Governmental Objectives: The Surgeon General states that "secondhand smoke contains more than 250 chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide. Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling man of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers" (accessed February 23, 2010).
According to the current Health People 2010 objectives as well as the proposed Healthy People 2020 objectives the general goal for the American people is to reduce the proportion of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke especially "in cars when children under the age of 18 are present" (accessed February 23, 2010).
Political Influences: In our research, we have found that tobacco companies are known to give money to political leaders who have a voice in tobacco laws. This can influence the voting process for bills like HB 186. Tobacco companies clearly would not want this law to come into effect and by giving money to political leaders they can persuade them to vote against bills that would negatively affect the industry.
A Virginia special interest group called, GASP or Group to Alleviate Smoking in Public provides information to the public regarding bills in consideration towards eliminating smoking in public. Lobbyists from this group support the HB 186 bill with the belief that "no one should be forced into smoking secondhand".
Potential Impact of Policy Change: Should this policy be implemented in Virginia, nurses should be knowledgeable of all aspects so that they can educate the general population who may not know this information otherwise. In general, this policy change would help to decrease the number of children affected by secondhand smoke. This would also reduce their need for health care in the future as adults therefore allowing more money to be spent on diseases that cannot be prevented. Overall, it would save the health care system money in the future by preventing it now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to the American Heart Association, "Studies have shown that children (especially infants) of parents who smoke have more lung illnesses, such as bronchitis and pneumonia, and can develop asthma. And because smoking parents are more likely to cough and spread germs, their children are more likely to develop chest illnesses. Exposure to tobacco smoke also increases the risk of heart disease" (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4549). Children who are exposed to second hand smoke are at higher risk of SIDS and middle ear infections. "Children who spend one hour in an extremely smoky room inhale enough toxic chemicals to equal smoking 10 cigarettes" (http://quitsmoking.about.com/od/secondhandsmoke/a/smokeandkids.htm).
ReplyDeleteBecause of this information, we feel that this bill would have a positive impact on the health and well-being of American children. Although some people may argue that this bill impinges on peoples’ freedom to smoke in their personal space, we feel that this bill is protecting the freedom of a vulnerable population. Most children are unaware of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, and even those who are aware often cannot change their enviroment or the choices of their parents. Just as pysical and verbal abuse is harmful to children, so is exposing children to toxic chemicals and carcinogens. When parents cannot take the necessary steps to protec t the health of their children, it is necessary for society to interviene to help a population who often cannot speak for themselves. The health of our children will impact future well-being of our society.
The only problem we find with this bill, as other commentors have mentioned, is that it will be difficult to enforce.
We agree that it will be difficult to enforce, however as it is a secondary offense should they be stopped for a moving violation they would also have the chance to be charged with smoking with a minor in the car.
ReplyDelete