production. Others have proposed the reduction of passive smoking by prohibiting smoking in certain areas . Proposals of reducing cigarettes in the market by the government also include the methods to shift the demand for cigarettes by launching health warnings on cigarette packages and even advertising. It is possible that shifting the attention of the public away from cigarettes would impose the reduction of cigarette use and production. Nowadays, policy makers are seeing the possibility of increasing the price and taxes of cigarettes to reduce use and production. A higher priced cigarette pack would not only shift the demand of users to reducing their smoking, but it would also reduce the production of cigarette producers to match the decline .
On the other side of the spectrum, opponents to the idea of reducing cigarettes in the market had also expressed their displeasure over supporters to the reduction given the additional risks it would curtail the country. Arguments of the unjust tax increase to cigarettes would impact not just its users but also the producers themselves. There would be chances that some would resort to smuggling to sustain their cigarette demand without having to pay for the higher taxes attached to legal cigarettes available in the market. Evidence had suggested by several experts that if taxes increase for cigarettes, informal distribution networks and organized crimes would pursue in areas where smoking is at its most high. Tax increase to reduce cigarettes would also be unfair to the poor as it is a means for the government to take away their leisure. Production and income losses would also make cigarette companies lay-off workers that depend on tobacco-growing to cigarette production. Reduction would also cause cigarette producers to lose a significant market that could sustain their business .
Without any action from the government to reduce the cigarette market, there is a high probability that the social costs, health risks and the continuous demand for cigarettes would continue to increase each year. Children would easily be enticed to try out cigarettes at a younger age, opening them up to health risks – both physically and mentally. While the adult population would continue their vices, increasing their chances of acquiring severe complications should cigarettes continued to be sold in prices that would entice every sector to purchase a pack. Continuous disregard to the moderation and reduction of cigarette use and selling would also increase chances of death mortality due to health complications, especially in the younger generation. Economic loss due to the large amount of social costs on tobacco-related complications, and the unbalanced taxes that the government could acquire from cigarette taxes also causes some problems if it is not remedied by the government. Finally, should reduction not take place, it is also possible that the environmental effects of cigarette production would add to the problem of the nations to recover from global warming. Without trees and arable lands to utilize, several complications may occur that could add to the mortality rate. Reduction of cigarettes in the market would not only alleviate the risks related to cigarette use and production, but it would also help the government to regulate the current market and receive the expected taxes from cigarette producers without losing revenue for the country.
Works Cited
Blanke, Douglas and Vera da Costa e Silva. Tools for Advancing Tobacco Control in the 21st Century: Tobacco Control Legislation: An Introductory Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2004. Print.
Edlin, Gordon, Erik Golanty and Kelli McCormack. Essentials for Health and Wellness. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Learning, 2000. Print.
Mankiw, Gregory. Principles of Economics. Mason: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. "Marijuana Legalization." Office of National Drug Control Policy, 3 March 2011.Web. 23 November 2012
Rabin, Robert. Regulating Tobacco. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.
Skolnik, Richard. Essentials of Global Health. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Learning, 2008. Print.
World Health Organization. A Guide to Comprehensive Tobacco Control. July 2004. 25 November 2012
