Introduction
This paper will critically examine smoking and how to reduce tobacco-related harm among Australians. Records reveal that about 22 south Australians lose their lives every week from health complications relating to smoking cigarettes (Cancer Council NSW, 2010). Non-smokers are adversely affected by those who smoke as they breathe secondary smoke. Approximately 15,000 people die in Australia due to smoking. This number surpasses death caused by alcohol and other illegal drugs, obesity, HIV and traffic accidents combined. Ideally, it has been established that the problem also accounts to close to 45,000 hospitalizations annually (Fisher, Taylor & Tilashalski, 2005). Statistics reveal that smoking is the cause of approximately 12.0% of death in the country, about 8.0% of the burden of diseases and injury, 13.0% of new cancer infections as well as slightly above 20.0% of cancer-related deaths. Lastly, smoking is associated with the economic cost of about $30 billion exceeding the taxes from tobacco which is $5.6 billion (Health Select Committee, 2000). Researchers have linked this phenomenon with some diseases such as cancer, asthma, tuberculosis, optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis among others (British Medical Association, 2009).
With this in mind, relevant stakeholders including the government through the Ministry of Health have tried to fight the problem. From such efforts, it is evident that there has been a reduction in the rate of smoking taking records from the past four decades. The rate now stands at 18.0%. Despite this effort, there are still other groups that are still at risk and vulnerable. Research shows that the young population has the highest rate of smoking at 24.0%; this population entails individuals between the ages of 25 and 34 years (Cancer Council NSW, 2010). Additionally, single parents who are categorized as low-income earners have a smoking rate of 45.0% while aboriginal people’s smoking rate is 50.0%. Interestingly, those Australians who are suffering from the mental problem have smoking rates of between 20.0% and 90.0% while those categorized as drug addicts have smoking rates of between 51.0% and 91.0% (Cancer Council NSW, 2010).
Reducing tobacco-related harm
Restricting advertising and sponsorship
There is no powerful tool in the marketing field as advertisement and promotion. Scholars have shown that there is nothing like immunity to advertisements. However, the youths are at risk compared to other age groups when it comes to being influenced by adverts (Peto, Lopez & Boreham, 2004). It is worth noting that advertising has depicted smoking in a way that will appeal to young people. Other countries have enforced legislation prohibiting tobacco advertising. Australia accomplished this back in 1990. This made it illegal to advertise tobacco in print media as well as television (Health Select Committee, 2000). Although there are arguments that this does not work like in the case of Finland, there was no reduction in the rate of smoking after the government banned tobacco advertising. However, there was a reduction in the smoking rates in both adults and young people in Norway after the government made it illegal to advertise tobacco. Although this approach partially works, there is a need to adopt broad restrictions on advertising as well as the promotion of tobacco (Cancer Council NSW, 2010).
Collaborating with cigarette manufacturers
The government can agree voluntarily with cigarette manufacturers to ensure that the cigarettes manufactured have certain amounts of tar, nicotine as well as carbon monoxide (Jiménez-Ruiz, Kunze & Fagerström, 1998). Current events show that it is possible to develop electronic cigarettes. However, there is a danger with this approach since it can exacerbate the use of marijuana in the country. There is also the concept of smokeless tobacco which is deemed to grant 0.1%-10% risk associated with smoking. Researchers believe that the use of smokeless tobacco is capable of reducing the high number of deaths associated with smoking (Tomar, Fox & Severson, 2009).
Using price to control access
Market research shows that consumption of a given product is directly linked to its price. Lower prices mean that a product will be bought by almost everyone and more frequently. A slight increase in the price of tobacco can result in a reduced number of smokers (British Medical Association, 2008). The government can craft a formula to increase taxes on tobacco products with the intention of lowering its consumption. Even though this will be accomplished, the affected individuals will be women and the youths. However, men especially the working class and who are in the middle or upper economic class will continue smoking. On the same note, this idea raises concern about the poor in society. This will increase the economic problem they are already experiencing (Secker-Walker, Gnich, Platt & Lanccaster, 2008). This approach coupled with restrictions on advertising can help greatly when dealing with smoking.
Creation of rehabilitation centers
As suggested by Rodu & Godshall, 2006 the strategy of minimizing drug-related harm should be focused on all the populations otherwise the fight would be futile. For those who are already engaged in smoking and are addicted, there should be rehabilitation centers where they can be brought back and lead normal lives free from smoking. This will in the long run help the victims not to suffer from previously noted health problems or even escape premature death.
Educating and persuading the citizens
It has been shown that the young population is the ones who are more likely to engage in smoking. It is important to note that this group together with the others who exhibit higher rates of smoking should be taught about the dangers linked to smoking. There is also a need to persuade these groups to stay away from smoking. There are activities that will keep certain groups such as youths busy. Having in mind that there are some individuals who engage in smoking due to idleness, activities such as sports among others will keep them busy (Rodu & Godshall, 2006). The government ought to increase funding allocated towards youths’ activities. Education of the public can be done by compelling manufacturers to place warnings on the packets; this should occupy half of the packet so that it can be visible (Hatsukami, Henningfield & Kotlyar, 2004).
Conclusion
The paper has evaluated strategies that can be used to curb health problems related to cigarette smoking. Smoking is the major cause of premature death in Australia. It results in various health problems such as asthma, tuberculosis among others. Among the strategies that can be adopted to curb the problem include restricting advertising and promotion, using the price to restrict access, educating among others.
Evaluation
This assignment has given me the opportunity to learn about new statistics on the problems associated with tobacco use. Additionally, it has equipped me with better strategies on how I can help my countrymates to escape the sad realities of smoking. I can comfortably work in a rehabilitation centre.
References
British Medical Association 2009, ‘Harm reduction – a tobacco-free approach: Supporting those smokers struggling to quit’, Web.
British Medical Association 2008, Forever cool: the influence of smoking imagery on young people. British Medical Association, London.
Cancer Council NSW 2010, ‘Local Government: Reducing Tobacco-related harm across the community’, Web.
Fisher, M, Taylor, W & Tilashalski, K 2005, ‘Smokeless tobacco and severe active periodontal disease, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III’, Journal of Dental Research, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 705-10.
Hatsukami, D., Henningfield, E. & Kotlyar, M. 2004. Harm Reduction Approaches to Reducing Tobacco-Related Mortality. Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 377-395.
Health Select Committee 2000, Second report: the tobacco industry and the health risksof smoking. Volume I, report and proceedings, The Stationery Office, London.
Jiménez-Ruiz, C, Kunze, M & Fagerström, K 1998, ‘Nicotine replacement: A new approach to reducing tobacco-related harm’, Eur Respir J., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 473-9.
Peto, R, Lopez, A, & Boreham, J. 2004. Mortality from smoking in developed countries, 1950-2000, Wiley, London.
Rodu, B & Godshall, W 2006, ‘Tobacco harm reduction: An alternative cessation strategies for inveterate smokers’, Harm Reduction Journal, vol. 3, pp. 37-44.
Secker-Walker, R, Gnich, W, Platt, S & Lanccaster, T 2008, Community intervention for reducing tobacco related harm, Wiley Publishers, New York.
Tomar, S, Fox, B & Severson, H 2009, ‘Is smokeless tobacco use an appropriate public health strategy for reducing societal harm from cigarette smoking?’, Int J Environ Res Public Health, vol. 6 no. 1, pp. 10-24.