Executive Summary
The state of Florida sometime in July 2003 in line with the Public Health Chapter of its 2008 statutes enacted a policy that regulated indoor tobacco smoking. It was natural to react to the failure by the Federal Government to enact a Federal Nationwide Smoking Ban.
The ban sought to outlaw smoking in all enclosures with the exception of private residences, shops dealing in retail tobacco, selected smoking areas in hotels, bars whose earning from sale of food forms less than one tenth of its income, medical research premises smoking is specifically part of a cessation program as well as elected smoking zones in customs transit areas manned by the Department Of Homeland Security.
The state of Florida spends up to 60$ million every year in efforts aimed at controlling tobacco and tobacco related ailments. This is 150$ million short of the recommendation by Center for Disease Control on states spending towards this cause. This amount can be substantially reduced if an effective smoking ban policy is put in place to reduce the number of people affected by this killer menace.
Various other alternative policies have been suggested the object of which is to cut across the various interests affected by any Smoking Ban Legislation. It is important that all available options be examined before a policy is adopted. This paper seeks to lay out these options and suggest the most ideal of them.
Nature of the Problem
Up to 17.5 % of the adult population in the state of Florida is made of tobacco smokers.18.5% are male smokers while 16.4% are female smokers. Florida is ranked the 18th in the list of states with the highest number of smokers in its population.
Among the youths those between the age of 12 and 17, one in every ten teenagers is a smoker making it the 13th state with the greatest number of teenage smokers within this age group (Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data, 2008)
For all intents and purposes Florida lacks a minimum price law but however requires that all retail sellers of tobacco related products be licensed. Despite the numerous statutes regulating the sale and consumption of tobacco the annual mortality rate attributed to cigarette and tobacco related ailments is up to 28,600 people.
This makes it the 20th in the list of states with the highest number of people dying from smoking. Even more compelling the state spends up to 25% of the revenue it receives from excise taxes to fund tobacco control. (Center for Decease Control, 2010)
On the other hand the state receives up to 450$million in excise tax from its 40 cents a pack taxation policy as at 2004(The Smokers Club, 2008). It is also apparent that a policy on smoking does not only affect cigarette suppliers and retailers but also affects entertainment joints as well as restaurants and bars since smokers form part of their clientele.
According to a Gullup poll 51 % of smokers think that smoking bans are justified and 47% are of the opinion that they are a form of unjust discrimination and victimization against them.
Majority of people are of the opinion that there should be a total ban on smoking in restaurants as opposed to providing for designated smoking areas. Majority also think that went it comes to workplaces hotels and bars it would be more appropriate to provide specific smoking zones as opposed to total bans (Saad, 2007)
The implications of the policy adopted therefore affect several essential sectors of the economy and hence a need to balance the conflicting needs of the population and its participants. It is therefore important to maintain a level playing field for all parties involved.
Background on Current Policy
The quest for a viable and reliable policy on smoking began back in 1985 when the then legislature modeled the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act. The substance of the act was to restrict smoking in public places except in particular areas provided for as smoking zones. The act has undergone fundamental amendments and the most recent reform initiative is the 2003 Public Health Indoor Tobacco Smoking Policy
The policy only affects workplaces and restaurants. Its sole purpose is to protect people from the health hazards of second hand tobacco smoke in furtherance of section 20 of the constitution of Florida.
The 2003 policy therefore just cuts across the divided interests in the industry and does as much as bend towards the consumer and non consumer battle which circles around public health and interest.
This however leaves out an important player in this game who is the supplier and the retailer who are considered as subsidiary interested parties who are made to comply with the compromise of the consumer and non consumer.
Policy Options
Below are such alternative policies that the administration could opt to adopt in place of the current policy.
Total Ban Policy
Substance
The policy entails a total ban on smoking in all public places including bars, gaming establishments, restaurants and hotels. This is a more authoritarian approach whose objective is at all costs to protect public interest. Public interest here will be measured by the conflict of numbers between the smokers and the non smokers.
As it is the number of smokers forms less than a quarter of the population hence their interests are greater and since democracy is the rule of the majority then these interests prevail. It therefore will require total abstinence from smoking in public places. It targets the reduction of chances of exposure to second hand smoke to members of the population who are non smokers.
The policy recommends the following regulations:
- A total ban on smoking in public places including bars restaurants working places and hotels this is however with the exception of research institutions such as those whose objective it to rehabilitate smokers. Retail shops will also be accepted from this provision.
- An increase of the sales tax on the cigarette to 50$ a pack.
- All establishments shall bear in a conspicuous place writings to the effect that it is a non smoking establishment
Proponents
This policy bears its origin in the early fifteenth century in the era of the Mexican Ecclesiastical Council which banned the use of tobacco in any church in Mexico and any other Spanish colony in the Caribbean. The Pope in 1590 and 1624 also adopted the same approach and threatened any offender with excommunication.
This type of ban became popular in parts of Australia in the late 17th century in Berlin and Setting. The Nazi regime also adopted this approach until it’s down falling in 1945.
