The main purpose of this client education program is the promotion of awareness concerning the effects of tobacco on health with the intention of reducing tobacco use in youth. The planning of the program will focus on the policy of banning smoking in all public places as a way of reducing the use of tobacco amongst the youth. Research shows that smoking rate is high amongst the youth in comparison with the general public (Schudson & Baykurt, 2016). The number of youth using tobacco is almost twice the general pollution, a situation calling for the need for an advocacy campaign to reduce smoking of tobacco in youth. The rate of smoking in young people aged 18-24 years old particularly college students in the America has increased by 20% in the last decade (Leidner, Shaw & Yen, 2015). The trend in smoking is increasing in youth while reducing in the general public. Report by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is that majority of people use tobacco after high school graduation.
Most of the smokers are adolescents who have an addiction to tobacco use. There is also a relationship between smoking and public health issue. Research by Kenkel (2016) indicated that most of the youth using tobacco are mostly those who have not achieved much in their studies. Failure in education limits young people to pursue better career opportunities. As a result majority of them start using tobacco together with other drugs like cocaine and nicotine. The issue of peer pressure has a connection with the use of tobacco in young (Schudson & Baykurt, 2016).Young people start using tobacco from influence from friends who persuade to smoking.
Two Advocacy Campaigns about Smoking Reduction amongst the Youth
Advocacy campaigns against smoking amongst the youth have occurred from different parts of the country. The first advocacy campaign researched in this area is the application of emotional appeals that is provocative with the aim of discouraging tobacco use by the youth that took place in California. The advocacy campaign was done in USA using mass media (Studlar, 2014). The program involved consecutive campaign using mass media that used emotional appeals in discouraging young people from using tobacco.
The number of respondents used in this campaign was 500. There were positive reactions in boys in conveying anti-smoking information while smokers reacted negatively to the campaign. During the campaign in the USA, description of smoking was like an integrated and integrated behavior in the lifespan of an individual. The campaign strategically stressed the factors that result in smoking and addiction (Schudson & Baykurt, 2016). The application of emotional appeals that is provocative with the aim of discouraging tobacco use by the youth had a connection with causative factors of the use of tobacco in youth.
The second advocacy campaign researched on the use of anti-smoking techniques amongst the young people occurred in Colorado. This advocacy was done by the use of anti-smoking information as messages on cigarette packs. The messages used on tobacco packs targeted mortality and self-esteem to encourage anti-smoking habits amongst the youths. According to Schudson and Baykurt (2016), anti-smoking messages that are fear-based helps in advocacy campaigns for people to reduce the use of tobacco. Anti-smoking messages on cigarette packs like the use of tobacco lead to lung cancer. In spite of the attempts used through fear-based messages on cigarette packs, use of tobacco amongst youth is still on the rise leading to the need for policy advocacy campaigns.
Attributes that Lead to the Effectiveness of these Two Campaigns
These two advocacy campaigns carried out has some particular attributes that lead to their effectiveness. From the first advocacy campaign, the process characteristically used mass media in advocating against the use of tobacco amongst the youth (Brawley, 2017). The use of mass media made the emotional appeal strategy effective because of information reached many people at one. As a result, the target population was reached easily by the use of mass media. The second anti-tobacco use campaign was also effective by using real-life situations and drawings in illustrating the effect of cigarette smoking on human health. The use of fear-based messages like tobacco leads to lung cancer with drawings of dead people on cigarette packs contributed to the effectiveness of the campaign from the use of real-life situations and drawings (Leidner, Shaw & Yen, 2015). Users of tobacco can see the reality of the dangers of smoking and starts to adapt anti-smoking attitudes and habits.
Proposed Advocacy Campaign and Policy Plan
The advocacy will focus on the reduction of tobacco use amongst the youth by using the policy that bans smoking in public places. The campaign will focus on ensuring that states implement the ban on smoking in public places. The campaign against the use of tobacco in will be properly managed and organized to ensure that young people having an addiction of using tobacco do not have smoke from public places like schools, restaurants or hospitals. Moreover, there will be more efforts in ensuring the entire campaign advocacy discourages young people from beginning to use tobacco (Kenkel, 2016). The new policy policies will not allow smoking in any public places, a situation that will reduce peer-pressure influence.
Objectives of the Advocacy Campaign
The campaign will have particular objectives to achieve in the process of reducing the use of tobacco amongst the youth. The first objective of the campaign was to reduce the use of tobacco amongst the youth by 30% in the USA. Secondly, the campaign has the objective of empowering 75% of young people on the impact of smoking tobacco on human health. The other objective of the campaign against tobacco use amongst the youth is to ensure the participation of all stakeholders in reducing tobacco use among the youth. Lastly, the campaign has the objective of supporting the implementation of banning smoking in public places by Federal governments.
