smoking in school essay

Essay on Smoking

500 words essay on smoking.

One of the most common problems we are facing in today’s world which is killing people is smoking. A lot of people pick up this habit because of stress , personal issues and more. In fact, some even begin showing it off. When someone smokes a cigarette, they not only hurt themselves but everyone around them. It has many ill-effects on the human body which we will go through in the essay on smoking.

Ill-Effects of Smoking

Tobacco can have a disastrous impact on our health. Nonetheless, people consume it daily for a long period of time till it’s too late. Nearly one billion people in the whole world smoke. It is a shocking figure as that 1 billion puts millions of people at risk along with themselves.

Cigarettes have a major impact on the lungs. Around a third of all cancer cases happen due to smoking. For instance, it can affect breathing and causes shortness of breath and coughing. Further, it also increases the risk of respiratory tract infection which ultimately reduces the quality of life.

In addition to these serious health consequences, smoking impacts the well-being of a person as well. It alters the sense of smell and taste. Further, it also reduces the ability to perform physical exercises.

It also hampers your physical appearances like giving yellow teeth and aged skin. You also get a greater risk of depression or anxiety . Smoking also affects our relationship with our family, friends and colleagues.

Most importantly, it is also an expensive habit. In other words, it entails heavy financial costs. Even though some people don’t have money to get by, they waste it on cigarettes because of their addiction.

How to Quit Smoking?

There are many ways through which one can quit smoking. The first one is preparing for the day when you will quit. It is not easy to quit a habit abruptly, so set a date to give yourself time to prepare mentally.

Further, you can also use NRTs for your nicotine dependence. They can reduce your craving and withdrawal symptoms. NRTs like skin patches, chewing gums, lozenges, nasal spray and inhalers can help greatly.

Moreover, you can also consider non-nicotine medications. They require a prescription so it is essential to talk to your doctor to get access to it. Most importantly, seek behavioural support. To tackle your dependence on nicotine, it is essential to get counselling services, self-materials or more to get through this phase.

One can also try alternative therapies if they want to try them. There is no harm in trying as long as you are determined to quit smoking. For instance, filters, smoking deterrents, e-cigarettes, acupuncture, cold laser therapy, yoga and more can work for some people.

Always remember that you cannot quit smoking instantly as it will be bad for you as well. Try cutting down on it and then slowly and steadily give it up altogether.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conclusion of the Essay on Smoking

Thus, if anyone is a slave to cigarettes, it is essential for them to understand that it is never too late to stop smoking. With the help and a good action plan, anyone can quit it for good. Moreover, the benefits will be evident within a few days of quitting.

FAQ of Essay on Smoking

Question 1: What are the effects of smoking?

Answer 1: Smoking has major effects like cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and more. It also increases the risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems with the immune system .

Question 2: Why should we avoid smoking?

Answer 2: We must avoid smoking as it can lengthen your life expectancy. Moreover, by not smoking, you decrease your risk of disease which includes lung cancer, throat cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and more.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Teenage Smoking Essay: Writing Guide & Smoking Essay Topics

Smoking can be viewed as one of the trendy habits. Numerous teenagers try it since they think that it is cool or can help them socialize. Often students start smoking due to stress or mental illnesses. But is it okay?

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

Educators tend to give different written assignments, which may disclose this topic. If you have to develop a teenage smoking essay, you should learn the effects and harm that this habit causes.

That’s when our Custom-writing.org writers can help you!In the article, you’ll see how to deal with writing about smoking students. We’ve gathered tips for different paper types and prompts that can inspire you to start. In the end, you’ll find some smoking essay topics as well.

🚬 Argumentative
📈 Cause and Effect
🚭 Persuasive
🔥 Topics & Prompts

🔗 References

✍️ how to write a teenage smoking essay.

Just like any other academic paper, a teen smoking essay should be organized according to its type. You are probably familiar with the following writing ones:

argumentative essay;
cause and effect essay;
persuasive essay.

Below, you can find insightful tips on how to compose a teenage smoking essay, fulfilling the requirements of each type.

🚬 Argumentative Essay on Smoking

An argumentative essay on teenage smoking should give the reader a rational discussion of a specific issue. The ideas are expected to be well-structured and solidified with valid evidence.

Just in 1 hour! We will write you a plagiarism-free paper in hardly more than 1 hour

Below, you can find the most useful tips for writing an argumentative teen smoking essay. Don’t hesitate to use them!

Catch the reader’s attention. In the introduction, explain the significance and relatability of the chosen issue. Provide general background and make the reader continue exploring your essay through attention-grabbing elements (impressive statistics, personal stories, etc.).
Express your position clearly. Compose a concise thesis statement , so the reader can quickly get your position. Be as precise as possible! For example, your thesis might look like this: Teenage smoking leads to poor health, psychological and social issues.
The most vivid adverse ramification of teenage smoking is the development of health problems like heart or lung diseases and cancer.
Another disruptive effect of smoking at a young age is the risk of psychological disorders such as anxiety or depression.
The last negative consequence of teenage smoking is the conflict with social norms.
Support your arguments. Your ideas will become stronger if you support them with proof from other sources. But be careful here! Use only reliable sources (academic journals, scholarly articles, books, etc.).
Finish your essay dynamically. In your essay conclusion, restate your thesis statement and synthesize all of your arguments. Motivate your readers on further investigation of your topic. To make your paper even more impressive, finish it with the final memorable thought that would be stuck in your readers’ minds.

📈 Cause and Effect Essay on Smoking

A cause and effect of the teenage smoking essay should answer two questions:

Why do teenagers smoke? (Causes).
What are the consequences of teenage smoking? (Effects).

How to create an excellent cause and effect paper? You can start by checking successful teen smoking essay examples . Then, learn some useful tips here:

Get an idea. The first step of creating a causes effects of teenage smoking essay is brainstorming topics. Think of the common reasons for teens smoking and analyze the possible outcomes. Here are some ideas for you:
Outline your paper. This step helps structure your ideas properly. Create a well-organized plan and add there all the proof and examples. Make sure that everything is logical, and start writing your teenage smoking essay.
Form a clear thesis. In your thesis statement, state your position and introduce the chosen cause and effect of smoking. Here is an example of the thesis for this type of smoking among teenagers essay: Caused by peer pressure, smoking negatively affects teenagers’ health and appearance.
The key cause of teenage nicotine addiction is peer pressure and the fear of becoming an outsider among the friends-smokers.
One of the detrimental effects of cigarettes on teenagers is health problems.
Another adverse consequence of teenage smoking is negative changes in appearance .
Polish your piece of writing. After you finished your first draft, revise and edit your essay. Ensure the absence of grammar and punctuation mistakes and double-check if your paper is coherent.

🚭 Persuasive Essay on Smoking

A persuasive essay about teenage smoking resembles an argumentative one but has a different purpose. Here, you have to convince your reader in your opinion, using evidence and facts. Moreover, in some papers, you have to call your reader to action. For example, to quit or ban smoking . So, see how to do so:

Grab the reader’s attention. To do so, you should know your audience and their preferences. Start your smoking essay by proving to the reader your credibility and the significance of your topic. For example, if you are writing about smoking students, introduce the shocking statistics at the beginning of your paper and convince them to stop smoking.
Show your empathy. An emotional appeal is a powerful tool for gaining the readers’ trust and influencing their opinions. Demonstrate that you understand their emotions and, at the same time, convince them to change their beliefs. To make it more clear, see an example: Although smoking might help teenagers be on the same wavelength as their friends, nicotine has a detrimental effect on health and leads to cancer development.
Include rhetoric questions. This is a useful persuasive trick that makes readers change their minds. For instance, in your smoking essay, you may ask this question: Smoking helps me to relieve stress, but will I be able to overcome lung cancer later?
Highlight your position. In a persuasive essay, you should be incredibly convincing. So, don’t be afraid of exaggeration or even repeating yourself. These tricks may help you to deliver your message to the reader more quickly and effectively.

You have a lot of ways of creating fantastic teen smoking essays. You should just turn around and gather material. Sometimes it lies near your foot.

Receive a plagiarism-free paper tailored to your instructions. Cut 20% off your first order!

To smoke or not to smoke? – This is the question! You should decide what is for you: To be yourself or follow the fashion! It is not difficult to do!

🔥 Smoking Essay Topics

Do you know what the critical secret of a successful essay is? A well-chosen topic!

If you find something you are passionate about, your essay writing process will be much easier. So, take a look at our smoking essay topics. Select one of them or use some to come up with your idea.

Smoking among teenagers : an exaggerated problem or a real threat to the generation?
The influence of nicotine on teenagers’ brain activity.
How smoking parents develop smoking habits in their children.
Vaping : a healthier alternative to regular cigarettes or just another dangerous teenagers’ passion?
Is smoking still a problem among teenagers today – an essay to highlight the issue of cigarette addiction.
The danger of smoking for immature teenagers’ organisms.
If smoking in public places was banned , teenagers would be predisposed to cigarettes less.
Social problems caused by teenage smoking .
The role of parents in dealing with teenage cigarette addiction.
Useful tips to stop smoking .
Why teenagers are influenced by peer pressure , and how to overcome it.
Teenage smoking: a matter of real nicotine addiction or a case of psychological processes inside immature minds?
The danger of smoking and second-hand smoke .
Is e-cigarette a threat or solution?
Analyze the connection between vaping and dental health .
Is it necessary to ban cigarette manufacturers?
Is it possible to prevent teenagers from smoking using anti-smoking posters ?
What are the best ways to persuade young adults to stop smoking?
Discuss the possibility of the global ban on tobacco and its potential outcomes.
Pros and cons of anti-smoking adverts.
Explore the connection between smoking cessation and depression .
Describe the link between smoking and heart disease .
Explain how smoking cessation can improve teenagers’ life.
How to reduce smoking among youth .
What are the different types of cigarette smokers?
Analyze the challenges of each stage of smoking cessation and how to overcome them.
Is smoking an effective method of weight control?
Discuss the impact of smoke on health of primary and secondary smokers .
Do you support the idea of lowering the smoking age in the USA ?
Effect of tobacco use on our body.
Explore the efficiency of the acupuncture method for smoking cessation .
Will the complete prohibition of smoking in cities help to preserve teenagers’ health?
Examine how smoking in movies influences teenagers’ desire to start smoking.
Are nicotine replacement medications necessary for successful smoking cessation?
Reasons to prohibit tobacco products and cigarettes.
Describe the reasons that prevent teenagers from smoking cessation .
Analyze the public image of smoking in the USA.
Discuss the issues connected with the smoking ban .
Antismoking ads and their influence on youth smoking prevalence .
What factors determine the success of anti-smoking persuasive campaigns among teenagers?
Explore the impact of smoking on teenagers’ physical and mental health.
What can you do to motivate your teenage friend to quit smoking?
Why do teenagers start smoking ?
Analyze the rates of tobacco smoking among adolescents.
Compare the peculiarities of smoking cessation methods and motivation for teenagers and adolescents.
Examine whether raising cigarette pricing is an effective way to lower smoking rates.

Teenage Smoking Essay Prompts

Here are some writing prompts that you can use for your smoking essay:

What does the data on smoking in different countries say? Compare the age limitations for smoking, attitude to smoking in America and Europe, for example. Where the situation is worst, whether the government tries to fight against this, etc.
The distribution of cigarettes and other types of tobacco . Is it okay that tobacco machines are available all over the world (especially in Europe)? Any child can buy a cigarette and start smoking. You could investigate this problem in your teen smoking essays.
Opinion essay: present your ideas and attitude to smoking . Explain whether you like to see people smoking around you, or you cannot stand when people are gazing at you while you are smoking.
How does media influence teens’ decision-making? When teenagers see their favorite characters getting pleasure from smoking, they may want to try it. Is it a reason to start? In what other ways does mass media affect the problem?

Effects of Teenage Smoking Essay Prompt

Smoking among teenagers is a serious problem that has long-term consequences for their physical and mental health. In your essay, you can dwell on the following ideas:

Analyze the health consequences of tobacco use among young people. In your paper, you can study how tobacco affects youths’ health. Focus on the most widespread problems, such as heart and lung diseases, cancer risk, and others.
Estimate the role of smoking in promoting antisocial behavior among teenagers . Does smoking really encourage aggression and vandalism among teenagers? Use psychological theories and recent research findings to prove your point.
Explain why teenage smoking is associated with an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and urges. To prove your point, you may discuss how nicotine causes depression and neurotransmitter imbalances. Make sure to illustrate your essay with relevant studies and statistical data.
Investigate the economic and social consequences of smoking among young people. Besides high cigarette prices, you can consider lost productivity and healthcare costs. Additionally, write about social issues, such as stigmatization and reduced life opportunities.

Smoking in School Essay Prompt

Despite the implementation of smoke-free policies, a large percentage of teenagers start smoking during their school years. You can write an essay advocating for more effective initiatives to address not only students’ access to cigarettes but also the core causes of teen smoking.

Get an originally-written paper according to your instructions!

Check out some more ideas for your “Smoking in School” essay:

Explain why educators should prohibit smoking on school grounds. Smoking is a dangerous habit that damages students’ health and the overall school environment. Even secondhand smoke exposure has harmful consequences. Your essay could provide evidence that proves the effectiveness of smoke-free policies in reducing teenage smoking rates and improving general well-being.
Analyze the effectiveness of school smoking policies in your educational institution. What smoking policies are accepted in your school? Do students comply with them? What disciplinary measures are used? Use student surveys and disciplinary records to prove the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of current policies.
Describe the issue of smoking in schools in your country. Answer the questions: how widespread is this problem? How does it manifest itself? What causes smoking in schools, and how do schools fight it?
Investigate the role of schools in reducing youth smoking. How can schools prevent and reduce smoking among students? Are their programs and campaigns effective? What can families and communities do to support schools in their efforts? Study these questions in your essay.