This campaign spilled over to the 20th century even amidst liberalism and found its way into Minnesota first only as a partial ban in 1975 then later as a total ban in 2007. It condemned smoking in restaurants and bars countrywide. It is currently enforced on 48 % of the American population (Taub, 2006)
Rationale
According to the American lung association (2011), deaths resulting from lung diseases continue to rise and the major contributor to these diseases is tobacco smoking. Chronic Respiratory Disease has quickly risen to the third most prevalent cause of death.
The most reasonable and humane cause of action would be to provide an airtight policy that will ensure that only those who choose to intentionally expose themselves to the effects of smoking are set in this risky path.
Criticisms
This policy is modeled towards ensuring that public interests are maintained at all cost. It therefore leaves out other essential factors that influence such a policy such as the minority interests that are embodied in the smoking population. This is an integral part of the policy that ensures that it complies with the doctrines of natural justice which must be obeyed by all laws.
This policy is too rigid and fails to conform to emerging trends in people’s conceptions of social evils and the entrance of more liberal approaches to problem solving. It foregoes the rights of smokers to free access to public facilities by restricting their chosen modes leisure.
It has also been suggested that this policy looks only to one cause and ignores the wider picture. A research published by Cotti (2008) suggests that with the imposition of smoking bans the number of fatal accidents arising from drunken driving has risen by 13%. This they attribute to smokers having to drive far away from jurisdictions that bear total bans and have consistent enforcement.
Tobacco companies are also likely to oppose this policy especially due to the increase in the sales tax which eats into their profits.
Cost implications
The policy proposes an extreme approach to the fight against tobacco consumption. It recommends an increase in the sales tax revenue to $50 cents a pack. This will imply an increase in the state revenue from sales and excise tax. An eighth of this amount (12.5%) will be used to finance anti smoking organizations such as rehabilitation centers and aid in the procurement of affordable medical services to victims of tobacco related ailments.
This will also mean that the annual budgetary spending on tobacco related disease control will increase tremendously and therefore more people will be able to access better health care at affordable fees in the rehabilitation centers.
Partial Ban
Substance
This policy tows the line drawn by the liberalist thinking of tolerance and forbearance. It proposes
- A partial ban to smoking which exempts licensed bars and gaming establishments only.
- Hotels and restaurants and workplaces are all non smoking zones
- An increase of the sales tax on the cigarette to $75 cents a pack
- An exemption of designated public smoking zones to be established by the relevant municipal authorities
Proponents
A lot of research ink has been published concerning economic effects of smoking policies. Majority of them suggest that it has no negative economic impact and subsequently could be considered to have positive effects on business (Eriksen & Chaloupka, 2007).
It matters not what you do outside your wok premises. Some on the other hand incur heavy losses in the form of health bills and insurance which goes to taking care of the smoking habit (Prochaska, 1983).
Proponents of this policy also point out that there are alternative ways of mitigating the effects of second hand smoke besides legislative bans one of which is proper ventilation.
Rationale
People smoke for varying reasons some of which are medically justifiable. In a research conducted and published by Cohen et al (2001) patients who were smokers were found to have lower rates of target lesion revascularization. 6.6% of smokers were found to have this disease as compared to 10.1% in nonsmokers.
Certain specific conditions such as lung cancer are accelerated once a smoker stops smoking although this is due to the rate of quitting smoking once the cancer has been diagnosed. (Herbert, 2010). Smoking is said to relax the mind and is therefore considered pleasurable to smokers. They are therefore entitled to a chance to enjoy such pleasure in the same way alcohol consumers do.
Criticism
It has been suggested that the effects of passive smoking can be reduced through ventilation and hence no need for smoking bans. Tobacco companies also will be affected by this policy and are likely to challenge this policy on grounds that it deters trade by making it unbearable to manufacture and distribute their product.
However it is established it is in good authority that these companies have the capacity to stretch even as far as 1$ a pack and still break even.
Cost implications
The economic impression in the policy despite being a liberal one is more totalitarian. It is sustained by the 75 $cents a pack approach. The annual revenue in this case however can be said to increase since consumers will ensure that they stay within the jurisdictional requirements. 25% of the amount will be used to finance rehabilitation and in the provision of healthcare and treatments for the patients and persons requiring special attention.
Liberated ban
Substance
This policy is a purely liberal approach which provides for
- A partial ban to all public establishments including Hotels and restaurants and workplaces
- An increase of the sales tax on the cigarette to 1$ a pack
- The state shall require that before any hotel bar or restaurant is registered it shall indicate whether it is a smoking or non smoking establishment.
- All establishments that allow smoking shall provide for specified smoking zones within these establishments as a condition before a license is granted
- Smoking zones not be within not less than ten feet from a non smoking zone and that it should be adequately ventilated
Rationale
Smoking is a purely voluntary act and therefore the state should not interfere with the individual’s freedom to do as they please let alone regulate how they use that freedom. It therefore should merely restrict the extent to which the individual enjoyment of their rights affects others.
In effect therefore every person has an option to smoke at any of the designated smoking zones. It is a progressive policy both financial and legislative wise and strictly insists on coercing the consumer to reduce their consumption of the product. It makes it hard for the consumer to maintain the habit and deters others from it.
