Critical Thinking Skills Report: Analyzing Tobacco Use and Its Impacts

This report provides a critical analysis of an article discussing the business case for reducing tobacco use in the United States. It examines the application of logical reasoning to the arguments presented, focusing on the economic and health benefits of reducing tobacco consumption. The report evaluates the sources of information and data used, highlighting the impact of smoking on employee productivity, absenteeism, and the varying rates of smoking across different occupations. The analysis includes a discussion on the detrimental effects of smoking, both immediate and long-term, and the importance of awareness campaigns and cessation programs. The report also touches upon the challenges of changing smoking habits, particularly among blue-collar workers, and the potential financial benefits for employers who support their employees in quitting smoking. The conclusion emphasizes the need for comprehensive strategies to reduce tobacco use and improve both public health and economic outcomes.

Critical Thinking Skills

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................2
Application of logical reasoning to analyse the arguments presented.............................................2
Critical evaluation to the sources of information and data used in the case study..........................5
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................10

INTRODUCTION
Critical review can be defined as a crucial approach which helps in in evaluating the
article, book or any other element. Basically, critical review would help in understanding both
negative and positive aspects of a particular thought which has been presented by a researcher,
philosopher or any other individual on a subject (Weng, Ali and Leonardi-Bee, 2013). In present
report, critical review is going to take place of an article named as “Good for health, good for
business: The business case for reducing tobacco use.” This article was propounded by Adams,
and was last accessed on August 2020 in order to critically analyse the components which has
been presented by the author. It is also considered as a crucial public health related report which
has kept its focus on tobacco usage in United States. This particular article has given the
information that despite of decreasing usage within tobacco in United States there is still high
impacts can be seen on economic conditions of the country and it has also increased the health
concerns as well because it has been analysed that approximately 500000 individuals are dealing
with some sort of diseases which are having direct connections with smoking whether the
individual is a smoker or the person is a passive smoker.
However, there are some information which needs to be understood in a detailed manner which
is specifically been provided in this particular article and this is why there will be a critical
analysis will be performed on this article which is presented below.
Application of logical reasoning to analyse the arguments presented
Argument 1:
Based on the available information it was argument it by the author that he believes that no other
health goal can pursue a business with their communities and staff members which may yield
economic and health benefits and it is considered as something great which will help company in
reducing tobacco use and also the individuals affected by passive smoking as well. Over the
years there is a reduction in tobacco was specifically identified however still the rate of smokers
in United States is high in nature (Odani and et. al., 2018). It is must to develop an effective
strategy in order to reduce these numbers because then only cardiovascular diseases, number of
heart attack and strokes can be reduced to minimum and it will also save those individuals as
well who deals with these diseases because of passive smoking.

Based on the observation it can easily be said that health benefits and economic conditions can
be improved through developing different range of strategies but regular habits of individuals
living in United States and has been working with organisations cannot be changed with just one
particular strategy. It is needed by employer’s to spread awareness among different areas like
how it can impact on their own life and on their family members as well. This particular
argument was detective in nature because the logic which was given by author was specifically
somewhere based on the perceptions carried by most of the organisations. Therefore it is
specifically concluded that spreading awareness considering an effective approach or strategy to
reduce the tobacco use and help staff members to feel healthy and reduce the chances of others
also to get affected by passive smoking.
Argument 2:
Another argument that was presented by the author in this particular article was directly linking
with smoking where it is mentioned that rates of smoking vary by occupation which is
somewhere somehow correct. Considering the information provided, it is specifically being
observed that most of the individuals majorly dealing within Blue collar occupations like
transportation and construction are higher than the individuals performing daily activities in
white collar occupations (Ekpu and Brown, 2015). However, it is not necessarily correct because
most of the time it can be said that it is the choice of a person who consider smoking as a habit
and gibes pleasure to himself or herself. Based on the information which was provided where the
numbers stated that approximately 46 % of Blue collar occupation based workers do smoking
and there were less numbers like 33% of white collars workers do smoke or utilise tobacco based
products (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017).
The argument that was presented was inductive in nature because there were numbers utilised by
author was taken from public health care report. Also, it is concluded that it is the choice of the
person who smokes and it cannot be judged on the basis of their occupations however the results
that were presented by the author correct in nature therefore it can easily be said that Blue collar
occupation based workers do smokes regularly and much more than white collar occupation
workers.
Argument 3:
Tobacco use substantially e reduces employee productivity in several ways and it also enhances
the absenteeism as well. This argument was placed by author considering 17 studies that took