Peer Pressure Smoking Essay Prompt

Peer pressure is a common reason why teenagers start smoking. Friends, romantic attachments, or other social circles — all have significant effects on teens’ smoking intentions and possible tobacco addiction.

Here are some practical ideas that can help you highlight the role of peer pressure in teenage smoking :

Analyze why adolescents tend to be powerful in influencing their friends to start smoking. Peer pressure often impacts teenagers’ decisions more than parents’ disapproval. To explain this phenomenon, you can examine theories like social contagion and recent studies on peer dynamics.
Provide your own experience of resisting peer pressure to smoke. Have you ever faced peer pressure inducing you to smoke? What helped you to withstand? Try to share some advice for students in a similar situation.
Investigate how social media can amplify peer pressure through online portrayals of smoking as glamorous. We recommend studying images, videos, advertisements, and influencers that depict smoking as stylish and sophisticated. What can be done to prevent smoking glamorization on social media?
Estimate the role of peers in normalizing smoking behavior. Peer influence is more than just direct pressure. Your essay could explain how factors like observational learning and group identity induce teenagers to smoke.

Causes of Smoking Essay Prompt

There are many reasons why people start smoking, ranging from simple curiosity to complicated social and psychological factors, including anxiety, low self-esteem, and domestic violence.

Check out several ideas for an essay about the causes of smoking:

Analyze tobacco or e-cigarette ads that emphasize weight control benefits and explain how these ads encourage teenagers to smoke. Your paper may discuss how tobacco and e-cigarette companies make use of teenagers’ insecurities and social norms regarding body image. Include studies that prove the impact of advertising on youths’ behavior.
Explore why the rising popularity of fashionable electronic “vaping” devices is one of the key causes of teen smoking. Why is vaping so popular among teenagers? How does it appeal to youths’ preferences and lifestyles? What role do sleek design and social media influence play in the devices’ popularity? Answer the questions in your paper.
Describe your or your friend’s experience that forced you to try cigarettes. Have you or your friend ever tried smoking? Share your story in your essay. Reflect on the circumstances and emotions involved. What conclusions did you make from the experience?

Smoking Is Bad for Health Essay Prompt

Cigarette smoking impacts nearly every organ in the body, causes a variety of diseases, and worsens smokers’ overall health.

In your essay, you can expand on the following ideas to show the severe consequences of smoking on human well-being:

Analyze why cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Here, you can examine factors like addiction and chronic diseases cigarettes provoke. Add statistical data and emphasize the preventable nature of smoking-related illnesses and deaths.
Examine passive smoking as a serious threat to health, especially for children, pregnant women, and people with chronic diseases. Your essay could analyze research and case studies proving that secondhand smoke is as dangerous to human health as smoking itself. Underline its harm to vulnerable populations, such as children, pregnant women, and people with chronic diseases.
Investigate the impact of cigarettes on mental health, including their contribution to the development of depression and anxiety. In this paper, you can examine nicotine’s effect on neurotransmitters involved in mood regulation, such as dopamine and serotonin. Support your point with evidence from peer-reviewed studies.
Research the possible diseases that smoking can provoke, including cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory illnesses. How does smoking contribute to the development and progress of these diseases? Use epidemiological data and medical research to answer this question.

Is Smoking Still a Problem Among Teenagers: Argumentative Essay Prompt

According to the CDC, in 2023, 1 out of every 100 middle school students and nearly 2 out of every 100 high school students had smoked cigarettes in the past 30 days . Public health experts are especially concerned about e-cigarettes since flavorings in tobacco products can make cigarettes more appealing to teenagers.

To evaluate the current situation with smoking among teens, dwell on the following ideas in your essay:

Analyze your country’s or world’s statistics on teen smoking in recent decades. Do you see any changes? Why did they happen? What do these changes mean in terms of public health? Examine these questions in your essay.
Describe your own observations of teenagers’ smoking habits. Contrast what you witnessed in the past with the current situation. Do you think teenagers’ smoking habits changed? What makes you think so? Provide real-life examples to back up your opinion.
Examine data on e-cigarette use among teenagers. Your essay could compare ordinary cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use trends among teenagers. Which type prevails, and why? What impact does it have on teenagers’ health? What can be done to lower smoking and vaping rates among teenagers?

Thanks for reading till the end! Make sure to leave your opinion about the article below. Send it to your friends who may need our tips.

How To Write A Smoking Essay That Will Blow Your Classmates out of the Water

Writing a Smoking Essay. Complete Actionable Guide

A smoking essay might not be your first choice, but it is a common enough topic, whether it is assigned by a professor or left to your choice. Today we’ll take you through the paces of creating a compelling piece, share fresh ideas for writing teen smoking essays, and tackle the specifics of the essential parts of any paper, including an introduction and a conclusion.

Why Choose a Smoking Essay?

If you are free to select any topic, why would you open this can of worms? There are several compelling arguments in favor, such as:

A smoking essay can fit any type of writing assignment. You can craft an argumentative essay about smoking, a persuasive piece, or even a narration about someone’s struggle with quitting. It’s a rare case of a one-size-fits-all topic.
There is an endless number of environmental essay topics ideas . From the reasons and history of smoking to health and economic impact, as well as psychological and physiological factors that make quitting so challenging.
A staggering number of reliable sources are available online. You won’t have to dig deep to find medical or economic research, there are thousands of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, ready and waiting for you to use them.

Essential Considerations for Your Essay on Smoking

Whether you are writing a teenage smoking essay or a study of health-related issues, you need to stay objective and avoid including any judgment into your assignment. Even if you are firmly against smoking, do not let emotions direct your writing. You should also keep your language tolerant and free of offensive remarks or generalizations.

The rule of thumb is to keep your piece academic. It is an essay about smoking cigarettes you have to submit to your professor, not a blog post to share with friends.

How to Generate Endless Smoking Essay Topic Ideas

At first, it might seem that every theme has been covered by countless generations of your predecessors. However, there are ways to add a new spin to the dullest of topics. We’ll share a unique approach to generating new ideas and take the teenage smoking essay as an example. To make it fresh and exciting, you can:

Add a historic twist to your topic. For instance, research the teenage smoking statistics through the years and theorize the factors that influence the numbers.
Compare the data across the globe. You can select the best scale for your paper, comparing smoking rates in the neighboring cities, states, or countries.
Look at the question from an unexpected perspective. For instance, research how the adoption of social media influenced smoking or whether music preferences can be related to this habit.

The latter approach on our list will generate endless ideas for writing teen smoking essays. Select the one that fits your interests or is the easiest to research, depending on the time and effort you are willing to put into essay writing .

How To Write An Essay About Smoking Cigarettes

A smoking essay follows the same rules as an academic paper on any other topic. You start with an introduction, fill the body paragraphs with individual points, and wrap up using a conclusion. The filling of your “essay sandwich” will depend on the topic, but we can tell for sure what your opening and closing paragraphs should be like.

Smoking Essay Introduction

Whether you are working on an argumentative essay about smoking or a persuasive paper, your introduction is nothing but a vessel for a thesis statement. It is the core of your essay, and its absence is the first strike against you. Properly constructed thesis sums up your point of view on the economic research topics and lists the critical points you are about to highlight. If you allude to the opposing views in your thesis statement, the professor is sure to add extra points to your grade.

The first sentence is crucial for your essay, as it sets the tone and makes the first impression. Make it surprising, exciting, powerful with facts, statistics, or vivid images, and it will become a hook to lure the reader in deeper.

Round up the introduction with a transition to your first body passage and the point it will make. Otherwise, your essay might seem disjointed and patchy. Alternatively, you can use the first couple of sentences of the body paragraph as a transition.

Smoking Essay Conclusion

Any argumentative and persuasive essay on smoking must include a short conclusion. In the final passage, return to your thesis statement and repeat it in other words, highlighting the points you have made throughout the body paragraphs. You can also add final thoughts or even a personal opinion at the end to round up your assignment.

Think of the conclusion as a mirror reflection of your introduction. Start with a transition from the last body paragraph, follow it with a retelling of your thesis statement, and complete the passage with a powerful parting thought that will stay with the reader. After all, everyone remembers the first and last points most vividly, and your opening and closing sentences are likely to have a significant influence on the final grade.

Bonus Tips on How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

With the most challenging parts of the smoking essay out of the way, here are a couple of parting tips to ensure your paper gets the highest grade possible:

Do not rely on samples you find online to guide your writing. You can never tell what grade a random essay about smoking cigarettes received. Unless you use winning submissions from essay competitions, you might copy faulty techniques and data into your paper and get a reduced grade.
Do not forget to include references after the conclusion and cite the sources throughout the paper. Otherwise, you might get accused of academic dishonesty and ruin your academic record. Ask your professor about the appropriate citation style if you are not sure whether you should use APA, MLA, or Chicago.
Do not submit your smoking essay without editing and proofreading first. The best thing you can do is leave the piece alone for a day or two and come back to it with fresh eyes and mind to check for redundancies, illogical argumentation, and irrelevant examples. Professional editing software, such as Grammarly, will help with most typos and glaring errors. Still, it is up to you to go through the paper a couple of times before submission to ensure it is as close to perfection as it can get.
Do not be shy about getting help with writing smoking essays if you are out of time. Professional writers can take over any step of the writing process, from generating ideas to the final round of proofreading. Contact our agents or skip straight to the order form if you need our help to complete this assignment.

We hope our advice and ideas for writing teen smoking essays help you get out of the slump and produce a flawless piece of writing worthy of an A. For extra assistance with choosing the topic, outlining, writing, and editing, reach out to our support managers .

Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay

Introduction, arguments in favor of smoking in campus, arguments against smoking in campus, reconciliation of the two positions, campus smoking: conclusion of the essay, works cited.

The idea of smoking in colleges and campuses has developed a mixed reaction in the USA and in many other parts of the world such that it has posed a very hot and contentious universal debate.

Several campuses and colleges have tried to impose a total ban on smoking within their environs, some of them succeeding while others failing to do so. For instance, colleges like Santa Ana and Fullerton have managed to ban smoking completely within their environs, while others such as Huntington Beach and Golden West College still allow smoking in prescribed places such as in parking lots.

Fullerton College was the first to successfully impose a smoking ban in the year 2007 (Bates 57). Nevertheless, many colleges and campuses have not managed to follow suit because of some state laws which assert that smoking is only proscribed inside buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses. These laws continue to give students the right to smoke within certain areas of their campuses.

As aforementioned, section 7595 of the government code affirms that smoking is proscribed only in public buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses (Merrill 36).Therefore, the opponents of this subject believe that since it is the right of every citizen to do anything that is recognized as legal, it is very wrong to impose a total ban on smoking, especially in campuses.

The most important thing is to ensure that students follow the laid down rules and regulations such as the strict use of the recommended areas of smoking. In deed, it is very unfair to send students off campus to smoke.

In addition, the opponents of this argument believe that smoking should not be banned because it helps students to relax whenever they are in stressful situations. Concerning the health risks that are brought about by smoking, they assert that every mature citizen should be in a position to separate good behavior from wrong behavior.

They say that since there has been an integration of cigarette smoking topics in schools for several decades, by the time a student reaches campus, he/she must be in a position to understand the risks that cigarette smoking poses to their health and therefore they should be able to make informed decisions about smoking. They also argue that it is very unfair to impose an immediate ban on cigarette smoking in campus yet it is clearly understood that smoking is an additive activity which can not be stopped at once.

Even though campus students have the right to smoke within some prescribed areas whenever they wish to do so, as mandated by some state laws, they ought to realize the fact that cigarette smoking has got very serious and detrimental effects on human health. Smoking of cigarettes can bring about lung infections to both first-hand and second-hand smokers. Therefore, smokers need to recognize that their right to smoke may greatly infringe on the rights of their non-smoking counterparts.

It is obvious that students know the negative effects of smoking cigarettes. For instance, it is expensive for them and it may also reduce their lifetime. Generally speaking, cigarette smoking is just bad. Currently, at least forty three colleges in the USA have imposed a total ban on cigarette smoking in their campuses and this trend is increasing especially among commuter schools and community colleges (Merrill 40).

However, it is hard to impose such a ban in some colleges because of the mixed reactions that are held by different stakeholders about the issue of smoking, and the existing campus policies which give the smokers the right to smoke in prescribed areas. According to the research that was carried out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human services, 31% of college students smoke cigarettes. This figure exceeds the national general average of 25% (Longmire 15).

It is also worth to note that even though there has been an integration of cigarette smoking topics in schools for several decades, cigarette smoking has continued to attract many youths and this continues to raise a lot of alarm about their future. This is because cigarette smoking is the major contributor of the cases of lung cancer in the entire world.

Research indicates that close to eighty percent of men who die from lung cancer, and seventy five percent of women who die from the same disease do so because of smoking tobacco. Research also indicates that the risk of lung cancer increases when a person starts smoking at an early age, and with an increase in the number of cigarettes that a person smokes in a day (Robicsek 56).

Scientific research has proved that cigarette smoking is harmful to the body. The smoke that comes out of a burning cigarette is a compound mixture of several chemicals which are produced when tobacco is burned.

This smoke contains a deadly compound called tar, which consists of more than four thousand chemicals which are very poisonous, and a majority of them have been clearly identified to be the main cause of cancer. Most of these chemicals are also known to cause lung diseases and heart problems. Some of these chemicals include cyanide, benzene, methanol, ammonia, formaldehyde and acetylene (Merrill 45).

Other deadly substances that are found in cigarettes include carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide gases which are very poisonous. The most active component of a cigarette is nicotine. Nicotine is a very addictive compound. Cigarette smoking can cause several problems such as cancer, lung damage and heart infections among many other diseases.

Research also indicates that more than thirty percent of the deaths that result in the United States occur due to the use of tobacco. Cigarette smoking also causes eighty seven percent of the deaths that result due to lung cancer. Other types of tobacco-related cancers include mouth cancer, cancer of the larynx, cancer of the throat and esophagus and cancer of the bladder. There is also a very close connection between cigarette smoking and the occurrence of the cancers of the kidney, pancreas, stomach and the cervix.

