Critical Reading Activity

Posted: January 4th, 2023

Assessment 1 Critical Reading Activity

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Title

Instructor

Due Date

Assessment 1 Critical Reading Activity

Task A: Reading Logs

Log 1

Reference

Boeckmann, M., et al. (2018). German public support for tobacco control policy measures:

            Results from the German study on tobacco use (DEBRA), a representative national

            survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(4), 1-15,

            doi: 10.3390/ijerph15040696

Argument

Boeckmann et al. (2018) describe how the majority of people in Germany support the total ban on tobacco sales, increased taxation, focus on e-cigarette, and prohibition of smoking in public places. The researchers assert that extending the bans on tobacco sale and use will create a healthy society where the risks of contracting diseases is low. 

Academic Credibility

The article is academically credible and provides quality information. For example, Boeckmann et al. (2018) use adequate data to support their argument, including the percentage of those who support an increase in age, total prohibition, quitting, and heavy taxation of producers. Furthermore, the authors are renowned researchers with vast knowledge and experience in their respective fields. For instance, Boeckmann works at the Heinrich-Heine-University offering guidance on drug abuse and addiction.

Reading a Section

The first section in the articles is an abstract that grabs readers’ attention by stating the main purpose or argument. The material relates to the authors’ argument as it forms the basis of the entire study. The researchers attempt to support their claims in this section by performing a survey to acquire vital data. 

Reading in Depth

The summary gives important information regarding the significance of limitation smoking in public spaces. Boeckmann et al. (2018) uses the introduction to describe how tobacco addicts users and presents considerable health risks. The introduction prepares the readers for what comes next, and mentions the major points that form part of the study.

Review

I will use the main ideas from the work to illuminate the public’s perception regarding extending the ban on smoking and identifying the possible restrictive measures. The ideas would help me reach out to smokers and legislators and encourage them to become keener with how they deal the effects of tobacco.

Log 2

Rosenberg, M., et al. (2012). Public support for tobacco control policy extensions in Western

            Australia: A cross sectional study. BMJ Open, 2(2), doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000784

Argument

The main argument in Rosenberg et al. (2012) is that policymakers seeking to enact new tobacco regulations require community support to plan suitable implementation techniques. The scholars argue that dealing with the issue as a single entity may present some hardships that could be easier to deal with as a team.

Academic Credibility

The paper by Rosenberg et al. (2012) offers enough evidence to back up their position. The researchers support their argument using adequate scholarly works, and try to give in-depth information to convince readers. Besides, various scholarly works have quoted from the work, thus confirming its credibility.

Reading a Section

The first section in the study is an abstract that states the purpose. The section connects to the authors’ argument as they form a basis of what the research examines. The researchers support their views in this section by performing a study that provide valuable information about the research question.

Reading in Depth

The introduction provides valuable insights into the importance of curbing smoking in public areas. Rosenberg et al. (2012) discuss the need to enact stiffer policies, and provides hints of dealing with the issue. The introduction presents some insights into the possible implications of acting swiftly and of waiting until it is too late to salvage the situation.

Review

I will use the main ideas to show people why they should embrace the bans to create a society that is free from the harmful components of tobacco. The ideas would help me to inform others why they need to quit smoking, and why it is essential to protect their loved ones.

Task B – Government Intervention to Extend Public Smoking Bans

Introduction

Smoking is a health concern that many governments around the world try to regulate. Evidence by different scholars affirm that failure to develop tough restrictions against tobacco producers and users put so many people at risk of developing health complications. The rights and freedoms that individuals enjoy should not be a hindrance to extending smoking bans because any reluctance could result in losing the battle.

