Policy
The policy under analysis addresses the issue of smoking among youth in general and the production of e-cigarettes, as well as their further consumption by young people, in particular. To be more exact, the specified bill presupposes that the retailers of electronic cigarettes should have a license and that age restrictions should be imposed on the product mentioned above.
Sponsor
James Cooper can be considered the sponsor of the bill (Cooper introduces legislation to define e-cigarettes as tobacco products, 2015).
Goals
According to the description provided, the bill is aimed at prohibiting endorsement of smoking to minor parties. It seeks to recognize any kind of tobacco products as such, including electronic cigarettes under the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act by defining the term “smoking” (Electronic cigarette, S. ABX2-6, 2015, par. 7). Additionally, existing law aims at preventing selling tobacco products without a license.
Status
The bill in question is currently on the third reading.
Analysis
Although the bill may have specific problems, particularly the lack of consideration of the economic implications that the specified action will trigger, its premises should still be viewed as valid. Young smoking remains an issue in contemporary American society (Fulmer et al., 2015), and a rather important aspect at that. According to the statewide statistics, “Roughly one-third of all youth smokers will eventually die prematurely from smoking-caused disease” (Smoking and kids, 2015, p. 1).
By restricting the number of opportunities for a younger audience to obtain tobacco-related products, including e-cigarettes, the Senate is likely to promote a further increase in the health rates among the designated residents of the U.S. population. Therefore, the bill can be deemed as sensible and worth being approved so that the specified restrictions imposed on the U.S. e-cigarettes retailers should apply to all related organizations (Pielsticker, Wilson, & Fitz, 2015).
Craft and Furlong’s Evaluative Criteria
Based on the evaluation criteria suggested by Kraft and Furlong (2012), the bill can be deemed as reasonable, yet involving certain risks for the members of the community. Particularly, the areas of healthcare and welfare/Social Security deserve to be mentioned. Though the reduction in the consumption rates of e-cigarettes will not affect healthcare rates directly, restrictions in their retail will allegedly help avoid any possibility of selling tobacco products to an underage person. Thus, health and welfare rates will supposedly increase. The bill does not affect the issue of energy and the environment in any way, as e-cigarettes have a zero impact on the environment (Wray, McClure, Carpenter, & Saladin, 2015) and, therefore, the drop in their use rates will not affect the environment either positively or negatively. The negative effects on economic and budgeting, including a possible increase in unemployment rates, is expected. The education area is not going to be affected; likewise, foreign policy and homeland security will not suffer major changes.
Effectiveness
Seeing that the policy addresses the economic aspect of e-cigarettes retail, it can be assumed that it is going to have a significant impact on effectiveness rates in the community. To be more exact, the fact above about economic concerns deserves to be brought up. Although the restrictions imposed on retailers and manufacturers of tobacco products are legitimate, the drop in the e-cigarettes consumption rate will affect the companies’ success negatively. As a result, staff reduction may become a possibility in the specified entrepreneurship and their local affiliates. As a result, the community members employed in the designated companies will experience great economic and financial shock.
Efficiency
The benefits to the society that the bill has to offer are obvious; the increase I community health rates, which will supposedly follow the introduction of the policy, is rather promising.
However, the fact that the range of retailers may suffer by losing a significant amount of their annual income may lead to a major economic problem in the target community. A drop in e-cigarette buyers will drop the yearly income of retailers and producers of e-cigarettes, which may lead to the need for staff reduction and, thus, an increase in unemployment rates.
Support/Oppose
The bill has a range of supporters, primarily among concerned parents, who would like to prevent any opportunity for their children to start smoking. Additionally, the related organizations, which are aimed at reducing underage smoking rates and improving the overall health rates in the community, can be deemed as supporters of the bill.
However, a range of stakeholders involved is against the recognition of electronic cigarettes as tobacco products. Among these, electronic cigarette manufacturers, the related distribution companies, and retailers deserve to be mentioned. The specified restriction is going to have a rather deplorable effect on their business success, which is the crucial reason for them to be against the enrollment of the bill.
Conclusion and Summary
Promoted under the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act, the bill is supposed to reinforce the laws regarding access to tobacco products for underage people. Additionally, the proposal defines the term “smoking” by stretching it to using electronic cigarettes. Although the bill has not yet been granted the status of being enrolled, it has a rather solid basis for being introduced into the set of rules and regulations of the U.S. legal system.
Reference List
Cooper introduces legislation to define e-cigarettes as tobacco products. (2015). Web.
Electronic cigarette, S. ABX2-6 (2015). Web.
Fulmer, E. B., Neilands, T. B., Dube, S. R., Kuiper, N. M., Arrazola, R. A., & Glantz, S. A. (2015). Protobacco media exposure and youth susceptibility to smoking cigarettes, cigarette experimentation, and current tobacco Use among US youth. Plos One, 10(8), 1–14.
Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2012). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. Green bay, Wisconsin: CQ Press.
Pielsticker, M., Wilson, C., & Fitz, J. (2015). Legislative bill analysis. Web.
Smoking and kids. (2015). Web.
Wray, J. M., McClure, E. M., Carpenter, M. J., & Saladin, M. (2015). Gender differences in responses to cues presented in the natural environment of cigarette smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 17(14), 438–442.