place of meta analysis, where there was a comparison was made on both non-smokers and the
the employees who smokes and it was pretty much clear that 33% more likely individuals who
smokes do stays absent which is considered as an average of 2.7 more days per year. It is also
observed that whenever the individuals that means workers has stopped smoking absenteeism
also decreased in in the organisations. There was also an economic impact that was being shown
where additional annual cost of a particular employee who smokes cigarette is around 5816
dollars. This resulted into 3760 dollars of lost productivity cost for the business organisations
(Berman and et. al., 2014). Based on the observation the argument which has been presented by
author was specifically right in nature because there are many public health reports has shown
that smoking specifically reduces the productivity of an individual whether he or she is working
in management level or working for a logistic company. The approach that was utilised by the
author was inductive in nature because in this argument as well the numbers were provided as
evidence in order to support the statement or the argument given by author.
Also, it can also be said that while offering insurance to employees who are smoker carries high
premium as well and it also covers minimum diseases only. Therefore it is needed for smokers to
consider themselves to start quitting smoking because then only their life expectancy can be
improved and also it will impact positively on financial conditions of employers as well because
then there will be no requirement of paying huge cost like 3760 dollars of loss productivity cost.
Argument 4:
Another augment that was presented by author in this particular article was that smoking results
in immediate detrimental effects on functional organs, health, errors at work, irritation, decrease
in efficiency level, reduction in attentiveness and so on. On the other side, there are many of the
individuals has mentioned that smoking marijuana or any other substance would help them in
increasing their concentration level. However this is not right because in most of the cases there
is a chance of meeting with any cardiovascular related disease heart failure and even a stroke as
well which increases the fatality rate in young individuals as well. Based on the observation it is
clear that efficiency level specifically decreases of a smoker and if it is compared with non
smokers they perform slowly than any other individual who is a non smoker (National Fire
Protection Association, 2019).
In relation with the particular type that came in front which was taken into consideration by
author was deductive because this is something which was presented by the author was based on

the perceptions carried by the other individuals (Mayne and et. al., 2018). Productivity is
something which every single organisation seeks to improve and just because of the mind set of
staff members who smoke it is may be possible that absenteeism at workplace may increase
which is not at all beneficial for an organisation. However, if it is critically analyse then and it
has been found that approximately 5% of the individuals only become successful towards
leaving smoking I am even in this percentage as well some of the smokers start smoking in
future as well. Therefore, it is must for them to improve their own efficiency level towards their
will power because then only they may become able to improve their own productivity in much
effective and in efficient ways. While demonstrated, the monetary advantages of assisting
representatives with stopping smoking supplement the human advantage of aiding an individual
settle on a decision that eternity improves personal satisfaction. Businesses regularly create solid
fellowships and bonds with their workers. Seeing associates live cheerful and sound methods
substantially more than monetary prizes.
Receiving a without smoke strategy isn't condemning smokers. It doesn't mean specialists who
smoke are unwanted (Halpern, Dirani and Schmier, 2007). Alluding smokers who attempt to stop
to the assistance they need may move push back on the arrangement. It is likewise the most ideal
approach to ensure that the business augments the potential medical advantages, and cost
investment funds, of your sans smoke strategy.
There is no more prominent approach to reimburse representatives' persistent effort and devotion
than to help them on the long, troublesome, yet significant excursion to stop smoking.
Critical evaluation to the sources of information and data used in the case
study
Critical Evaluation 1:
Based on the case it was found that approximately 32 million individuals smokes on daily basis
in United States, basically comedies individuals are continuously using different tobacco related
products where most of them are belonging to Blue collar association sector. It has been
identified that providing cessation benefit to staff members belonging to blue collar corporate
association may not be that much of effective in nature because smoking has become a habit for
them and it will be really very hard to suddenly change the habits of smoking. On the other hand,
It is must for employees to spread awareness first and then reach to a position of building an
effective strategy to control the numbers of smokers. If it is critically analysed then it is pretty