The government’s intervention to regulate smoking, junk food advertising, food labeling, and alcohol licensing in England causes much debate. Some believe that any state step is a violation of individual rights and intrusions into the private lives of its citizens. However, others think that only the official authorities can change the environment that influences how people behave and make decisions (Jochelson 2006). Despite the controversies, the state should intervene to protect public health. The legislation is vital in regulating smoking because it is hard for individuals to make decisions that would make them quit the lifestyle putting them and others at risk (Jochelson 2006). Moreover, the government should proceed with enacting changes because the intercession creates new guidelines and expectations for the public good. Jochelson (2006) argues that rather than castigating such involvement as a nanny statist, it may be more suitable to perceive it as a way of providing stewardship. Jochelson (2006) thinks that implementing taxation policies, enforcing advertising bans, creating regulations to prescribe behaviour, and increased education facilitate the formation of a health framework that prevents adverse practices such as smoking and alcohol abuse. Finally, the model would help to shape individual decisions towards a safer and healthier conduct. 

The government should extend public smoking bans because health effects of tobacco influence both the smoker and non-smokers who hang around the former. Akhtar et al. (2007) identify children and young people as susceptible to the health consequences of passive smoking and assert that they have more reduced airways and higher oxygen requirements than grownups, resulting in increased respiratory rates. Other factors that put minors at risk include their less-developed respiratory, nervous, and immune systems (Akhtar et al., 2007). The government should proceed with ban smoking in households that have minors because Akhtar et al. (2007) identify domestic sources such as the home or car as primary origins of exposure to secondhand smoke. The state should always encourage parents to embrace self-regulation and control their offspring anytime when they want to smoke (Christensen et al. 2012). For instance, the regulators can ask them to seclude themselves in a place that does not put others at risk. However, administrators should proceed to regulate the negative practice in other public spaces where tobacco use is not forbidden since, similar to adults, children can be exposed to such environments. 

Counterargument

Each individual has the right to act as they wish so long as they do not interfere with other people’s rights and freedoms. The international human rights law outlines the obligations that countries are bound to follow. The obligation means that the authorities must refrain from curtailing or upsetting the enjoyment of human rights (Pizacani et al. 2012). All states have to defend individuals and groups against violation of human rights. Nevertheless, failing to act when individuals smoke in public places is equal to contravening individual rights and freedoms (Pizacani et al. 2012). Some people, especially those with particular health complications, can hardly stay where smokers use tobacco without taking any precautions, and a government that allows people to indulge in such habits denies those who detest the smell of tobacco (Pizacani et al. 2012). Thus, the state must extend its bans on smoking, especially in public spaces. 

Smoking affects both smokers and non-smokers, and the state must extend its bans on the practice to save humanity from numerous health implications that are associated with the unregulated use of tobacco. The government can form restrictions that protect vulnerable population categories and introduce tougher penalties to punish lawbreakers (Christensen et al., 2012). The state can play a vital role in creating a society where people view smoking as harmful and see it as an act that requires considerable thought before practicing. 

Conclusion

The government should go ahead to extend bans on smoking in public spaces to prevent the adverse health outcomes of the lifestyle. It is vital to regulate smoking that affects both smokers and non-smokers by enacting policies and stiffer penalties to punish violators. Individuals should not use their rights and freedoms to make others feel uncomfortable. Being adamant puts the present and future generations at risk, which makes it necessary to act so fast to mitigate any fatal implications.

References

Akhtar, P., et al. (2007). Changes in child exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (CHETS)

          study after implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland: National cross sectional

          survey. BMJ British Medical Journal, 335(7619), doi:10.1136/bmj.39311.550197.AE

Boeckmann, M., et al. (2018). German public support for tobacco control policy measures:

          Results from the German study on tobacco use (DEBRA), a representative national

          survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(4), 1-15,

          doi: 10.3390/ijerph15040696

Christensen, T., et al. (2012). The impact of the Danish smoking ban on hospital admissions for

          acute myocardial infarction. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 21(1), 1-19, doi:

          10.1177/2047487312460213 

Jochelson, K. (2007). Nanny or steward? The role of government in public health. Public Health,

          120(12), 1149-1155. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.009

Pizacani, B., et al. (2012). Implementation of a smoke-free policy in subsidized multiunit

          housing: Effects of smoking cessation and secondhand smoke exposure. Nicotine &

          Tobacco Research, 14(9), 1027-1034. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntr334

Rosenberg, M., et al. (2012). Public support for tobacco control policy extensions in Western

          Australia: A cross sectional study. BMJ Open, 2(2), doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000784