Cigarette smoking can also cause lung damage which begins at the early stages of smoking. Cigarette smokers encounter many problems with their lungs as compared to non-smokers and this situation gets worse when an individual increases his/her capacity to smoke. Smoking is linked to many dangerous lung infections which are just as perilous as lung cancer. These infections include emphysema and chronic bronchitis which cause difficulties in breathing and may even cause death.

Cigarette smoking also augments the risk of heart infections which stand out as the major causes of deaths in the U.S. Out of all the risk factors of heart infections, i.e. excess cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, cigarette smoking, physical lethargy and high blood pressure, cigarette smoking remains the leading risk factor for impulsive deaths that result from heart attacks (Bates 78).

In addition, low levels of cigarette smoking which may not be able to cause lung infections are capable of damaging the heart. Therefore, second-hand smokers also stand a very high chance of getting heart infections.

As stated earlier, Section 7595 of the government code affirms that smoking is proscribed in all public buildings and within 20 feet from entry points of buildings in all campuses (Merrill 36). Even though this ruling is good, it is not sufficient because it seems to discriminate the innocent second-hand smokers who continue to suffer from cigarette smoke which pollutes the air around them.

Cigarette smoking has also very detrimental effects to the real smokers and therefore they should be able to accept this ban because it is meant for their own good. Though it is very hard to ban citizens from doing something which is legally right, smoking should be gradually banned in campuses so as to protect the non-smokers. This is because campuses are public places which consist of both smokers and non-smokers.

My stand on this issue differs significantly from my opponents who believe that smoking should be allowed in some prescribed areas in campuses. My stand is that cigarette smoking should be banned in campuses because it impacts negatively on the non-smokers. Banning of cigarette smoking in campuses would enable the non-smoking citizens to enjoy the delight of breathing unpolluted air.

Nevertheless, my stand does not include cigarette smoking in private places such as in homes. At the same time, cigarette smokers should understand that the non-smokers are not trying to be intolerant when they keep on complaining about them. Rather, they are doing it for the sake of their own health.

In conclusion, smoking should be totally banned in campuses and colleges because of its severe health risks to both smokers and non-smokers. The health risks are much more to non-smokers because they may double up especially to those who already suffer from other ailments such as heart and lung problems.

In addition, a very short exposure by a non-smoker to secondhand smoke may have abrupt severe effects on his/her cardiovascular system thus escalating the risk for lung and heart infections. This makes the non-smoker to have a higher risk of catching infections from cigarette smoke than the real smoker yet he/she is very innocent. A more effective way of reducing smoking in campuses would be to provide tobacco termination counseling programs in the campuses.

Bates, Tim & Gordon Mangan. Smoking and Raven IQ. New York: Pocket Books, 2007.

Longmire, Wilkinson, & Torok Edgar. Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Melo, Maurice. Cigarette Smoking and Reproductive Function. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Merrill, David. How Cigarettes are made. London: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Robicsek, Francis. Ritual Smoking in Central America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, February 13). Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/

"Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." IvyPanda , 13 Feb. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay'. 13 February.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." February 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

1. IvyPanda . "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." February 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay." February 13, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/smoking-on-campus-should-be-banned/.

Secondhand Smoke Effect on Infants and Young Children
Should Smoking Be Banned in Public Places?
Ban Smoking in Cars
Smoking Cigarette Should Be Banned
Should Cigarettes Be Banned? Essay
Legislation Reform of Public Smoking
Health Care Costs for Smokers
Understanding Advertising: Second-Hand Smoking
Ethical Problem of Smoking
Smoking Ban in the United States of America
American History: The Problem of Education in American Culture
Education in Afghanistan Before the Taliban
Time Management: Lesson Pacing
Truancy in Schools
Drug Test for Teachers and Athletes in Schools

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay

A persuasive essay is a type of writing that aims to convince its readers to take a certain stance or action. It often uses logical arguments and evidence to back up its argument in order to persuade readers.

It also utilizes rhetorical techniques such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make the argument more convincing. In other words, persuasive essays use facts and evidence as well as emotion to make their points.

A persuasive essay about smoking would use these techniques to convince its readers about any point about smoking. Check out an example below:

Simple persuasive essay about smoking

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the world. It leads to adverse health effects, including lung cancer, heart disease, and damage to the respiratory tract. However, the number of people who smoke cigarettes has been on the rise globally.

A lot has been written on topics related to the effects of smoking. Reading essays about it can help you get an idea of what makes a good persuasive essay.

Here are some sample persuasive essays about smoking that you can use as inspiration for your own writing:

Persuasive speech on smoking outline

Persuasive essay about smoking should be banned

Persuasive essay about smoking pdf

Persuasive essay about smoking cannot relieve stress

Persuasive essay about smoking in public places

Speech about smoking is dangerous

Persuasive Essay About Smoking Introduction

Persuasive Essay About Stop Smoking

Short Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Stop Smoking Persuasive Speech

Check out some more persuasive essay examples on various other topics.

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

An argumentative essay is a type of essay that uses facts and logical arguments to back up a point. It is similar to a persuasive essay but differs in that it utilizes more evidence than emotion.

If you’re looking to write an argumentative essay about smoking, here are some examples to get you started on the arguments of why you should not smoke.

Argumentative essay about smoking pdf

Argumentative essay about smoking in public places

Argumentative essay about smoking introduction

Check out the video below to find useful arguments against smoking:

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

You have read some examples of persuasive and argumentative essays about smoking. Now here are some tips that will help you craft a powerful essay on this topic.

Choose a Specific Angle

Select a particular perspective on the issue that you can use to form your argument. When talking about smoking, you can focus on any aspect such as the health risks, economic costs, or environmental impact.

Think about how you want to approach the topic. For instance, you could write about why smoking should be banned.

Check out the list of persuasive essay topics to help you while you are thinking of an angle to choose!

Research the Facts

Before writing your essay, make sure to research the facts about smoking. This will give you reliable information to use in your arguments and evidence for why people should avoid smoking.

You can find and use credible data and information from reputable sources such as government websites, health organizations, and scientific studies.

For instance, you should gather facts about health issues and negative effects of tobacco if arguing against smoking. Moreover, you should use and cite sources carefully.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Make an Outline

The next step is to create an outline for your essay. This will help you organize your thoughts and make sure that all the points in your essay flow together logically.

Your outline should include the introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. This will help ensure that your essay has a clear structure and argument.

Use Persuasive Language

When writing your essay, make sure to use persuasive language such as “it is necessary” or “people must be aware”. This will help you convey your message more effectively and emphasize the importance of your point.

Also, don’t forget to use rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos to make your arguments more convincing. That is, you should incorporate emotion, personal experience, and logic into your arguments.

Introduce Opposing Arguments

Another important tip when writing a persuasive essay on smoking is to introduce opposing arguments. It will show that you are aware of the counterarguments and can provide evidence to refute them. This will help you strengthen your argument.

By doing this, your essay will come off as more balanced and objective, making it more convincing.

Finish Strong

Finally, make sure to finish your essay with a powerful conclusion. This will help you leave a lasting impression on your readers and reinforce the main points of your argument. You can end by summarizing the key points or giving some advice to the reader.

A powerful conclusion could either include food for thought or a call to action. So be sure to use persuasive language and make your conclusion strong.

To conclude,

By following these tips, you can write an effective and persuasive essay on smoking. Remember to research the facts, make an outline, and use persuasive language.

However, don't stress if you need expert help to write your essay! We're the best essay writing service for you!

Our persuasive essay writing service is fast, affordable, and trustworthy.

Try it out today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Search Menu
Advance Articles
Editor's Choice
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
About Health Education Research
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, conflict of interest statement.

< Previous

The impact of school smoking policies and student perceptions of enforcement on school smoking prevalence and location of smoking

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

C. Y. Lovato, C. M. Sabiston, V. Hadd, C. I. J. Nykiforuk, H. S. Campbell, The impact of school smoking policies and student perceptions of enforcement on school smoking prevalence and location of smoking, Health Education Research , Volume 22, Issue 6, December 2007, Pages 782–793, https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyl102

Permissions Icon Permissions

The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess the impact of school tobacco policy intention, implementation and students' perceptions of policy enforcement on smoking rates and location of tobacco use during the school day. Data were obtained from all students in Grades 10–11 ( n = 22 318) in 81 randomly selected schools from five Canadian provinces. Policy intention was assessed by coding written school tobacco policies. School administrators most familiar with the tobacco policy completed a survey to assess policy implementation. Results revealed policy intention and implementation subscales did not significantly predict school smoking prevalence but resulted in moderate prediction of tobacco use on school property ( R 2 = 0.21–0.27). Students' perceptions of policy enforcement significantly predicted school smoking prevalence ( R 2 = 0.36) and location of tobacco use ( R 2 = 0.23–0.63). The research findings emphasize: (i) the need to consider both written policy intention and actual policy implementation and (ii) the existence of a policy is not effective in controlling tobacco use unless the policy is implemented and is perceived to be strongly enforced.

School-based strategies are a key element in adolescent tobacco control because school environments are established systems in which adolescent behavior can be targeted and in which social behaviors are reinforced [ 1 , 2]. School tobacco policies are critical to a comprehensive adolescent tobacco control program, yet research to date shows inconsistencies in the way policies are measured and evaluated. Furthermore, little is known about the most effective strategies linking characteristics of school tobacco policies to adolescent tobacco use.

There has been an increased interest and emphasis on tobacco policies and their impact on youth tobacco use. Studies have shown that school tobacco policies are effective only if they are strongly enforced [ 3 , 4 ]. A comprehensive review of the effects of school policies on youth smoking rates shows inconclusive findings [ 4–11 ]. Some of the ambiguity in strength of relations between policies and smoking behavior is likely a result of the differences in dates when the research was conducted (spanning the 17 years from 1989 to 2006), geography (i.e. Australia, Canada, Scotland and the United States), definitions of smoking behavior used as the outcome variable (i.e. current smoker, daily smoker, occasional smoker, susceptible smoker), sample size, operationalization of tobacco policies (i.e. intention, implementation, enforcement) and conceptualization of tobacco policy strength (i.e. students' versus teachers' perceptions of the policies and/or coded written policies). Based on these observations, it is important to identify consistencies in the way school policies are examined and to determine the relationships among policy intentions, implementation, enforcement and smoking behaviors during adolescence.

Policies that prohibit tobacco use vary in their target application, location of application and timing of enforcement. It is understood that strong policy intention and implementation should include emphases on comprehensiveness, prevention, cessation, punishment, consistency of enforcement, strength and visibility [ 3 , 11–13 ]. The difficulty in exploring distinctions between strength of policy intention and implementation lies in the assessment of written policies with inherent intention to curtail smoking behaviors, and in exploring school informants' strategies to implement written policies. The application of these assessments to research and practice is of value to understanding policy impact.

A written policy can be viewed as a statement of intent addressing tobacco control in the school environment. The application of the written policy is not actualized in practice until the policy is implemented at the school. Furthermore, this actualization may not impact the school environment unless compliance is ensured through enforcement. This level of distinction is often overlooked in policy reviews, yet the use of consistent definitions of policy intention and implementation is critical to the examination of policy content, enforcement and effectiveness. One method of ensuring consistency of policy evaluation is to employ coding rubrics that capture the complexities of both policy intention and implementation. For example, a comprehensive coding rubric for written tobacco policies has been developed to include the main factors critical to strong policies [ 13 ]. The coding system includes five main components: developing, overseeing and communicating the policy, purpose and goals, tobacco-free environments (including prohibition, strength and characteristics of enforcement), tobacco use prevention education and assistance to overcome tobacco addictions. Despite some initial testing of the rubric [ 13 ] it has seen limited use. More importantly, the different roles that school policy components play in influencing adolescent smoking behaviors remains elusive.

In addition to the lack of consistent evaluation strategies associated with written tobacco policies, the other main limitations in research linking policies and smoking behavior include: (i) the dependence on adolescents' perceptions of the strength of school policies; (ii) limited assessments of the consistency between policy intention and implementation and (iii) unclear conceptual links between the tobacco policy variables and youth smoking classifications. Specifically, in research linking tobacco policies and smoking behavior, it is not necessarily that tobacco policies will directly impact whether an individual is a daily or an occasional smoker, or whether they have ever tried a cigarette, but rather they will impact how the school environment contributes to shaping these behaviors. School-based policies should, at minimum, impact the frequency and location of smoking behavior that occurs around and at school. Efforts should be focused on characteristics of smoking behavior that are likely to be influenced, both directly and indirectly, by school-based tobacco policies.

The purpose of this paper is to (i) describe an approach for assessing school smoking policies, (ii) examine differences between school written policy (intention) and reported implementation; (iii) examine characteristics of school written (indention) policies and reported implementation as predictors of school smoking prevalence, as well as smoking prevalence at school, on and off school property and (iv) examine students' perceptions of policy enforcement as predictors of school smoking prevalence.

Participants

Following ethics approvals from the University and Secondary School Districts, a multi-site cross-sectional study was conducted in 81 randomly selected secondary schools from British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Ontario and Quebec. The five provinces represent a reasonable geographical balance and have smoking rates that span the range of Canada's overall smoking rate for youth aged 15–19 years (15–24%) [ 14 ].

Following a passive parental consent approach, all students in Grades 10 and 11 ( n = 22 318) within the 81 sampled schools were asked to complete a questionnaire about their smoking attitudes and behavior. From each school, a senior school administrator with extensive knowledge of the tobacco policy was recruited to complete a questionnaire about the implementation of the school smoking policy (i.e. survey on school smoking policies). In the final sample, administrators included principals (50%), vice principals (47.4%), assistant vice principals (1.3%) and teachers (1.3%). Written tobacco policies were also collected from each school and each corresponding school district board for assessment of policy intention.