Part 2: Proposed Policy -No Smoking in all Public Places
Proposed Policy Implementation by Modifying the Existing Laws
The policy of banning smoking in all of the public places occurs through modification of the existing laws and regulations. The existing laws ban smoking in some public places leaving room for an increase in tobacco use in youth (Schudson & Baykurt, 2016). Currently, some states have no laws that govern a ban on smoking in all of the public places. Some Federal laws allow for smoking in some public places like in commercial flights, a situation calling for the modification of such regulations. The aim of the no smiling policy in all public areas as the focus of this advocacy campaign pursues to ensure that all states adopt the full ban of smoking in all public places (Leidner, Shaw & Yen, 2015). Federal governments ought to forbid smoking in all public place as a way of not only reducing smoking amongst the youth but also for the sake of public health.
Some states have banned smoking in some public areas while in other public areas, they allow smoking. For instance, According to Arkansas Clean Indoor Air Act (2006), there is there is a ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces, but the ban has several exclusions leading to public health issues (Studlar, 2014). Another example of Federal law on the ban on smoking in all public areas is in Florida. Like in Arkansas, Florida Clean Air Act (2003) requires modification to remove exclusions in the ban so that all public places are free from smoking zones.
Effect of the Existing Laws on the Efforts of the Advocacy
When critically analyzed, it is evident that existing laws and regulations will affect the progress of advocacy efforts. The first way that the existing law can pose a challenge to the advocacy is lack of uniformity of Federal laws that govern smoking in public place across the countries (Kenkel, 2016). Some legislators or the public at large might not support the campaign agenda because of their local regulations. For example, the laws of the smoking ban in public areas that govern Washington and Alabama are different, a situation that can cause a challenge in campaigning for no smoking in all public areas countrywide. For instance, the 2005 Clean Indoor Air Act of Washington forbids smoking in all bars and restaurants while the smoking ban law Act for Alabama allows smoking in restaurants and bars (Schudson & Baykurt, 2016). There is likelihood for legislators from different States to differ in harmonizing the policy of no smoking in all public places because of the varying local regulations.
The Application of Three Legs of Lobbying in the Advocacy
In the process of influencing legislators and other policymakers to support the policy of no smoking in all public places, there will be the use of three legs of lobbying. Firstly, there will be the use of Leg one (Professional Lobbyists). Lobbying involves the persuasion of government entities with the aim of achieving particular legislative outcomes that is beneficial. The strategy of professional lobbyist considers the fact that there is no development of law without a bill. Therefore this method will help lawmakers to view health practitioners as experts in the matters of smoking and public health (Leidner, Shaw & Yen, 2015). Lawmakers will need to get information from an expertise point of view for a decision on whether to support the advocacy or not.
The second method to use in influencing policy makers like legislators in the advocacy is leg two: grassroots lobbyist strategy. The grassroots lobbyists involve individuals who by voting elect legislators as leaders (Schudson & Baykurt, 2016). There will be the identification of organization's leaders having a good relationship to contact legislators. The contact person with policy makers will be those known to them and who have a direct contribution to their election or re-election. The strategy will play a key role in the campaign through having discussions with elected officials through the stimulation of political arena of areas that are most affected by smoking in public areas (Studlar, 2014). Individuals from health care like nurses and public health workers will employ grassroots lobbyist strategy by organizing media releases, holding press conferences as well as mobilization of the targeted population. Other techniques to use under grassroots lobbyist method is holding discussions and debates on the need for forbidding smoking in all public places.
The last method for application in influencing policymakers in the advocacy is leg three that concerns the role of money. The organization will support legislators who buy in the agenda of the campaign for a prolonged political support because a change in political state can pose challenges in the success of anti-smoking campaign amongst the youth (Leidner, Shaw & Yen, 2015). The role of money as the third leg of lobbying will occur through political action committee to come up on how financially support the re-election or election of officials supporting the policy of banning smoking in all public places. The advocacy team will identify politicians that support them and come up with ways of supporting them for their election or re-election for a strong political backup during advocacy (Schudson & Baykurt, 2016). Advocates will support political leaders that support the anti-smoking campaign.
Obstacles in Legislative Process and how to curb them
Advocates will face some obstacles in the legislative process calling for strategies on how...
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the thesishelpers.org website, please click below to request its removal:
- UK (UCAS) Personal Statement - Admission Essay Example
- Law School Application Essays
- Essay on How Professor John Hass Displays His Paradigm as a Communication Faculty Member
- Children's Health Awareness - Presentation Example
- Youth Violence Prevention Initiative - Research Paper Example
- The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Interpretation and Review
- Essay Sample: Do Low Doses of BPA Harm People?