This study focuses improving the establishment of a smoke-free environment in public and enclosed places.
In today’s generation, many temptations may arise, taking drugs, prostitution, gambling, drinking alcohol, and smoking, but smoking is considered as the first vice that you can try, it is natural to the community but its effects may be so harming. Smoking is a practice in which a substance is burned and the resulting smoke breathed in to be tasted and absorbed into the bloodstream.
The Philippines have previous law regarding tobacco products, the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 also known as RA 9211, this law prohibits smoking in public places, tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, and sales restriction, The inter-agency tobacco committee issued implementing rule and regulations of the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003, committees implementing rules and regulations are comprehensive and cover a broad range of topics on tobacco control.
The other law regarding smoking in public places is RA, 8749 also known as Philippine Clean Air Act, it is a comprehensive air quality management policy which aims to achieve and maintain healthy air for all Filipinos, this law was assign to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for the implementation, some agencies help support this law such as Department of transportation and communication, department of science and technology, department of trade and industry, department of energy, department of education, commission on higher education, department of interior and local government and local government units, Philippines information agency, Philippine atmospheric geophysical and astronomical services administration and Philippine nuclear research institute.
Executive order 26, aims for a Smoke-Free environment, one person who is smoking is can be a threat to the person surrounding him, Cigarette smoking or the smoking coming from a cigarette causes non-smoking adults exposed from 25% to 30% increased risk of developing lung cancer, in women, babies of the non-smoking women can experience a reduction of birth weight, in children or infants, inhalation of second-hand smoke can cause sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, middle ear disease, more severe asthma, respiratory symptoms and slowed lung growth.
In 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order (EO) 26—the nationwide smoking ban—that prohibits smoking in all public places in the Philippines. These no-smoking locations include schools, hospitals, clinics, government offices, food preparation areas, elevators, jeepneys, buses, and more. The EO also bans the sale, distribution, and purchase of cigarettes to and from minors.
According to the new order, tobacco cannot be sold within 100 meters, or about 330 feet, of schools, playgrounds, or anywhere children might gather. Municipalities must also designate smoking areas that are far from these places, and away from elevators, stairwells, gas stations, health centers, and wherever food is prepared. “No smoking” signs are to be posted in all public places. The order also called on civilians to join a “Smoke-Free Task Force to help carry out the provisions of this order” and apprehend and charge violators.
Executive Order No. 26, entitled Providing for the Establishment of Smoke-Free Environments in Public and Enclosed Places, was issued by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte on 16 May 2017. This executive order invoked the Clean Air Act of 1999 and the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003 to impose a nationwide ban on smoking in all public places in the Philippines. The ban replicates on a national level an existing ordinance in Davao City that Duterte created as mayor in 2002. The order took effect on 23 July 2017, 60 days after its publication in a newspaper
According to the CDC data and statistics, smoking is the leading cause of preventable death. It causes almost 6 million deaths every year, as it is responsible for cancer, lung diseases, heart disease, and emphysema, and increases the risk of quite a lot of other dangerous health problems.
Each and every one of us is aware that cigarettes are bad for health. We all know that tobacco use leads to a number of dangerous diseases and severely damages not only the health of smokers but also the health of all the people around them.
Despite these facts and all the life-threatening effects of smoking, lots of people still continue to enjoy their puffs on a daily basis. They either don’t have the slightest intention to quit or they simply think that they cannot kick the habit. Although tobacco addiction is real, primarily because of nicotine, which is the main addictive chemical in tobacco, it is actually quite possible to quit smoking and start leading a healthy life.If you are a smoker, you should definitely kick the nasty habit and, even if you are not, you should completely ban cigarette smoke in your home. There are really lots of reasons why you should do that, but take a look at the most crucial ones that will, hopefully, shed some more light on the major threat that cigarette smoke, especially secondhand one, poses on your and everyone else’s health.
Smoking has altering effect in human body, some people say that smoking can calm and relax their bodies, but according to the studies, cigarette has short-term effects like addiction to nicotine and exposure to dangerous chemicals, more breathing problems, shortness of breath, phlegm, and a coarse cough, impaired lung growth and function, bad breath, yellow teeth, and stained fingers, foul-smelling clothes, and hair. Smoking can harm body function, but then users continuously smoking cigarettes at all, because cigarettes contain 4,000 chemicals, including known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
As a solution, a smoking ban is implemented in some countries. But not all complies to it, smoking ban could be a great solution for the abolishment of cigarettes not only in public places but also nationwide. The smoking ban has its main goal: To protect life, but they don’t think what smoking can do to their bodies. Cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health. But due to the addictive effect, they cannot stop it that easy.
Smoking policies are highly implemented in offices, malls, and schools. Some provide Designated Smoking Area nearby those establishments. People nowadays are aware of what smoking can do to their body, but instead of stopping it, they’re keeps on smoking. All over the world, many countries have strict implementation of smoking ban, because of the effects in the environment in the health of the person smoking it or to the person around him/her.
Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and smoking behavior of those populations they affect.
To assess the extent to which legislation‐based smoking bans or restrictions reduce exposure to SHS, help people who smoke to reduce tobacco consumption or lower smoking prevalence, and affect the health of those in areas that have a ban or restriction in place.
There were 50 studies included in this review. Thirty‐one studies reported exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) with 19 studies measuring it using biomarkers. There was consistent evidence that smoking bans reduced exposure to SHS in workplaces, restaurants, pubs, and in public places. There was a greater reduction in exposure to SHS in hospitality workers compared to the general population. We failed to detect any difference in self‐reported exposure to SHS in cars. There was no change in either the prevalence or duration of reported exposure to SHS in the home as a result of implementing legislative bans. Twenty‐three studies reported measures of active smoking, often as a co‐variable rather than an end‐point in itself, with no consistent evidence of a reduction in smoking prevalence attributable to the ban. Total tobacco consumption was reduced in studies where prevalence declined. Twenty‐five studies reported health indicators as an outcome. Self‐reported respiratory and sensory symptoms were measured in 12 studies, with lung function measured in five of them. There was consistent evidence of a reduction in hospital admissions for cardiac events as well as an improvement in some health indicators after the ban.
A smoking ban does lead to a reduction in exposure to passive smoking. Hospitality workers experienced a greater reduction in exposure to SHS after implementing the ban compared to the general population. There is limited evidence about the impact on active smoking but the trend is downwards. There is some evidence of an improvement in health outcomes. The strongest evidence is the reduction seen in admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is an increase in support for and compliance with smoking bans after the legislation.
The WHO FCTC aims to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental, and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke. As of 2012, 79% of Parties reported strengthening their existing legislation or adopting new tobacco control legislation after ratifying the Convention. Additionally, over half of the Parties to the WHO FCTC reported having developed and implemented comprehensive tobacco control strategies, plans, and programs as required in Article 5.1 of the Convention. The WHO FCTC is described as an evidence-based treaty, implying that there is considerable research evidence that implementation of the measures contained in the Convention will result in such outcomes as a reduction in both tobacco use and exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS), ultimately reducing tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. The Treaty has a specific public health objective of reducing morbidity and mortality due to tobacco use. However, there are time lags throughout the process from ratification of the WHO FCTC, the promulgation of the Treaty-compliant tobacco control legislation, and actual implementation and enforcement of the law. There is also a time lag from when the policies are implemented until behavior changes in tobacco use (i.e. cessation or non-initiation by youth) are seen on a large scale within a country. There is also the time lag between behavior change and the accrual of health benefits. Among smokers who quit, a reduction in risk of cancer may take about a quarter of a century to manifest, with the most immediate health benefit being a reduction in the risk of heart disease. At the population level, reduction in overall mortality may begin to show up about quarter of a century after implementation of tobacco control
policies and reach full impact in about half a century (4). However, implementation of smoke-free policies has been shown to have more immediate health effects in populations, including significant reductions in acute myocardial infarctions (AMI).
Impact of smoke-free policies on exposure to second-hand smoke Article 8 of the WHO FCTC aims to provide protection from exposure to tobacco smoke. According to the Global Progress Report, 2012, Article 8 has been implemented in 83 countries (46.9%), the highest number of countries implementing any WHO FCTC article. By 2012, as many as 109 Parties reached their individual five-year time frame for implementation of public smoking bans. Eight-eight Parties also reported having mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of smoke-free measures. A comprehensive review on the impact of public smoking bans was undertaken by the Cochrane group and published in 2009. Fifty studies were reviewed, including a variety of methodologies and sizes, with all the studies having taken place in North America, Europe, or Australasia. No meta-analysis was performed due to the heterogeneity of the studies. This review looked at studies measuring the actual reduction in SHS exposure. Reduced exposure to SHS is the first outcome measure for a smoke-free policy.
In our information about the smoking ban, most of us have mentioned our source of source. There are some less than what the smoking ban has to do and what the smoking ban is. Almost everything is discussed and nothing is missing, but others are somewhat unfit for introducing the introduction and the less is how to enforce the implementation of the smoking ban in public places where many people use cigarettes or tobacco.
Although our exposure to the smoking ban is most read and most of us can understand and know more about the importance of implementing the smoking ban in public places. What should be added is how the law enforcement can be implemented and what it will be accomplished in a country or in a private area.
It does not say what areas are affected by the implementation of the smoking ban and where it is going on, perhaps the whole of the Philippines is spreading the use of cigarettes and drugs as well as forbidden drugs as necessary. Really enforcing the smoking ban in different places in the Philippines or across the country to improve the health of our country and no more pain in the use of cigarettes. We know that this is unavoidable because it should be used properly and do not abuse the use of cigarettes. Use these in the right place and in the safe to minimize accidents and illness that will go to the users and especially those who are not using cigarettes.
Stuck on your essay?