Criticism
The policy will probably face criticism from anti smoking campaigners on the basis that it is too liberal and does not hold the interests of the public at heart and that it bends too much toward the smoking population.
Tobacco companies are definitely going to criticize the policy on its cost effectiveness and applicability in a state like Florida. It is a rather ambitious policy in terms of the cost effectiveness. The justification however is that they have the potential to transfer the cost to their royal consumers.
Cost implication
The policy provides for a 1$per packet taxation policy which means that the revenue collected from the excise taxes as well as sales revenue will increase by a big margin.
A third (33%) of this revenue will be directed at financing organizations that facilitate provision of medical care and rehabilitation facilities to persons suffering from tobacco smoking ailments. 20% of these funds will be used to subsidize and provide incentives to establishments that offer to be non smoking zones. These incentives could be either monetary or trade incentives.
Advocated policy
According to the US Census Bureau, Florida’s population by 2009 is estimated at 18.6million with a per capita personal income of 38,000$. Virtually half of the smoking population in the state attempt to quit smoking every year.
Fig 1. A Proportion of Cigarette Users who try to quit.
This is a clear indication that a stringent policy will do little to deter the population from smoking. The people of Florida are aware of the effects of smoking and are willing to stop.
The first policy is the most appropriate for a state that has little awareness of the effects of tobacco smoking. It will be the most suitable for a state whose economy is still at its development stage since its financial implications on the tax burden is not as harsh as policy 2 and 3 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008)
Florida however is ranked the 54th in the states with the heaviest tax burden only four slots from being the state with the lightest tax burden. The first policy will therefore have minimal impact on the level of smoking in the state. It will most probably lead to more smokers opting to smoke in the privacy of their homes.
The policy would not also see the light of day since it goes against public opinion which seems to be okay with the idea of allowing smokers to smoke in bars and designated smoking zones.
Policy two which is literally the current policy is a viable policy if the suggested amendments are made. However it will only do as much as maintain the status quo since the suggested increase in excise tax falls within an affordable revenue index of an average income earner.
Like the first policy it will force the non drinking smoking population into seclusion and privacy of their homes. This in effect keeps them away from sensitization and out of reach for the anti smoking campaign.
The third policy on the other hand is an ambitious and progressive one which not only changes the approach to the fight against smoking by making acquisition of the commodity much more expensive but also gives society a chance to embrace the problem as one of their own.
The salient features of a progressive policy are its firm ability to influence its participants to develop a moral obligation to obey it yet still sanctioning them against disobedience.
The state facilitates this approach by providing subsidies to establishments that opt to be non smoking zones. It is also economically feasible since the tax increase falls within the reach for both the supplier and manufacturer and is self sustaining.
Conclusion
Employers spend up to $3400 every year on smoker related costs such as health care bills absenteeism and productivity lapses. The government has its own share of spending that keeps growing by the year. It is irrefutably clear that cigarette smoke contains up to 4800 chemicals some of which can solely cause heart disease and lung cancer the third most deadly diseases.
Every year at least 8.6 million people in the Unites States contract a smoking related illness. This translates to 20 people suffering from these illnesses for every person who dies from a smoking related disease. In children it is said to cause up to 300 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia annually (Healing Glaser Clinic, 2007)
Even more gripping 63% of students in their middle and teen ages were exposed to second hand smoke a week before the survey was done in the fall of the year 2000.
They were either exposed to this smoke in a room or a car. This figure has reduced drastically thanks to the enforcement of the 2003 policy. It could reduce even further if the recommendations of this policy memorandum are adopted. (Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 2000)
Policies in the past have acquired a dictatorial tone and have left he fight against tobacco smoking to the state civil organizations victims and patients. The suggested policy option will do more than bring these parties to harmony but also allocate responsibility to them and also bring aboard the suppliers and retailers input.
With the interests of the state at heart the people of Florida will have an opportunity to participate in governance and administration through civil obedience or actual constructive participation in the enforcement of this policy.
References
American Lung Association (2011). Stop smoking. Web.
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data. (2008). Unpublished data. Decease Control. Web.
Center for Decease Control. (2010). Smoking and Tobacco. Web.
Cohen, D. et al. (2001). Impact of Smoking on Clinical and Angiographic Reste-nosis after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Another Smoker’s Paradox? ; Boston Harvard Medical School.
Cotti, A. (2008). Drunk driving after the passage of smoking bans in bars. The Economist. Web.
Eriksen, M and Chaloupka, F. (2007). The Economic Impact of Clean Indoor Air Laws. Cancer Journal for Clinicians. Web.
Florida Youth Tobacco Survey. (2000).County Study & Data Book. Web.
Healing Glaser Clinic. (2007). Stop smoking facts. Web.
Herbert, W. (2010). Bias and Causation. Models and Judgment for Valid Comparisons. New York. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 272
Prochaska, J. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking. Toward an integrative model of change. Web.
Saad, L. (2007). More smokers feeling harassed by smoking bans. Web.
Taub, D. (2006).California Town Makes It Tougher to Smoke in Public. Web.
The Smokers Club. (2008). Smokers rights newsletter. Web.