Data sources and measures

Written school tobacco policies (intention).

To assess policy intention, school policies were collected from administrators, official policy documents or web pages. In the event that schools did not have a written policy, the district policy was obtained since it was the school's official tobacco control document. To assess the strength of policy, the hard copies were coded by two trained researchers using a theoretical and conceptually derived rating scheme [ 13 ]. Modifications to the existing rubric were made to reflect the Canadian context and recent theoretical findings [ 3 , 15 , 16 ]. Several Canadian experts on policy evaluation and implementation were also consulted during this process. Modifications to Stephens and English rubric [ 13 ] involved creating separate subscales for prohibition, strength and characteristics of enforcement instead of using the broader category of ‘tobacco-free environments’. The final rating system was composed of seven policy components that were derived from a number of items: developing, overseeing and communicating the policy; purpose and goals; prohibition; strength of enforcement; characteristics of enforcement; tobacco use prevention education and assistance to overcome tobacco addictions (see Table I for sample items). Two trained researchers used the rating system as a directed assessment instrument to code to the policies. The coders read through the school and district written policies and rated each policy components from ‘poor’ to ‘outstanding’ using a combination of Likert scale and dichotomous response sets. When rating discrepancies occurred, they were discussed until consensus was established.

Sample questions from the policy intention and implementation subscales

School tobacco policy implementation

To assess the implementation of school tobacco policies, it was necessary to develop a structured survey that supported the main policy rubric informing this study. Development of the survey incorporated school health questionnaires [ 17 , 18 ] and guidelines from prominent policy research [ 3 , 13 ]. The survey was pilot tested by three school administrators (not included in our sample) before it was finalized to a total of 41 items (survey can be obtained from first author).

The resulting survey of school smoking policies was completed by school administrators who were knowledgeable about tobacco policies. The responses were coded using the same protocol and scoring system was described for the written school policies (see Table I ). Similar procedures were used to ensure comparability between written policies (intention) and the structured interviews (implementation). The final rating system for policy implementation included an additional subscale for consistency of enforcement.

Student smoking and perceptions of policy enforcement

Student smoking behaviors were assessed using the tobacco module of the School Health Action, Planning and Evaluation System (SHAPES) [ 19 ] which is a research-supported machine readable survey designed to collect perceptions related to multiple characteristics of youth tobacco use [ 19 ]. For this study, questions pertaining to frequency and quantity of tobacco consumption were used to define smoking behavior. A smoker was defined as an adolescent who had smoked at least a few puffs of a cigarette on ≥2 days in the last month. The individual data were used to create two dependent variables. First, a composite score assessing smoking status, which was then converted into a school prevalence rate by adding the number of smokers at each of the schools represented, divided by the total students at the school. Second, prevalence of smokers who smoke at school both on and off the property (location of smoking behavior) was calculated. Prevalence of smoking behavior location was calculated as a ratio of smokers indicating they smoked on and/or off school property divided by the total number of smokers at each school.

Items from SHAPES were also used to create five independent variables related to student perceptions of policy enforcement at the school: (i) perception regarding the percentage of students who smoke (10-point Likert scale ranging from 0–10% to 91–100%); (ii) whether there are punishments for smoking on school property (percentage of students reporting ‘true’ and ‘usually true’); (iii) existence of a clear set of tobacco use rules at school (percentage of students reporting ‘true’ and ‘usually true’); (iv) strong sanctions for breaking the tobacco rules (percentage of students reporting ‘true’ and ‘usually true’) and (v) whether students smoke where they are not allowed (four-point Likert scale ranging from none to a lot).

Data analyses

Prior to main analyses, it was important to assess the validity of the instruments used to code the policies. Nine completed surveys assessing both policy intention and implementation were randomly selected and given to six experts in the field of tobacco policy who were asked to rank order them in terms of strength, and to include rationale for their decisions. This rank ordering was compared with the strength of scores generated from the developed rating system as coded by the trained researchers. The survey and the rater's rankings elicited the same policy strength scores 83.4% of the time.

Following the validation of the policy measures, the psychometrics of the policy scale scores and aggregated data from SHAPES (i.e. smoking behaviors and students' perceptions of policy enforcement) were examined. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine correlations, means and standard deviations (SDs). t -tests were conducted to examine significant mean differences and between policy intention and implementation. The main analyses involved independent multiple linear regressions conducted to examine (i) policy implementation (reported by school administrators), (ii) policy intention (from written policies) and (iii) students' perceptions of policy enforcement, as predictors of school smoking prevalence and smoking behaviors occurring on and off school property during the school day. No simultaneous models including intention, implementation and perceptions of enforcement were conducted due to the limited power resulting from the small sample size. Since there were no theoretical or conceptual reasons to expect differences among the predictors, all policy subscales were entered in step one. For all analyses, the significance level was set at 0.05. Given the number of predictors and sample size, we recognize the possibility of inflated Type I errors. However, the exploratory nature of this study begins to address an existing gap in the literature. It was desirable to use this approach to identify the majority of factors that may influence school smoking rates.

The majority of schools (80%) had their own tobacco policy, with the remaining schools reporting use of the district policy (see Table II ). The policy intention subscales for tobacco use prevention education and assistance to overcome tobacco addiction were indiscriminant across the schools and were not included in the main regression analyses.

Means and SDs for the policy data

The relationships among smoking prevalence and school-based tobacco control policies are presented in Table III . Very few of the policy implementation subscales were related to policy intention. The majority of students' perceptions of policy enforcement items was significantly correlated with the intention and implementation subscales. None of the policy intention and implementation subscales was related to smoking prevalence. However, student perceptions regarding the percentage of smokers attending the school were related to school smoking prevalence. There were many significant relationships among policy intention, implementation and students' perceptions of school tobacco policy enforcement and smoking prevalence (at school) on and off school property.

Correlations among the policy subscales and smoking prevalence

1, school smoking prevalence; 2, off school property smoking prevalence; 3, on school property smoking prevalence; 4–10, policy intention subscales (4, developing, overseeing and communicating policy; 5, purpose and goal; 6, prohibition; 7, strength; 8, characteristics; 9, tobacco use prevention education; 10, assistance to overcome tobacco addiction); 11–17, policy implementation subscales (11, developing, overseeing and communicating policy; 12, purpose and goal; 13, prohibition; 14, strength; 15, characteristics; 16, consistency; 17, tobacco use prevention education; 18, assistance to overcome tobacco addiction); 18, perception of smoking where not allowed; 19, perception of smoking prevalence; 20, prevalence perception that students can be fined; 21, prevalence perception of clear set of rules; 22, prevalence perception consequences of breaking rules.

P < 0.05.

Differences between intention and implementation subscales

To explore the differences in intention and implementation subscales, a number of t -tests were conducted using a Bonferroni technique to protect against Type 1 errors. Implementation subscales were significantly higher than intention subscales: developing, overseeing and communicating policy, t (1, 76) = 22.50, P < 0.001; prohibition, t (1, 76) = 12.79, P < 0.001; strength of enforcement, t (1, 76) = 9.64, P < 0.001; characteristics of enforcement, t (1, 76) = 9.31, P < 0.001; tobacco use and prevention education, t (1, 76) = 3.04, P < 0.001 and assistance to overcome tobacco addiction, t (1, 76) = 10.82, P < 0.001. The subscales for purpose and goals were not significantly different. Policy implementation had an additional subscale (consistency of enforcement) that was not included in comparative analyses.

Predictors of school smoking prevalence and location of smoking behavior

School smoking prevalence.

To examine policy intention and implementation as predictors of school smoking prevalence, a multiple regression was planned. However, the correlations among both policy implementation and intention showed little, if any, relationships and no further analyses were conducted. The model predicting school smoking prevalence from students' perceptions of school policy was significant, F (5, 72) = 7.86, P < 0.001, R 2 = 0.36, with perception of smokers emerging as an independent predictor (see Table IV ).

Regression analyses predicting school smoking prevalence from perceptions of policy enforcement

Smoking location: at school, on school property

To test the hypothesis that schools with weaker policy intention and implementation would have more smokers using tobacco at school, separate regressions were conducted with location of smoking as the dependent variable (see Table V ). For policy intention, the model was significant, F (5, 70) = 5.17, P < 0.05. The policy intention subscales accounted for 27% of the variance in on school property tobacco use, with prohibition, strength and purpose and goals emerging as significant individual predictors. For policy implementation, the model was also significant, F (8, 69) = 2.28, P < 0.05, R 2 = 0.21. The individual significant predictors included prohibition, consistency of enforcement and tobacco use prevention education. Finally, the model examining adolescents' perceptions of policy enforcement predicting smoking on school property was also significant, F (5, 72) = 22.72, P < 0.001, R 2 = 0.62. The significant independent predictors in the model included perceptions that students can be fined, breaking the rules leads to consequences and prevalence of smokers at school.

Regression analyses predicting tobacco use on school property from policy intention (Model 1), policy implementation (Model 2) and perceptions of policy enforcement (Model 3)

Smoking location: at school, off school property

Regressions were also conducted with smoking on school property as the dependent variable (see Table VI ). The first regression included all policy intention subscales as predictors of smoking at school but off property. The model was not significant, F (5, 70) = 0.190, P > 0.05, R 2 = 0.01. The second regression included the policy implementation subscales as predictors of smoking off school property. The model was not significant, F (8, 69) = 1.85, P = 0.09, R 2 = 0.17. Finally, the model exploring adolescents' perceptions of policy enforcement as predictors of smoking off school property was tested. In this model, adolescents' perceptions of more students smoking where they are not allowed and greater perception of smokers at the school were significant independent predictors in the model, F (5, 72) = 4.11, P < 0.001, R 2 = 0.23.

Regression analyses predicting tobacco use off school property from policy intention (Model 1), policy implementation (Model 2) and perceptions of policy enforcement (Model 3)

The coding scheme developed in this study was used to explore school written tobacco policy intention and administrator-reported policy implementation in secondary schools across Canada. Results revealed few of the school policy implementation subscales were related to written policies (intention) and none of the policy subscales was correlated to smoking prevalence. However, there were many significant relationships among policy intention, implementation and students' perceptions of school tobacco policy enforcement and smoking prevalence at school (both on and off school property). Several moderate predictive models exploring characteristics of adolescent smoking behaviors were observed.

Comparing the strength of the policies, implementation scores were significantly higher than intention for all but one subscale (i.e. purpose/goals). In particular, it is encouraging to note that strength and characteristics of enforcement were higher than the intention subscales since tobacco policies have maximum benefit only when they are strongly enforced [ 3 , 4 ]. The differences may be due to the length of time that the written policy has been in place at the school. However, it may also be that administrators were more optimistic in their reporting of implementation; thus this finding should be interpreted with caution. This result highlights the need to assess both policy intention and implementation.

School smoking prevalence was not significantly related to policy intention or implementation. This suggests that school policies do not have direct consistent effects on smoking prevalence. A number of researchers have noted similar relationships among school tobacco use policies and adolescent smoking prevalence [i.e. 5, 8–11]. Conceptually, it is not surprising that a school policy alone fails to impact school smoking prevalence unless part of a comprehensive tobacco control program. The synergistic impact of tobacco control policies, prevention and cessation programs and other forms of tobacco control approaches in the school (such as health education curriculum and anti-smoking campaigns and promotions) are likely to be most influential and require further investigation for the impact on school smoking.

Students' perceptions of policy enforcement were moderately linked to smoking prevalence. In the predictive model, a perception that there were a higher number of smokers at school was the strongest predictor of smoking prevalence. This finding is supported in research using social cognitive frameworks, where observational learning is a strong predictor of behavior [ 20 , 21 ]. These types of modeled behaviors should be considered when policies are developed and enforced. Furthermore, teacher and staff smoking prevalence were not explored in this study but have the potential to impact student smoking through modeling mechanisms and should be included in future studies. There are reports to suggest that teacher smoking during school hours is associated with adolescent smoking [ 22 ]. If schools can reduce the visibility of tobacco use, both by students and teachers, it will likely have positive effects on controlling the prevalence of adolescent smoking behaviors. This is a potent area for developing awareness and influencing behavior.

None of the school policy intention or implementation subscales significantly predicted smoking prevalence off school property. This finding was expected since school policies likely have more influence on smoking behaviors exhibited on school property. Alternatively, schools with written policies (intention) describing low prohibition, greater strength of enforcement and clearly established purpose and goals had higher smoking rates on school property. For administrator-reported implementation, low prohibition, greater consistency of enforcement and the absence of tobacco use prevention education were related to high smoking rates on school property. These results suggest that further work is needed to decipher the complex interrelationships among prohibition, enforcement, prevention education and school environment when examining smoking on school property. For example, if schools have designated smoking areas (i.e. smoking pit), the higher strength and consistency of enforcement of tobacco policies may be propagating tobacco use on school property but limiting smoking to specific areas. In this case, further research is needed to examine smoking on school property and the possible covariance associated with designated smoking areas. Additionally, students' knowledge and understanding of their school policy is unknown and may interact with smoking behavior. It would be beneficial to assess students' recall and recognition of school-based tobacco policies and to control for these effects when examining smoking behavior.

Students' perceptions of policy enforcement were strongly predictive of smoking on school property. Specifically, in schools where punishment was not perceived a consequence of smoking, there were more students smoking on school grounds. This finding is consistent with previous research [ 5 , 7 ] and highlights the importance of communicating the consequences of breaking the tobacco policy rules. We also found that schools where adolescents' perceived more student smokers had high smoking rates on school property. This finding may again illustrate the power of observational learning and highlights the importance of reducing the visibility and awareness of adolescent smoking behaviors at school.