much needed for. Employers to understand the need lake where actually and how the campaign
is going to impact and in what sense because then only spread of awareness in relation with how
negatively smoking may affect their health conditions, family members conditions, economic
conditions and many more other situations that can get worse (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2019).
Critical Evaluation 2:
Smoking is so common at the work place of United States as among adult workers it is
considered as the stress reliever for them and there are more than 22 million workers who
reported for smoking cigarettes (Halpern and et. al., 2015). Along with this it is also identified
that by considering the comparison among the blue-collar workers and white-collar workers Blue
Collar workers prominently smoke more than white collars and their ratio include 46% vs 33 %.
The number of Blue-Collar occupations is highest because it includes lower level workforce
considering transportation and construction in Meanwhile the white colour include those
employees who prominently work in the building Indian managerial work considering sales and
management.
Critical Evaluation 3:
It has been critically analysing the that tobacco prominently eliminate the productivity of
employees in various ways like enhancing absenteeism. In regard of this undertaking them
suitable analysis and examination it is identified that in United States there around 33% of the
non-smoking employees and also likely to miss work and also tends to absent from the company
for approximately 2.7 days per year. In regard of this it is also analysed to that it suitable impact
the economic condition considering the annual cost of employee depict the approximate $5816
which undertake $ 2056 for the Healthcare cost and also tends to lost productivity cost for
approximately $3760. Besides this it is also analysed that employers pay around $659 per year as
the pharmacy and medical cost for each smoker employee (Syamlal, King and Mazurek, 2017).
Moreover, the use of tobacco is concerned with the enhanced risk of injury and property loss
because of fire explosion and many more. In regard of this organisations offer fire insurance cost
which is prominently eliminated by 25% to 30% only when organisations go smoke free.
Therefore because of the smoking interventions tends to eliminate cost and by which employers
save around $150 to $450 annually from the cost of company.
Critical Evaluation 4:

If it is critically analysed then there was is strong relationship was observed between lung cancer
and duration of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. The main thing is required to be
understood is that a company can do to forestall smoking-related disease isn’t to smoke
cigarettes, or to stop in the event that you do. It is additionally imperative to evade used smoke
(Castellan and et. al., 2015). Stopping smoking brings down the danger for 12 kinds of malignant
growth: tumours of the lung, larynx, oral depression and pharynx, throat, pancreas, bladder,
stomach, colon and rectum, liver, cervix, kidney, and intense myeloid leukemia (AML). People
who have smoked for many years may consider screening for lung cancer. The only
recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose computed tomography (also called a
low-dose CT scan, or LDCT). In this test, an X-ray machine scans the body using low doses of
radiation to make detailed pictures of the lungs.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends external icon yearly lung cancer screening
with LDCT for people who:
 Have a history of heavy smoking, and
 Currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years, and
 Are between 55 and 80 years old.
Conclusion
Based on the above mentioned report it is clear that the main argument that was presented by the
author was focusing on the employee productivity that smokers productivity stays a little low
than the individuals who don’t smoke. The argument was systematically presented by the author
was linking the thorough discussion which was done considering different percentage where it
can easily be said that the evidence which was presented was analysed in an appropriate way that
is also beneficial for the readers to understand the differences just because of the numerical
numbers given or presented by the author in order to particularly differentiate all the differences
among non-smokers and smokers. Another expense to bosses from smoking workers is
'presenteeism'— lower hands on profitability that outcomes from nicotine dependence.
Absolutely, all workers are sometimes useless somehow. In any case, research recommends
smoking adversely influences efficiency, losing work time because of smoke breaks and truancy.
This is on the grounds that nicotine is a capably addictive medication. In spite of the fact that
cigarettes fulfil a smoker's requirement for nicotine, the impact wears off rapidly. While the
smoker is longing for a cigarette, it is hard for the representative to focus on work. Inside 30

