Weyco Rules And Regulations

Tobacco has and still is the most important public health issue faced in Australia and internationally. (Jochelson, 2006). Many countries such as North America, England, Australia, Canada and Ireland have introduced policies regarding smoking in public areas and restriction of smoking in indoor areas. (Thomson, Wilson & Edwards, 2009). The government, community leaders and policy makers work towards introducing policies that will stop consumers from smoking in public areas. (Pizacani, maher, Rohde, Drach & Stark, 2012). Government intervention should extend public smoking bans so that second hand smokers can be safe, a better environment and less death incidents relating to smoking.

Smoking is an activity that has been around for many years for people to use and adapt into their lifestyle. It is a tool that many people use to help reduce the stresses of life and put them in a comfortable position that enables them to cope with the hectic lifestyle they are living. However, smoking has been scientifically proven to cause many types of cancer, the most common being lung cancer resulting in numerous deaths across the United States. According to BBC, "Smoking is a greater cause of death and disability than any single disease" (BBC, 2). Evidently, the benefits and drawbacks of smoking have been debated for many years, and only recently have some countries have placed a ban in public places such as Britain and the United

Everywhere you look or go, there are no smoking signs and laws that are put in place to prevent one from smoking , whether it’s the restaurants, schools, government buildings or one’s own home. In fact it’s one of the most controversial topics discussed in today’s society and although they have been put in place to protect the health of everyone, many smokers believe that smoking laws are unconstitutional. The United State is made up of three branches of government. They are legislative, Executive, and Judicial branch. Each branch has an important job to do, the legislative make the laws, the executive

Since the first major lawsuit settled against tobacco companies in 1998, there has been much controversy over whether or not these lawsuits are justified. On the pro side of the argument there is much evidence to support that the tobacco industries have long known about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Furthermore that this knowledge warrants the need for compensation. In addition the industry has concealed this knowledge from the public. On the con side of the argument evidence shows that these lawsuits have been based on false claims primarily in regard to health care costs for smokers. Furthermore, the regulations set by the settlement of the 1998 multistate lawsuit have established a legal president which allows individuals

During a much more civilized era in our country, none of this could have happened. Nazi-like vilification tactics had to be employed whereby decent Americans were convinced that both smokers and tobacco companies are two groups of people deserving of any treatment.

History has proven that government penalties, in the form of taxes, deter smoking. The 2000 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report, Reducing Tobacco Use, found that raising tobacco-product prices decreases the prevalence of tobacco use, and tobacco tax increases produce significant long-term improvements in health. From its review of existing research, the report concluded that raising tobacco taxes is one of the most effective tobacco prevention and control strategies (7). Along with price increases, mass-media campaigns and smoking bans have made cigarette smoking pretty much unacceptable in today’s society. “Today, approximately 22 percent of adults age twenty-two and older are smokers, compared with 33 percent in 1979” (Thorpe 1440). It is clear, from these examples, the use of penalties to deter the unhealthy behavior of smoking is a successful intervention.

Government passed a law making cigarettes illegal would have numerous results. First, making cigarettes illegal means people will smoke les cigarettes. Therefore, smoking people can be healthier, leading to a longer life span. Second, illegalize smoking would also causing black markets. Because cigarette is addictive, people who smoke would do anything to get cigarettes, black market would cause crime rate to rise. Third, government will receive no taxes from cigarette industry due to the illegalizing of it. This will cause the government get less money can provide poor service. Forth, because of the illegalization, tobacco farmers will lose their jobs. Furthermore, there would be idle

In the land of fair trade, all industries are not equal. I do not believe it is unfair or unethical for the tobacco industry to be treated as such. Choosing to smoking has an effect on you and everyone around you. I know we as American are used to individual freedoms, but in my opinion you should not have the freedom to partake in products that are harmful to the person sitting next to you.

Dollar protection better then millions treatment! We all know how can smoking affect us negatively, but did we ask our self why people start to smoke? I think if we find an answer to that question we could minimize the number of smoky people. There is a lot of reasons lead people to smoke, such as friends, parents,

It necessitates a quantum change in both laws and public health lobbying. The tobacco industry's denial of both the adverse health effects of tobacco use and the addictive power of nicotine (despite the industry's internal research confirming these effects), as well as industry advertising aimed at teenagers in circumvention of legislative intent, all dictate stronger laws to protect the public's health. To pass needed legislation and to stave off the tireless legislative efforts of big tobacco, health organizations need much more effective, united lobbying. They should unite behind tobacco control as a joint priority and, a priori, each should agree to devote a defined portion of their dollars and political chits to this cause. The all those too frequent fights among natural allies about which position to adopt on smoking legislation need to end. For example, recently the American Heart Association supported full-page ads in the western edition of the New York Times that blasted Governor Wilson and the California Medical Association for subverting the will of the electorate in proposition 99. The American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society were not sponsors of the advertisement. Regardless of the merits of their respective positions on this issue, organizations committed to tobacco control need to forge consensus

Headquarters, New York, New York.1 With medical costs rising 10 to 15 percent per year, one of the members of your Board of Directors mentioned that some companies are now refusing to hire smokers and that the board should discuss this option at the next month’s meeting. Nationwide, about 6,000 companies refuse to hire smokers. Weyco, an employee benefits company in Okemos, Michigan, requires all applicants to take a nicotine test. Weyco’s CFO says, “We’re not saying people can’t smoke. We’re just saying they can’t smoke and work here. As an employee-benefits company, we need to take a leadership role in helping people understand the cost impact of

In the article “Why ban the sale of cigarettes? The case for abolition” by Robert Procter states that “Another objection commonly raised to any call for a ban is that this will encourage smuggling, or even organized crime.” I can agree with this statement although this author is for banning this statement brings out a huge issue that could potentially arise from banning tobacco. If there is a will there will be a way. Another outrageous idea I read in the article called “Regulatory Approaches to Ending Cigarette-Caused Death and Diseases in the United States” by Richard Daynard was the fact that the government would give tobacco companies a limit to how many cigarettes that can produce each year. By doing this it stated by the end of 2015 “it would become unlawful for a cigarette manufacturer to produce more than two-thirds of the brands baseline.”. So not only would the indoor-outdoor smoking bans be in effect the government would now be regulating the amount of cigarettes produced in the United States. Therefore I feel as strongly as others about banning smoking rights. I am a non-smoker myself and as long as you aren’t purposefully blowing smoke in my face, feel free to do as you please. While you can, that is.

In the year of 2012, 85 percent of lung cancers were caused by smoking. As a result, smoking is responsible for nearly 135,000 U.S. deaths per year and cigarettes have been around since 1865. How could something so deadly be legal? Even if a smoker is not at risk of dying from lung cancer, they will still develop many health issues and diseases. Although steps and precautions have been taken to inform people about how deadly smoking is towards society, it has not made a difference; therefore, the sales of cigarettes and cigarette smoking should be illegal.

The first strategy that is put into action for non-communicable disease such as Asthma is the smoking legislation. Since 1 July 2007 Smoking has been prohibited by law in all enclosed public places throughout the United Kingdom including pubs, bars and restaurants (Anon, 2015). The objectives of this strategy is to reduce the incidence of passive smoking and by ban smoking in public places this was achieved since it restricted the number of places an individual could smoke therefore resulting in that individual stop smoking.

Fortunately, the tobacco industry's behavior is likely to change due to the increasing legal and societal pressures. Much legislation has been imposed to tobacco firms based on codes of behavior, different government strategies and litigations, especially after 1980 where anti-smoking groups reactions, led to higher restrictions throughout