There are a number of limitations associated with this study. First, the coding rubrics and surveys developed for this project need to be further tested for their reliability and validity. Also, confirmatory factor analyses are needed to examine the factor structure of tobacco policies. The cross-sectional design and relatively small sample of schools in this study preclude more advanced analyses and limit the power to detect statistical results. Future research should explore the longitudinal relationships among tobacco policies and characteristics of smoking behaviors during adolescence.

Despite its limitations, this study makes important contributions to research on school tobacco policies. The conceptualization of policies as intention and implementation, coupled with the development of a coding paradigm used to assess policies, begins to address the need for consistent definition and evaluation of tobacco policies. A cost-effective and practical approach to measure policy implementation reliably is a challenge. Developing student items for cross-validation with administrator reports may be one approach to addressing this challenge. Future studies should continue to move beyond simple classification of smokers and non-smokers and examine conceptually plausible relationships between policy and different smoking behaviors. There are many more opportunities for intervention when we consider location and timing of tobacco use among student smokers at school. In conclusion, exploring the differences between policy intention and implementation highlights the need to further examine inconsistencies in the way tobacco policies are written and the strategies used to implement them. As practitioners, it is important to focus on bridging this gap to ensure consistent and clearly communicated tobacco use prohibition strategies.

None declared.

This research was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant no. 62748. We are pleased to acknowledge the contribution of Helen Hsu and Jane Shen who assisted in reviewing the literature. Technical assistance was also provided by Tamiza Abji and Sarah Lockman. Above all, we thank the high school administrators and students who completed the surveys. The research presented in this article is part of a larger study which along with school-based smoking policies is examining the relationship between adolescent tobacco use, school-based programs and factors in the community environment.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

tobacco use

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1465-3648
Print ISSN 0268-1153
Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Essay: Causes and Effects of Smoking Among Students

Smoking is one of the most dangerous widespread phenomena that threaten lives of a huge number of people worldwide. It starts as a way of having fun, but ends as an addiction that is therefore so difficult to give up. Today, we often hear of “smoking among students”. So why do students smoke and what are the effects that smoking has on them?

Related Papers

The Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government

Tabssum Naz

Introduction: The World Health Organisation has declared that smoking is the biggest health problem, since over four million people die because of it every year and it causes much harm. The assumption that all over the world, including Turkey, about 45% of the population over 15 years old has a smoking habit on a very serious scale reveals how important the problem is for the young population. Material and Method: This study was carried out to determine the smoking status of the final grade students at Atatürk University in the 2003-2004 academic year. A questionnaire form developed by the researchers was used as the data gathering tool. Results: It was found that 42.0% of the participants had smoked (continuous and occasional smoking). The age of onset of smoking was mainly between 14 and 21 years. There was a statistically strong association between duration of smoking, starting time, and smoking amount (p<0.001), including the association between age of onset and smoking status of the students (p<0.05). Of the students, 22.1% stated that they did not know why they started smoking. Their main answers were; 56.5% of them stated they smoked to relieve their stress feelings, 24.6% stated they smoked for pleasure. Conclusion: Cigarette are widely used by university students. The reason why the students started smoking was mostly fellowship environment, and the reason for continuing to smoke was mostly to relieve stress. (Tur Toraks Der 2008;9:93-8) Key words: Smoking, university student, Erzurum, Turkey.

Journal of emerging technologies and innovative research

Dr. Manjur Hossain

IJHASS Journal

International Journal of Public Health Science (IJPHS)

Smoking is the main cause of morbidity and mortality in the world and is estimated to kill 5 million people each year worldwide. If current patterns of tobacco consumption continue, smoking will kill more than 8 million people each year globally by the year 2030, with 80% of these deaths in the developing countries. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and associated factors of cigarette smoking among male university students in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 542 male students at University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir in Muzaffarabad from July to December 2015. The socio-demographic characteristics and cigarette smoking behavior of the students were measured by using a standardized pre-tested self-administrated validated questionnaire in English. The overall prevalence of cigarette smoking among students was found to be 49.4%. The mean age of starting cigarette smoking was 19.2 2.73 years. Age, marital status and education were found significantly associted with cigarette smoking behavior (p-value<0.05). The most common reason for cigarette smoking was stress alleviation (35.0%) followed by peer pressure (24.5%). As cigarette smoking is considerably higher among students. There is a need to develop effective tobacco control measures among university students in Muzaffarabad.

Mubarak Hussain

Aija Zobena

Despite the detrimental impact of smoking to health, its prevalence remains high. Most students who smoke start to do so regularly around the age of 16-18. Although the proportion of smokers in Latvia is decreasing, the share of electronic cigarette users among young people is growing prematurely, which indicates a change of habits among young people. The aim of the study is to investigate the motives for starting smoking, the factors that contribute to smoking initiation and how high school students become “regular smokers” from “trying” tobacco products. In February 2019, two focus group discussions were organized to obtain information on young people's smoking experience. In each of them, high school students (aged over 18) and students took part. The participants of the focus group discussion were chosen by the “snowball” method. Social factors and the social and psychological characteristics of adolescents have a major impact on the transition from the first cigarette smoke...

Journal of Tropical Pediatrics

Shubhadeep Das

Turk J Med Sci

Sevgi ONCEL

Journal of King Abdulaziz University-Medical Sciences

Samar Alsaggaf

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Giovanna Sarno

Proceeding International Conference on Science and Engineering

Khurul Wardati

International Journal of Integrated Care

Ron Brooker

Howard Davidson

Nature Medicine

Carolina Pola

Cell Chemical Biology

Bridget Wagner

Carol Cancelliere

Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces

The European physical journal. C, Particles and fields

Marco Buchmann

Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research

Xin-yuan Guan

Jean-marie Baland

Carl Schmitt: State and Society

William Rasch

Vietnamese Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine

Thanh Nguyễn

Verlag Unser Wissen

Aamir Al-Mosawi

Journal of Environmental Management

Ian J. Bateman

Kaleigh McLaughlin

BMC Anesthesiology

Marcello Ciccarello

Ronald Hutjes

International Journal of Advanced Biological and Biomedical Research

Maryam Omidi Najafabadi

International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research

Sarita Vania Clarissa

Silvio Sierra Jiménez

IEEE Access

Mamun Bin Ibne Reaz

Sleep Medicine

Tetyana Kendzerska

ACS Applied Energy Materials

kalyan Ghosh

The youth vaping epidemic: Addressing the rise of e-cigarettes in schools

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, nandeeni patel and np nandeeni patel intern, the brown center on education policy - the brookings institution diana quintero diana quintero former senior research analyst, brown center on education policy - the brookings institution, ph.d. student - vanderbilt university @quintero05diana.

November 22, 2019

Last December, the U.S. surgeon general raised an alarm regarding the rise in e-cigarette use among the nation’s youth, saying it has increased “at a rate of epidemic proportions.” According to the 2019 National Youth Tobacco Survey , over 5 million youth are currently using e-cigarettes, primarily the JUUL brand, with nearly 1 million youth using the product daily. This substantial increase in teenage vaping is seriously impacting middle and high schools across America.

Teen vaping has gained a significant amount of media attention since President Trump expressed concern about vaping’s public health effects in a September meeting with the FDA. While Trump had suggested a ban on flavored e-cigarettes, it seems that he has backed away from that idea due to political fallout among voters .

Vaping is on the rise in schools

Of the youth population, 27.5% regularly use e-cigarettes, approximately 22 percentage points higher than high schoolers who smoke normal cigarettes. These numbers are alarming because vaping has various types of negative impacts on health. First , e-cigarettes have been linked to severe lung and heart diseases. Second , e-cigarettes with high levels of nicotine can put youth at risk for developing a nicotine addiction which subsequently hinders brain development. Third, e-cigarettes expose youth users to harmful substances, like heavy metals, and are a gateway to smoking cigarettes.

E-cigarettes are causing public health and disciplinary concerns in schools nationwide. Teenagers are being hospitalized for vaping-related diseases, with at least one confirmed death . Teachers and school administrators are trying, yet failing, to prevent students from vaping in classrooms and on school campuses. Administrators are struggling to combat vaping with both punitive and restorative disciplinary measures , and students continue to vape even when facing penalties as serious as suspension. With the number of youth e-cigarette users increasing in the last decade and roughly doubling since 2017 , there may be a need for new policies that could standardize an approach to combating teenage vaping and help curb the impact on students.

President Trump proposed two routes to tackle vaping: a ban on flavored e-cigarettes , and raising the minimum age of purchase on e-cigarettes from 18 to 21. According to recent reporting , Trump has delayed a flavor ban. In response to Trump’s inaction, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a bill on Tuesday that would ban flavored tobacco products, raise the minimum age of purchase to 21, and restrict online sales of tobacco products. Despite the bill in the House, Trump is meeting with vaping industry executives and public health advocates. It is unclear how vaping regulations will unfold, but it is worthwhile to examine potential plans and their implications on students.

Examining a potential ban of flavored e-cigarettes

Major vaping companies, like JUUL Labs, have pushed against the flavor ban, which may have influenced Trump’s sudden decision to pull back from the policy. JUUL, which controls three-fourths of the e-cigarette market and has a forecasted 2019 revenue of $3.4 billion , is being investigated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for allegedly illegally advertising its products as less harmful than regular cigarettes. Consequently , JUUL altered its leadership and marketing practices by suspending all advertising in the U.S. and replacing its CEO.

Banning the sale of flavored e-cigarettes would have hefty implications on vaping companies since they employ thousands of small shop owners and hardware designers. Banning the legal sale of flavored vaping products would also create a robust black market for e-cigarettes. A black market for vapes could be lethal for youth who find themselves smoking from cartridges cut with cheaper substances.

Trump faced pressures from the vaping lobby, which flocked to the nation’s capital claiming, among other things, that flavored e-cigarettes help smokers quit regular cigarettes. It is unproven , however, if there are health benefits to a regular smoker who instead becomes a long-term vaper. Research further suggests that while e-cigarette use was associated with high rates of smoking cessation, more than 80% of smokers who entered a randomized trial to stop smoking with the help of e-cigarettes continued to smoke e-cigarettes a year later. This is especially concerning given that smoking e-cigarettes has a negative impact on health.

Should the age limit be increased?

Whether by congressional action or Trump’s executive authority, the age minimum to purchase e-cigarettes can be changed from 18 to 21. Some vaping advocates believe that youth vape because of the nicotine in e-cigarettes. While the nicotine content in e-cigarettes can get students addicted to vaping, our analysis of the 2018 National Youth Tobacco Survey indicates that the most students report vaping for the flavor (about 35%) and because their family and friends use e-cigarettes (about 30%). Increasing the age of purchase to 21 would not address either of those incentives to vape.

Changing the age limit to 21 might fail to prevent many minors from getting their hands on e-cigarettes; in fact, 19% of youth report first trying an e-cigarette before the age of 13. Starting at the age of 13, rates of youth vaping in each age group increase. In 2018, 22% of 16-year-olds and 24% of 17-year-olds reported smoking an e-cigarette. This is an increase from 2017, when 11% of 16-year-olds and 14% of 17-year-olds reported smoking an e-cigarette. This shows that students are gaining access to and using e-cigarette products at an age well below the current age limit of 18. Further, over 70% of youth e-cigarette users report buying e-cigarettes from people rather than a shop, and 27% of frequent users reported living with someone who smoked. Youth vapers are typically not going to shops to buy vapes, they are buying vapes from their peers. Thus, minors who vape may still have access, although slightly restricted, to flavored e-cigarettes from friends and family who are over the age of 21.

We cannot know what will happen to e-cigarettes if the minimum age increases, but we can look to the experience of increasing the minimum age on alcohol for some suggestive evidence. According to the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 30% of youth drank some amount of alcohol while 14% of youth engaged in binge drinking. Though raising the age limit for purchasing alcohol helped reduce youth alcohol consumption , youth consumption of alcohol persists.

State and local action

Federal action to stop the teenage vaping epidemic will likely fall short on some, if not most, metrics. Consequently, the onus will fall on state governments, boards of education, and local school districts to combat the issue of teen vaping. Several localities have already taken vaping into their own hands. For example, four states have banned vaping on school grounds, seven states have enacted or will enact a ban on flavored vaping products, and 18 states have raised the legal smoking age from 18 to 21 in the past three years. While the numbers show that vaping has increased drastically even with these state-level bans placed in populous states like New York and Texas, the effect of these state policies is largely unknown.

Beyond traditional tactics like monitoring bathrooms and hallways to confiscate vaping devices, states could also take a new approach to fighting the e-cigarette epidemic, like offering grants to schools to invest in on-site counseling. South Portland High School has been addressing teen vaping by offering mental health services and guiding students away from the social influences that encourage vaping. This school—and others, like Arrowhead High School in Milwaukee—have also been getting students involved in their anti-vaping campaign via peer-to-peer education.

The teenage vaping crisis calls for innovative solutions. In collaboration with federal and state action, local actors can look at the FDA’s Youth Tobacco Prevention Plan for insight on ways to initiate community-supported approaches that restrict access to vaping products, curb teenage-focused marketing tactics, and educate teenagers about the harmful, long-term effects of vaping.

Essay on Stop Smoking

Students are often asked to write an essay on Stop Smoking in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Stop Smoking

Introduction.

Smoking is a dangerous habit that harms our health and environment. It’s crucial to stop smoking for a better life and future.

The Dangers of Smoking

Smoking causes diseases like cancer and heart problems. It also harms others through secondhand smoke.

Ways to Quit

You can stop smoking by seeking help from doctors, using nicotine patches, or joining support groups.

Benefits of Quitting

Quitting smoking improves health, saves money, and protects loved ones from secondhand smoke.

Stopping smoking is challenging but vital. Let’s strive for a smoke-free world for a healthier future.

250 Words Essay on Stop Smoking

The detrimental effects of smoking.

Smoking is a habit that has been ingrained in numerous societies for centuries. Despite its prevalence, the deleterious effects of smoking on health are undeniable. Every puff of smoke inhaled introduces a cocktail of chemicals into the body, many of which are carcinogens. The result is a heightened risk of diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke.