minutes subsequent to completing the last inward breath, the smoker may effectively be starting
to feel indications of both physical and mental withdrawal.
Profitability misfortune because of smoking breaks is by a long shot the biggest single cost that a
private manager brings about from a smoking representative. Luckily, stopping smoking totally
disposes of this expense.
Medical care Costs and Absenteeism Higher Among Former Smokers versus non-smokers It's
not just lost efficiency that harms organizations. The expanded medical services expenses of
having representatives who smoke is another hit to the spending plan. However, it is summarised
that most of the time it is the choice of employees whether they are looking forward to smoke or
not if they feel like smoking then there is nothing that can stop them from doing so and all the
strategies built for them may not work effectively. This is why it is necessary for the employer or
the researcher of the organisation to first identify the best suitable strategy to spread awareness
and then develop an effective strategy to implement the changes that are taking place in the
thought process of smokers, which will automatically impact positively on their mind set of
quitting smoking. Also, it is must to change the strategy as well from time to time because one
strategy gets old its impact will also so start decreasing on the mind-set of staff members.
Numerous businesses offer monetary motivators and awards to the individuals who quit smoking
effectively and remain sans smoke. At the point when combined with other solid propensities, for
example, keeping up a decent eating regimen and practicing consistently, these motivating forces
uphold other office-wide health activities. Work with medical services suppliers. Collaborating
with doctors and other medical services suppliers can intensify the effect of suspension activities.
While making new working environment programs, especially with respect to wellbeing and
health, can frequently be an overwhelming undertaking, numerous representatives like the help.
Around 70% of smokers state they need to stop, however just five percent quit in a given year.
By supporting viable smoke free working environment activities, bosses assist individuals with
stopping them from smoking.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Berman M and et. al., (2014). Estimating the cost of a smoking employee. Tob Control,
23(5):428-433. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050888
Castellan RM and et. al., (2015). Promoting health and preventing disease and injury through
workplace tobacco policies. Current Intelligence Bulletin 67. DHHS (NIOSH) Pub No
2015-113. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2015- 113/pdfs/FY15_CIB-67_2015-
113_v3.pdf?id¼10.26616/ NIOSHPUB2015113. Accessed August 20, 2019.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017). Heart disease and stroke. 2017.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/
health_effects/heart_disease/index.htm. Accessed April 30, 2018.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2019). Smoking & tobacco use: fast facts.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/ data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm. Accessed
September 3, 2019.
Ekpu VU, Brown AK. (2015). The economic impact of smoking and of reducing smoking
prevalence: review of evidence. Tob Use Insights, 8:1-35. doi:10.4137/TUI.S15628
Halpern MT, Dirani R, Schmier JK. (2007). Impacts of a smoking cessation benefit among
employed populations. J Occup Environ Med, 49(1):11-21.
doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31802db579
Halpern SD and et. al., (2015). Randomised trial of four financial-incentive programs for
smoking cessation. N Engl J Med, 372(22):2108-2117. doi:10.1056/ NEJMoa1414293
Mayne SL and et. al., (2018). Longitudinal associations of smoke-free policies and incident
cardiovascular disease. Circulation, 138(6):557-566. doi:10.1161/
CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032302
National Fire Protection Association (2019). Home fires started by smoking. January 2019.
http://www.nfpa.org/News-andResearch/Fire-statistics-and-reports/Fire-statistics/Fire-
causes/ Smoking-Materials. Accessed April 30, 2019.
Odani S and et. al., (2018). Tobacco product use among military veterans—United States, 2010-
2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 67(1):7-12.
Syamlal G, King BA, Mazurek JM. (2017). Tobacco use among working adults—United States,
2014- 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(42):1130-1135.
Weng SF, Ali S, Leonardi-Bee J. (2013). Smoking and absence from work: systematic review
and meta-analysis of occupational studies. Addiction, 108(2):307-319. doi:10.1111/add.
12015