"Smoking kills" is no longer a myth. Scientific research has also shown that those who don't smoke can get ill and die from effects of tobacco smoke.

A team of researchers led by Professor SA Glantz from the Centre for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, has reviewed several scientific studies on effects of smoke-free work places on smoking behaviour. They concluded that 'Smoke-free workplaces' not only protect non-smokers from the dangers of breathing in other people's smoke; such places if enforced also encourage smokers to quit or reduce consumption. Their research was published in the July 27th 2002 issue of the British Medical Journal. They found that implementing smoke free work places led to 4 out of every 100 smokers reducing the amount they smoked. The reviewers looked at effectiveness of various means of containing the problem of smoking in the population. They compared effectiveness of totally smoke-free workplaces versus smoke-free areas, effects of legislation including increasing taxes, and effects of smoke-free workplaces and clean air legislation on teenagers.

Many people advocate high taxes on cigarettes as a means of reducing consumption. Here in the United Kingdom, it is known that the Government is pursuing a clear policy over the taxation of tobacco. The call by the Government to agree to increase the minimum levels of duty is a welcome idea and a step in the right direction that would be to the benefit of public health. It is hoped that this would reduce the scope for profit to be made by smuggling tobacco into the UK. However, such increases should not be made proportional across board as increases in proportional duty are less effective because they widen the price range of cigarettes on the market, encouraging smokers to switch to cheaper but equally unhealthy brands rather than to cut down or, preferably, quit altogether. Increasing taxes on cigarettes requires agreement and cooperation from producers and purchasers as well as all countries that trade in it. It is reasonable to think that this cannot be achieved without the agreement of other EU partners. Lobbying of our EU partners should therefore be pursued vigorously.

to protect non-smokers. They (non-smokers) will have the liberty to breathe free air and not be forced to breathe polluted air and suffer or die from the diseases caused by breathing in air polluted with products of cigarettes in smoke through no fault of theirs. After all it is their right!

The reviewers compared implementing smoke free work places to increasing taxes. They found that to get a reduction of about 3 employees out of 10 in consumption would require tax increases of over 47% in the USA and over 24% in the United Kingdom on a pack of cigarettes. If all workplaces that are currently not smoke-free in the United States and the United Kingdom were to become smoke-free, consumption per capita (for the entire adult population) would drop by 4.5% and 7.6%, respectively. This would be a huge public health success.

Tobacco smoke is a major hazard to health of both smokers and non-smokers. Although not so severe as smoking the tobacco, the reviewers stated that passive smoking has been linked to the deaths of as many as 53000 non-smokers every year in the United States of America. Also in the USA, passive smoking is s

Some common words found in the essay are:
Medical Journal, America USA, Lobbying EU, Kingdom Government, UK Germany, United Kingdom, Health Safety, San Francisco, Kingdom Tobacco, Researchers Smoking, passive smoking, united kingdom, public health, clean air, increasing taxes, smoke free, tobacco smoke, smoke-free workplaces, clean air legislation, smoke-free smoking, specific legislation, implementing smoke free, toxic waste tobacco,
Approximate Word count = 1494
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)