Smoking and Its Socioeconomic Impact

Beyond the health implications, smoking also presents significant socioeconomic challenges. The cost of tobacco products and healthcare for smoking-related illnesses can be financially crippling for individuals and families. Moreover, the loss of productivity due to illness and premature death contributes to economic stagnation.

The Power of Prevention

Prevention is the most effective strategy in combating the smoking epidemic. Educational campaigns highlighting the dangers of smoking, combined with regulations limiting tobacco advertising and sales, can significantly reduce smoking rates. Furthermore, support for quitting smoking, like counseling services and nicotine replacement therapies, should be readily accessible.

Personal Responsibility and Collective Action

Ultimately, the decision to stop smoking lies with the individual. However, societal support is crucial in facilitating this decision. Collective action can create an environment that discourages smoking and encourages healthier alternatives.

In conclusion, the negative implications of smoking necessitate immediate action. By understanding the risks, acknowledging the socioeconomic impact, promoting prevention, and encouraging personal responsibility, we can work towards a smoke-free future.

500 Words Essay on Stop Smoking

Smoking is a prevalent habit that has both individual and societal implications. Despite the widespread knowledge of its harmful effects, many individuals continue to smoke, often due to addiction or social pressure. This essay aims to explore the reasons why it is crucial to stop smoking and the benefits that can be derived from it.

The Health Hazards of Smoking

The primary reason to quit smoking revolves around health. Cigarette smoke is a toxic mix of over 7,000 chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic. Smoking is directly linked to lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, and chronic respiratory diseases. Moreover, it weakens the immune system, making smokers more susceptible to diseases. Secondhand smoke also poses severe risks, affecting non-smokers who are exposed to it.

The Economic Impact of Smoking

Smoking also has significant economic implications. The direct cost of smoking, such as the price of cigarettes, is just the tip of the iceberg. The indirect costs, including healthcare expenses and productivity loss due to smoking-related illnesses, are substantial. In the United States alone, the total economic cost of smoking is more than $300 billion a year.

Environmental Consequences

The environmental impact of smoking is often overlooked. Cigarette butts, which are non-biodegradable, are the most littered item worldwide. They contain toxins that can leach into the environment, causing soil, water, and air pollution. The production of tobacco also contributes to deforestation and loss of biodiversity.

The Social Aspect of Smoking

Smoking can also strain relationships. The smell of smoke can be off-putting to non-smokers, and the health risks associated with secondhand smoke can cause tension. Additionally, the time spent on smoking breaks can lead to social exclusion or missed opportunities.

Benefits of Quitting Smoking

Quitting smoking brings immediate and long-term benefits. Within 20 minutes of quitting, heart rate and blood pressure drop. Within a year, the risk of heart disease is halved. Over time, the risk of stroke, lung cancer, and other diseases decrease significantly. Financially, quitting smoking can save individuals thousands of dollars annually. Environmentally, quitting reduces pollution and waste. Socially, it can improve relationships and increase social inclusion.

In conclusion, the reasons to stop smoking are multifaceted, encompassing health, economic, environmental, and social aspects. Each cigarette smoked is a step towards disease, economic loss, environmental degradation, and social isolation. Conversely, each step towards quitting smoking is a step towards better health, financial savings, environmental preservation, and improved social relations. Therefore, it is crucial to promote smoking cessation for a healthier and more sustainable world.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Stop Pollution
Essay on Stop Littering
Essay on Stop Hunting Animals

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

The Student Vaping Crisis: How Schools Are Fighting Back

Vaporizer pens and other sleek electronic devices convert nicotine-infused liquids to water vapor that can be inhaled.

With reports of at least one death linked to vaping and dozens of cases of teens and young adults recently hospitalized, school leaders are starting the new academic year even more anxious about the “epidemic” of e-cigarettes. They are vowing to intensify prevention and treatment.

Many administrators were caught flat-footed as the vaping trend started to take off several years ago—including stealth use of the sleek products in class—and tried to stem the problem with a hodgepodge of approaches, from strict zero-tolerance policies that came with mandatory suspensions for students caught vaping or with vaping paraphernalia on campus, to programs that teach high school and middle school students the dangers of vaping.

But educators had already started to reconsider their disciplinary approach before the rash of new medical concerns.

At Arrowhead Union High School in Hartland, Wis., about 27 miles from Milwaukee, administrators installed devices in the bathrooms over the summer that detect vaping and automatically send email alerts to the associate principal. And high school students trained in prevention education will be deployed to the middle schools to talk to younger students about the dangers of vaping, according to Principal Gregg Wieczorek.

“I would rather convince a kid to not start, than to ever have to convince them to stop,” Wieczorek said.

The Boulder Valley School District in Boulder County, Colo., has moved from letting individual schools decide how to handle such incidents to developing a community-wide approach that now stresses prevention efforts, including education for students about the risks and how to make good decisions, and informational parent nights that feature the county’s public health department, law enforcement, local doctors, and experts. They are also working with local physicians to ask screening questions during regular check-ups.

About 33 percent of Boulder Valley high school students vape.

The district is backing a series of measures before the Boulder City Council that would ban the sale of flavored nicotine and tobacco products, increase the minimum age to buy nicotine and tobacco products from 18 to 21, and push a voter-approved city sales tax on such products.

“It’s really much more of a coordinated community effort,” said Stephanie Faren, the director of health services at the Boulder Valley school district. "[W]hether it’s parents, or providers, or community businesses, we want to do what’s best for the youth in our community. We have to think about this rationally and thoughtfully and we have to put something together that’s coordinated and collaborative.”

It’s a tricky balance for school districts as they weigh sending a strong message to students that vaping and nicotine use will not be tolerated on campus, while also recognizing that students need help to understand the potential health consequences and available treatment options if they become addicted.

Looming Health Effects

Educators and health experts worry about the long-term effects of nicotine on students’ developing brains. And there are added concerns in states where marijuana has been legalized that students may now have easier access to the drug, which can be used with easily concealed vape devices. Educators are not as likely fooled by the products as they were a few years ago, but still feel they are playing catchup.

“It’s been a challenge for us administratively in all of education, and it’s a challenge in society,” said J. Eric Diener, the principal of Eisenhower High School in Yakima, Wash., where tobacco or marijuana use more than doubled between 2017 and 2019 and the confiscation of illegal devices like vapes went from just four in the 2017-18 school year to 36 in 2018-19.

Experts agree that vaping is harmful to students’ bodies and brains. There are toxic chemicals and metals in many e-cigarettes, and vaping can cause respiratory issues, and potentially cardiovascular problems, and even seizures. The nicotine itself is much more concentrated in e-cigarettes than traditional ones.

“Nicotine will actually alter the structure of a developing brain, and we have no idea what that will do in the long run,” said Robert Klesges, a professor at the University of Virginia Cancer Center. "[A]ll the adverse health consequences that we know about in e-cigarettes are short-term health consequences, and it will be 30 to 40 years before we know how dangerous e-cigarettes are.”

But many teens are not aware of the hazards of vaping. Sixty-six percent of teens believe their e-cigarettes contain just flavoring, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

“They may not know that they contain harmful substances such as nicotine, lead, and cancer-causing chemicals,” said Ashley Merianos, an associate professor at the University of Cincinnati. “They have been marketed to youth as fun [with] cool flavors such as bubble gum or candy.”

Counseling vs. Fear Tactics

Another thing that has health and addiction researchers worried is that a significant number of teenagers who start vaping—30 percent according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse—progress to traditional cigarettes within six months. “We don’t know why exactly,” said Alison Breland, a research professor in Virginia Commonwealth University’s psychology department.

But scaring students off that path doesn’t work, said Faren.

“I am a firm believer that fear tactics [like] ‘If you do this, you are going to be doing heroin next week.’ Kids … they’ll just laugh at you,” said Faren.

For Merianos, who specializes in adolescent substance use prevention, education and counseling, at least in conjunction with discipline, are important tools.

“The reason why is, if students are suspended and they aren’t being educated, I’m not sure if they’re not going home and Juuling, for example, if their parents are off at work,” she said.

But educating today’s teens on the harmful effects of vaping may be more complicated than that of regular cigarettes and chewing tobacco—which are unequivocally bad for everyone. E-cigarettes are generally believed to be better than smoking regular cigarettes for adults, and as a pathway to quitting. That contradiction—that e-cigarettes are bad for some but may be good for others—makes messaging around e-cigarettes difficult, say Klesges and Breland.

Parents are key allies and have to set the tone at home that there’s a zero-tolerance policy for drugs, school officials say.

“This is not a one-time lecture and then it’s done,” Wieczorek said. “This has got to be ongoing, because kids are going to be tempted. Kids do what their friends do, we know that.”

After hearing from principals that they need help dealing with “blatant” incidents of vaping, including an instance where students had videotaped themselves vaping on campus, the Horry County school district in South Carolina will have a mandatory three to five days out-of-school suspension for the first offense if they are found with e-cigarettes or smoking-related devices.

Tobacco violations in the district, which include using e-cigarettes, more than doubled over two academic years, jumping from 427 incidents in the 2017-18 school year to 1,030 in the one recently completed.

“They [principals] wanted more teeth” to the policy, “and a little bit more flexibility,” said Lisa Bourcier, a district spokeswoman, who added that education and cessation have always been part of the district’s response.

And last month, Florida’s Hillsborough school district and the sheriff’s office launched a public service campaign called “Put Down The Pen” to urge students to stop vaping. It highlights some of the consequences they could face if they are caught.

In addition to suspension, students face a possible felony charge if the liquid in the vape pen includes a banned substance like tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), an ingredient in cannabis.

“We want to educate them so that all of the students know the discipline they may face in school, but, also if it rises to the level, how it can affect their futures if law enforcement gets involved,” Hillsborough spokeswoman Tanya Arja said.

But not all educators think that heavily punitive measures like suspension alone are the right way to deal with this issue.

In the Arrowhead district in Wisconsin, for example, even the threat of being suspended from school sports did not prevent athletes from vaping on campus.

Diener, the principal in Yakima, Wash., also tried a largely punitive approach: mandatory suspensions, locking bathrooms students congregated in, and setting up an anonymous tip line for students to report others who had vapes or who were selling them on campus.

“I do believe that that system is not effective,” said Diener, who noted that suspensions did not reduce the number of vape-related incidents in his school as it had with fighting and other infractions. “We need to look at how we educate our kids at a younger age and how we get them help and treatment.”

This fall, he plans to work with the district’s drug and alcohol counselor to help students who are addicted get treatment, including connecting them to off-campus facilities if necessary. He will also focus more on parent and student education. And the harms of vaping will be included in the school’s advisory course, which generally focuses on helping students prepare for life after high school.

“If you are not healthy, you are not going to meet your goals after high school,” Diener said.

Parent Support Needed

That’s the kind of comprehensive approach that Faren and school nurse Elizabeth Blackwell have been developing in Boulder Valley over the last two years.

When Blackwell started as a nurse at Fairview High School, she was met with an “explosion of vaping incidents” and a dean who wanted to know what they were going to do about it.

They started with informational letters to parents—a simple but important step because many parents did not know about the prevalence of vaping, were not talking to their children about vaping, or did not know the most effective ways to do so.

They organized professional development for nurses, school counselors, and teachers. A lot of it was simple and basic, such as explaining the types of devices, how students are able to conceal them, and the vocabulary that students use. But they also delved into the health effects and how to refer students for treatment.

At the time, Fairview had a three-day out of school suspension policy for students caught with e-cigarettes.

Blackwell introduced a screening, intervention, and referral program to reduce the time students were out of school. Suspensions for nicotine infractions were moved to Saturday school, and students were able to take an online course to learn about nicotine products and addiction.

Students were not always receptive or were dismissive of the concerns over vaping.

That start at Fairfield evolved into a collaborative district approach to develop both prevention and awareness strategies that included the school community and the city.

This spring the prevention program was expanded to the elementary school level, where students are taught about making good decisions, how to question advertising for e-cigarettes, and how to say no to vaping.

“There is a perceived notion that that risk is less than … ‘snorting cocaine or heroin,’” Blackwell said. Students argue, “ ‘Yes, I am young, and yes, I know there are dangers associated [with it], but I get to make my own choices.’ ”

But it was from students that they learned that high school is too late to start talking about vaping, and that parents were not talking about it at home.

It will be another year before Boulder Valley obtains data from the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey to know the full impact of their efforts. But they are confident that their collaborative approach with the city and community groups is having an impact.

“Certainly the amount of awareness for staff and the teachers and the students and the parents increased from when we started,” Blackwell said. “I do think that knowledge is power, and I do think that information is important.”

Coverage of whole-child approaches to learning is supported in part by a grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, at www.chanzuckerberg.com . Education Week retains sole editorial control over the content of this coverage. A version of this article appeared in the August 28, 2019 edition of Education Week as Schools Tackle Vaping Amid New Health Problems

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Vector of a professional dressed in a suit and tie and running in a hurry while multitasking with a laptop, a calendar, a briefcase, a clipboard, a cellphone, and a wrench in each of his six hands.

Sign Up & Sign In

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Cochrane Database Syst Rev

School policies for preventing smoking among young people

School tobacco policies (STPs) might prove to be a promising strategy to prevent smoking initiation among adolescents, as there is evidence that the school environment can influence young people to smoke. STPs are cheap, relatively easy to implement and have a wide reach, but it is not clear whether this approach is effective in preventing smoking uptake.

To assess the effectiveness of policies aiming to prevent smoking initiation among students by regulating smoking in schools.

Search methods

We searched seven electronic bibliographic databases, including the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC. We also searched the grey literature and ongoing trials resources. The most recent search was performed in May 2014.

Selection criteria

We included cluster‐randomised controlled trials (c‐RCTs) in which primary and secondary schools were randomised to receive different levels of smoking policy or no intervention. Non‐randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled before‐after studies would also have been eligible. Cross‐sectional studies were not formally included but we describe their findings and use them to generate hypotheses to inform future research.

Data collection and analysis

We independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review, and present a narrative synthesis, as the studies are too limited in quality to undertake a formal meta‐analysis.

Main results

We found only one study which was eligible for inclusion in the review. It was judged to be at high risk of bias. The study compared two 'middle schools' from two different regions in China. The experimental conditions included the introduction of a tobacco policy, environmental changes, and communication activities, while the control condition was no intervention. After a year's follow‐up the study found no differences in smoking prevalence between intervention and control schools. We also described 24 observational studies, the results of which we considered for hypothesis generation. In these, policy exposure was mainly described using face‐to‐face interviews with school staff members, and the outcome evaluation was performed using self‐administered questionnaires. Most studies reported no differences in students' smoking prevalence between schools with formal STPs when compared with schools without policies. In the majority of studies in schools with highly enforced policies, smoking bans extended to outdoor spaces, involving teachers and including sanctions for transgressions, with assistance to quit for smokers plus support by prevention programmes, there was no significant difference in smoking prevalence when compared to schools adopting weaker or no policies.

Authors' conclusions

Despite a comprehensive literature search, and rigorous evaluation of studies, we found no evidence to support STPs. The absence of reliable evidence for the effectiveness of STPs is a concern in public health. We need well‐designed randomised controlled trials or quasi‐experimental studies to evaluate the effectiveness of school tobacco policies.

Plain language summary

Do school tobacco policies prevent uptake of smoking?

Background: We reviewed the evidence that School tobacco policies (STPs) might prevent smoking initiation among adolescents, as there may be some evidence that the school environment can influence young people to smoke. STP is intended to regulate whether and where pupils can smoke, adult smoking in school, and penalties for pupils caught smoking. We were also interested to know whether specific components of STPs might increase their impact. Components such as a smoking ban for students and/or teachers and their extent, levels of enforcement, monitoring strategies, sanctions for students or teachers found smoking, and the offer of tobacco cessation programmes.

Study characteristics : Our study search was conducted in May 2014. We identified one c‐RCT from China that we judged to be at high risk of bias. We also focussed on 24 observational studies to generate a hypothesis for future research.

Key findings : In the only included c‐RCT with 1807 participants, the intervention did not significantly affect students' smoking behavior. The majority of observational studies reported that schools with highly enforced policies, smoking ban extended to outdoor spaces, involving teachers and including sanctions for transgressions, with assistance to quit for smokers plus support by prevention programmes, did not show a significant difference in smoking prevalence, when compared to schools adopting weaker or no policies.

Quality of the evidence : We found no relevant high‐quality experimental studies. A great limitation within observational studies is the heterogeneity of exposure definitions. There is large variability in policy formats, which can include several different characteristics, which in turn makes comparison difficult. Only a few studies are based on policy definition in written documents, while in the majority the information was obtained by interviewing school heads, teachers or administrators. With regard to analysis methods, some studies did not mention any adjustment for potential confounders and in the others there was a large variability in the factors considered for adjustment. Studies differed in statistical methods employed to examine the relationship between policy and smoking behaviour.

Conclusions : We cannot draw conclusions about the effectiveness of STP from currently available data. Large, possibly multi‐centric studies, employing experimental or a quasi‐experimental design to assess the effectiveness of STPs are needed. Characteristics that could be studied are: degree of formality, participants to which the policy applies, extension of the ban (indoor areas or external school premises), level of enforcement, sanctions for transgression; assistance with smoking cessation and combination with prevention and education activities.

The authors of the review did not receive any external funding or grants to support their research for this review, and have no potential conflicts of interest.

Summary of findings

For the main comparison.

1 Only one study with small number of clusters judged at high risk of bias.

Description of the condition

Tobacco smoking is an addictive behaviour associated with over five million deaths per year. The World Health Organization projects that the number of deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoking will rise to eight million by 2030. Tobacco use is a major preventable cause of morbidity and mortality, killing an average of one person every six seconds, and is responsible for one in ten adult deaths worldwide ( WHO 2012 ).

Though the majority of smoking‐related deaths are in people aged 35 years or older, the onset of tobacco use occurs primarily in early adolescence, and adolescents are a special target for smoking prevention projects. Trends in youth smoking show a decline during the 1970s and 1980s, and an increase in the 1990s in both the USA and Europe ( Warren 2008 ). A younger age of smoking initiation is associated with smoking more cigarettes per day ( Everett 1999 ) and with a lower cumulative probability of quitting ( Chen 1998 ) than in people who start smoking later on in life. Delaying the onset of smoking may affect the likelihood of becoming addicted to nicotine and smoking heavily.

Schools have been considered an ideal site to deliver tobacco prevention programmes since they universally involve youths across a wide age range, including the ages when most young people initiate smoking. Generally school programmes show relatively weak effects in reducing adolescent smoking, and these modest results have been explained by the strong social influence effect in favour of smoking inside and outside school premises ( Friend 2011 ). Early studies suggested the role of peer and parental smoking as moderators of school‐based effects ( Tyas 1998 ; Faggiano 2010 ), and perceived smoking by friends has been found to be a stronger predictor of cigarette use than friends' actual use ( Iannotti 1992 ). Some authors have therefore stressed the need to address adolescent smoking at the environmental level ( Griesbach 2002 ; Nakamura 2004 ).

Although smoking bans in school settings are common worldwide, because of their low enforcement adolescents are still frequently exposed to teachers and other pupils smoking during the school day. In a study conducted in 48 Danish schools, three in five students reported that they had seen or knew of teachers smoking outdoors on the school premises; and most of them reported that they had seen or knew of teachers smoking inside the school building ( Poulsen 2002 ). In the same study, teachers smoking outdoors on school premises were significantly associated with students' smoking behaviour, while exposure to other pupils smoking outdoors was not. Furthermore, it could be argued that students in a school without anti‐tobacco policies would perceive smoking as being acceptable, increasing their risk of taking up the habit.

Description of the intervention

As an intervention, school tobacco policy (STP) is intended to inform whether and where pupils can smoke, to set penalties for pupils caught smoking, and to regulate adult smoking in school ( Evans‐Whipp 2004 ). The primary objectives of this intervention are to prevent or delay tobacco use by youth, and also to reduce the exposure of employees and students to second‐hand smoke.

In many cases the introduction of an STP is combined with other smoking prevention programmes. For example, Ariza 2008 describes a multi‐modal intervention, which includes specific lessons for students and strategies to involve adults in smoking cessation programmes. Policies can vary depending on the extent of the ban, teacher and staff training, and the roles and responsibilities of teachers and staff in policy enforcement. Policy can be governed by a central authority at regional or national level rather than locally, and the mandatory nature of a law may moderate its effect on implementation and impact. Other consequences of STPs have also been observed, e.g. schools which do not accommodate student smoking in a specific area can result in adolescents, sometimes in large groups, leaving school property during school hours to smoke elsewhere ( MacBride 2005 ).

How the intervention might work

From the perspective of social learning theory, the interplay between individual and environment is crucial in developing intentions, expectations and ultimately behaviour ( Bandura 1986 ). Cognitive processes such as perceived health risks or benefits of smoking and perceived availability of tobacco could be involved In smoking behaviour. According to Eccles and Roeser’s ecological perspective ( Eccles 1999 ), factors such as peer and adults' smoking habits influence adolescents’ behaviour in combination with other factors. Therefore STPs, implemented as a part of a comprehensive approach, may affect smoking indirectly by influencing beliefs about acceptability (approval or disapproval) of cigarette smoking by adults and by peers ( Lipperman‐Kreda 2009a ). According to identity theory, it has been hypothesised that a strong condemnation of smoking by the school communicates to young people that smoking is an unacceptable part of mainstream identities ( Lloyd 1998 ). A further possibility is that STPs strengthen the connection to school among students and staff, as well as school ethos beyond its regulatory content ( Fletcher 2008 ). An STP can also reduce youth smoking by directly limiting smoking opportunities and access to tobacco ( Alesci 2003 ).

The teachers' perceived capacity to act as role models is an important element of the success of this type of intervention. Galaif 1996 found that teachers will comply with a smoking regulation only if they believe that they can directly affect students' smoking behaviour. If students who smoke perceive that it is acceptable for teachers to smoke in school, they are less likely to adhere to school smoking bans. For this reason Trinidad 2005 argues that encouraging teachers not to smoke on school grounds should be considered as a key component of school‐based tobacco prevention programmes; however, conversely smoking bans may encourage teachers to smoke outside school, with the unanticipated result of making teachers who smoke even more visible to students ( Wold 2004 ).

Why it is important to do this review

Implementing STPs was described as a promising strategy to prevent smoking initiation among adolescents ( Bowen 1995 ) However, it is not yet clear whether this approach is effective. It is unclear whether policies contribute to a reduction of youth smoking only when they are included in a comprehensive tobacco control plan at the school level ( Lovato 2010a ), or whether a policy constitutes a suitable and cost‐effective stand‐alone intervention ( Reid 1999 ). A summary of evidence is critical in order to define which STP elements are effective, and which require further research.

To assess the effectiveness of policies aiming to prevent smoking initiation among students by regulating smoking in schools. We addressed the following questions:

Do school tobacco policies (STPs) reduce youth smoking prevalence?
Do school tobacco control policies delay the start of smoking in adolescents?
Do school tobacco control policies reduce the number of cigarettes among smokers?
Which characteristics, if any, of STPs increase their impact.

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies.

We include cluster‐randomised controlled trials (c‐RCTs) in which schools or classes were randomised to receive different levels of smoking policy or no intervention. As we expected to find a limited number of RCTs, if any, the following prospective designs were also eligible; non‐randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled before‐after studies. Cross‐sectional studies were not formally included. In the absence of higher quality evidence, their findings were described and used to generate hypotheses for future studies.

Types of participants

Students in primary and secondary schools (10 to 18 years old).

Types of interventions

All written policies that regulate tobacco use inside and/or outside the school property were eligible. We would have classified interventions as partial bans, inside bans and comprehensive policies.

We would have included studies of policies aiming to ban drug or alcohol use in addition to smoking if tobacco use outcomes were reported. We would have considered interventions in which an STP was a component of a smoking prevention program only if it was possible to isolate its effect. Studies that compared stronger and weaker policies were eligible. We would have considered whether the implementation of a policy had an impact on its effect.

Types of outcome measures

Primary outcomes.

Smoking prevalence among students, measured by individual self‐report. Biochemically validated smoking data, where provided, were used in preference to self‐report. Young people were classified as smokers or non‐smokers in different ways (daily, weekly, monthly, ever, non‐smoker, smokeless tobacco user, smoker). Where multiple definitions were provided, we used the strictest measure given. In studies with multiple follow‐up periods, we would have used data from the longest follow‐up period reported.

Secondary outcomes

1. Actual tobacco use by teachers and school staff. 2. Tobacco use of teachers, school staff, and students as perceived by other students. 3. Compliance with the policy by students, teachers and school staff. 4. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

Search methods for identification of studies

We conducted the most recent search in May 2014.

We searched the following databases:

1. Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register 2. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 3. MEDLINE 4. EMBASE 5. PsycINFO 6. ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) 7. Sociological abstracts (CSA) 8. 'Grey' literature (conference proceedings and unpublished reports) via Google Scholar and dissertation abstracts. 9. Unpublished literature, by searching trial registers (www.clinicaltrials.gov, www.controlled‐trials.com, www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu) and contacting researchers and agencies whom are known to have conducted or sponsored relevant research to identify further studies not found and unpublished reports.

The Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register contains reports of controlled trials of interventions for smoking cessation or prevention, evaluations of tobacco control policies, identified from regularly updated highly sensitive searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Science Citation Index. The search strategy for the register used the following topic related terms; (polic* or ban* or restriction* or rule* or environment* or health promoting or smoke‐free) AND (school*) in title, abstract or keyword fields. The search strategies for MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO combined these topic terms with the smoking and tobacco terms and the study design terms used for the Register searches. The full MEDLINE search strategy can be found in Appendix 1 . Searches of ERIC, Sociological Abstracts and other sources combined topic related and smoking related terms.

Searching other resources

We checked cited studies in all studies identified. We did not apply language restrictions. In the case of languages other than English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek, Russian or Swedish, we would have looked for translation facilities within the Cochrane Collaboration.

Selection of studies

All search results were imported into an electronic register. Titles and abstracts were classified according to their relevance to the review. Once bibliographic searches was completed, all retrieved records were assembled in a database and processed in order to de‐duplicate them (i.e., remove duplicate records). Two reviewers (AC, FF) screened all identified studies in the electronic databases. Articles were rejected if the title or abstract was not pertinent to the topic of the review. Any disagreements was resolved between the two reviewers by referring to the full‐text, and by consulting with a third party when necessary (MRG). The same reviewers conducted further screening of the full text of the studies that passed the initial screening stage.

Data extraction and management

Two reviewers (AC, FF) independently extracted data from the selected study using a tailored standardised data extraction form including the following elements:

School level
Participants (demographic information)
Intervention (characteristics of the policy)
Outcomes, and how they are measured
Length of follow‐up from the introduction of the policy
Completeness of follow‐up
Definition of smoking

Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or, if required, through consultation with a third person (MRG).

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two review authors assessed independently risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions ( Higgins 2011 ): • adequate sequence generation; • adequate allocation concealment; • blinding of personnel/outcome assessors; • addressing incomplete outcome data; • free of selective outcome reporting; • free of other bias. For each of these domains, risk of bias was judged High, Low, or Unclear Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or by involving a third assessor.

Measures of treatment effect

For dichotomous data, we used the risk ratio (RR) to summarize individual trial outcomes ((number of events in intervention condition/ intervention denominator)/ (number of events in control condition/control denominator)) with 95% confidence intervals. For our primary outcome, the RR was calculated using the student population of the school as the denominator ((number of student smokers in intervention condition/student population in intervention condition)/(number of student smokers in control condition/student population in control condition)). Where the event measured was students classified as smokers, a risk ratio less than one indicated that fewer students were smokers in the intervention group than in the control group. For continuous data, we used the mean difference if outcomes were measured in the same way between trials. We used the standardised mean difference to combine trials that measured the same outcome, but use different methods.

Unit of analysis issues

Though in cluster randomised trials we expected the school (or classes) to be the unit of randomisation, we used the individual as the unit of analysis. We reported adjustments for design effect when provided and dealt with any unit of analysis issues using the guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions ( Higgins 2011 ).

Dealing with missing data

If the proportion of missing data suggested a risk of bias, the study would have been classified accordingly and included in a sensitivity analysis. Participants who has been missing follow‐up data for our primary outcome would have been counted as smokers in an intention‐to‐treat analysis.

Assessment of heterogeneity

The statistical heterogeneity was to be examined using the I 2 statistic. However, this was not necessary as we included only one study.

Assessment of reporting biases

Had we found sufficient studies, we would have tested publication bias using a funnel plot. The relevance of outcomes had been checked to determine if there was any bias in outcome reporting.

Data synthesis

If we had found sufficient studies we would have carried out summary analyses using RevMan 5.1. We would have used the Mantel‐Haenszel fixed‐effect model for meta‐analyses, combining data where trials examined the same intervention and populations and methods were judged sufficiently similar. Where we had suspected clinical or methodological heterogeneity between studies sufficient to suggest that treatment effects may differ between trials, we would have used a random‐effects meta analyses.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

If relevant studies had been available, we would have conducted subgroup analyses for the following policy characteristics: • ban extended only to school staff versus extended both to staff and students; • only indoor area affected by the ban versus ban extended to outdoor area; • policies enforced by punishment versus policies not enforced by punishment; • policies as stand‐alone interventions versus policies accompanied by educational programmes.

In the presence of substantial heterogeneity, we would have explored the reasons for this, undertaking sensitivity analyses (if there have been sufficient studies to warrant this approach).

Description of studies

Results of the search.

Figure 1 shows the study selection process (up to May 2014). Two review authors (AC, FF) independently assessed all the titles and abstracts identified as a result of the comprehensive updated search. Initially 2182 citations were identified in the electronic databases, of which 1702 remained after de‐duplication. No ongoing studies were found in trial registers. We excluded 1553 studies after screening the titles and then 90 after reading the abstracts. At the end of selection process we included one study in this review, which aimed to study the effect of the introduction of smoking policies at school.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD009990-AFig-FIG01.jpg

Study flow diagram

Included studies

The included study ( Chen 2014 ) was conducted in 2008 in two Chinese regions and involved two schools in the intervention group and two in the control group. Of a total of 1807 participants aged between 13 and 15 years old, 941 students attended intervention schools and 866 attended control schools. The students were then surveyed a year later about their smoking habits. To assess the frequency of smoking, participants were asked whether they smoked daily, weekly, or were smoking currently. Ever‐smoking was defined as having ever used cigarettes, even one or two times. Characteristics of the intervention were: smoking banned inside the school; peer educators trained to encourage smokers to quit; and brochures about health hazards of smoking distributed among students. The study measured changes in students' smoking behaviour, knowledge and attitudes. The Characteristics of included studies table provides further details on participants, interventions, and outcomes of the study.

Excluded studies

Among the 58 studies that were excluded, 51 were observational and therefore not eligible. Seven studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) ( Andersen 2012 , Elder 1996 , De Vries 2006 , Gorini 2014 , Hamilton 2005 , Schofield 2003 , Wen 2010 ), evaluating multi‐modal programmes, but it was not possible to disentangle the effect of STP from those of others interventions, and so they were excluded. Of the 51 observational studies, 27 reported a predictor not suitable for this review (STP not sufficiently specified) or no outcome suitable for the review. The Characteristics of excluded studies table provides details of the respective reasons for excluding each study. The remaining 24 studies reported an effect on students' smoking behaviour and information about the policies' characteristics was collected through interviews with school staff. Even if excluded from the review, they were considered useful for hypothesis generation. All but one were cross sectional studies, while one ( Rosendhal 2002 ) was a cohort study. Twenty‐two studies involved middle or secondary schools, and two were conducted in primary schools ( Rosendhal 2002 ; Huang 2010 ). Information about the study, characteristics of the policy and main results are summarised in Table 2 .

All the studies are cross‐sectional with the exception of Rosendhal 2002 that is a cohort study.

Risk of bias in included studies

The only study included ( Chen 2014 ), had a small sample size of only 4 schools, a high risk of intraclass correlation, a likely absence of blinding, and lack of information to assess the presence of selective reporting; we judged the risk of bias of this study to be very high. This assessment is summarised in Figure 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nCD009990-AFig-FIG02.jpg

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Effects of interventions

See: Table 1

In Chen 2014 a school tobacco policy (STP) was not significantly associated with all smoking outcomes studied. There weren't substantial differences in the prevalence of current smokers between intervention and control schools in either of the two regions: risk ratio (RR) 0.98 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.4) and RR 1.35 (95% CI 0.57 to 3.2). The study didn't consider other outcomes of interest for this review.

Studies considered for hypothesis generation

Using data from 24 observational studies, we were interested if specific characteristics of STPs were associated with students smoking behaviour. The characteristics analysed were the following:

formally‐adopted STP vs no policy
ban extended outdoor school premises vs internal ban
ban extended to teachers vs teachers' smoking allowed in limited area
STP including (types of) sanctions for transgressors vs including weak or no sanctions
STP including assistance to quit for smokers vs STP without assistance
STP plus prevention components vs STP alone
STP highly enforced vs weakly or not enforced

The mere adoption of an STP did not seem to affect smoking behaviour. Nine studies measured the effects of a formally‐adopted STP on students' smoking. These studies present mixed results, as three studies showed lower prevalence of smoking in schools with STPs, when compared with schools without a formal policy ( Lovato 2010b ; Moore 2001 ; Sinha 2004b ), while six studies reported no differences ( Galán 2012 ; Hamilton 2003 ; Huang 2010 ; Murnaghan 2007 ; Murnaghan 2008 ; Rosendhal 2002 ).

We also analysed the effects of five aspects of policy: extent of a smoking ban, inclusion of teachers' smoking, sanctions for transgression, assistance for smoking cessation, and a ban combined with prevention and education activities. Only a few studies reported results to support the effects of these features.

With respect to the extent of bans, one study detected a difference in students' smoking prevalence, when comparing schools which prohibited students’ smoking on school premises or outdoors, with those which permitted smoking ( Piontek 2008b ). Three studies found no differences ( Barnett 2007 ; Huang 2010 ; Pentz 1989 ); however, of these Pentz 1989 found a difference only in the number of cigarettes smoked.

One policy forbidding teachers to smoke was associated with a decrease in students' daily smoking ( Kumar 2005 ). Prohibition of indoor smoking for teachers was not significantly associated with student smoking, while prohibiting teachers from smoking outdoors was associated only with decreased daily smoking in girls aged 13 years, but not among boys and girls aged 16 years ( Barnett 2007 ). In Boris 2009 , Clarke 1994 , Piontek 2008b , and Wiium 2011a , comprehensive policies prohibiting teachers from smoking, when compared with those allowing them to smoke in restricted areas, were not related to student smoking.

Nine studies considered the relationship between sanctions for students found smoking and smoking prevalence. Sanctions cited in the STP were not related to smoking prevalence in the majority of the studies ( Darling 2006 ; Pentz 1989 ; Piontek 2008b ; Wiium 2011a ). Harsh and remedial penalties ( Evans‐Whipp 2010 ), the severity of sanctions ( Kumar 2005 ; Paek 2013 ), and sanctions put in place at school and informing parents ( Wiium 2011b ) were not associated with adolescent smoking. In one study ( Hamilton 2003 ) counselling and education for students caught smoking appeared to be more effective against student smoking than a disciplinary approach alone.

Seven studies considered the effect of assistance with smoking cessation for students. Out of these, only Sabiston 2009 showed a link to a lower probability of smoking. Of the others, five studies did not show a link ( Darling 2006 ; Evans‐Whipp 2010 ; Lovato 2007 ; Pentz 1989 ; Piontek 2008b ); in fact Pentz 1989 reported a higher number of cigarettes smoked in schools where cessation support was available. Moreover, Lovato 2010a showed that in schools that mandated cessation programmes students had a higher probability of smoking.

Six studies compared the effect of 'STP only' to 'STP with prevention and education components', but did not find an association with reduction of smoking prevalence ( Darling 2006 ; Lovato 2007 ; Murnaghan 2007 ; Murnaghan 2008 ; Pentz 1989 ; Sabiston 2009 ). Pentz 1989 reported lower numbers of cigarettes smoked and lower smoking prevalence (although not statistically significant) in schools with smoking ban policies and smoking prevention programmes.

Eleven of the considered studies focused particularly on the role of policy enforcement. Four studies showed that policy enforcement was linked to lower rates of smoking ( Adams 2009 ; Kumar 2005 ; Moore 2001 ; Sabiston 2009 ). In one study, the data were in favour of schools adopting policy enforcement, but the effect was no longer statistically significant after adjustment for state, gender, age and family socioeconomic status ( Evans‐Whipp 2010 ). The presence of an enforcement officer, but not the strength of the enforcement, was associated with a lower probability of smoking in one study ( Lovato 2010a ). Smoking prevalence was not related to policy enforcement in two studies ( Lovato 2007 ; Wiium 2011b ). One study found no difference in smoking prevalence between schools with a high versus a low degree of monitoring of students’ compliance with the policy ( Piontek 2008b ). In contrast, Lovato 2010b found that students were more likely to smoke if they attended a school with stronger enforcement of the tobacco policy. Policy enforcement for teachers was not associated with a difference in daily and weekly smoking among students in one study ( Moore 2001 ).

Table 2 shows further details on characteristics, outcomes and results of the considered studies for hypothesis generation, while Table 3 summarizes the effect of policies' characteristics on students' smoking behaviour as reported in the studies.

OR: odds ratio RR: risk ratio

Summary of main results

The results of this review are limited by the number of studies identified and the low methodological quality of the only one we included, Chen 2014 , which showed no significant differences for students' smoking behaviours between schools with and without a STP. Furthermore, the study was judged as having high risk of bias. For this reason at present there is insufficient evidence that STPs are effective for the reduction of smoking initiation among young people. Through a systematic search of observational studies, we also identified some studies exploring different aspects of STP. Specific characteristics like enforcement, extended outdoor bans, strict surveillance measures, assistance to quit smoking, formal adoption of a STP and inclusion of prevention or education activities were not found to be associated with a decreased likelihood of smoking. These results questioned the effectiveness of STPs, but, given the very low quality of the evidence, in the absence of large and rigorous intervention studies, they should be considered in order to orient future research on this topic. The review didn't include studies that addressed whether STPs are able to reduce the start of smoking in adolescents or reduce the number of cigarettes among smokers.

Quality of the evidence

It is important to consider that the main conclusion of this review is based only on one randomised controlled trial (RCT) at high risk of bias. This is because the included study did not describe the randomisation method for the schools and did not provide information on allocation concealment, which may introduce significant selection bias. On the other hand the number of dropouts and participants lost to follow‐up were very low. Given the characteristics of the assessed intervention, it is important to note that it was not feasible to blind the participants or the school personnel. The investigators measuring the outcomes could have been blinded, but this was not reported in the included study. Insufficient details were provided on variables used In the statistical analysis for the adjustment for possible confounders.

We have also analysed some observational studies, which in turn have important limitations, apart from their study design. One important issue is the heterogeneity of exposure definition. There is large variability in policy formats, and these can include several different characteristics, which make comparisons difficult. Only a few studies are based on policy definition in written documents. Policy information obtained by interviewing school principals, school administrators or teachers might overstate the extent of the STP, and frequently it is not possible to differentiate the contribution of the STP from that of other school interventions. Descriptive terms, like 'enforcement' or 'comprehensiveness', were used in different and incompatible ways, with specific policy characteristics being differently defined. This was true of smoking prevention programmes, availability of cessation support, and the sanctions for violations. The outcome variables were heterogeneous, and the age range between studies was variable. Since age is a major determinant of the prevalence of tobacco use, with a doubling of the initiation rates between early and middle adolescence ( DiFranza 2007 ), discrepancies between studies should always be interpreted with respect to age distribution. With regard to analysis methods, some studies did not mention any adjustment for potential confounders ( Clarke 1994 ; Darling 2006 ; Sinha 2004b ; Wiium 2011b ) and in general there is large variability in the factors considered for adjustment.

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

Five RCTs excluded from this review ( Elder 1996 ; De Vries 2006 ; Hamilton 2005 ; Schofield 2003 ; Wen 2010 ), as it was not possible to differentiate the effect of smoking policy from other interventions, were included in another Cochrane review ( Thomas 2013 ). A recent Cochrane review ( Langford 2014 ) aimed to assess the impact of the Health Promoting School framework on several health behaviours; four ( De Vries 2006 ; Hamilton 2005 ; Schofield 2003 ; Wen 2010 ) of 14 studies included for evaluating the effect on smoking behaviour were also considered in this review, but excluded for the reason mentioned above. The conclusions of the present work largely agree with those produced in a previous systematic review ( Galanti 2014 ). Other reviews on STP have previously been published. A review conducted with the scope of identifying which school characteristics are responsible for the variation in smoking prevalence found weak associations between some aspects of STPs and smoking ( Aveyard 2004 ). A narrative review on the impact of school drug policies on youth substance use concluded that more comprehensive and strictly enforced policies are associated with less smoking, but may also displace the behaviour from school grounds to off‐school premises ( Evans‐Whipp 2004 ). A non‐systematic review of school contextual effects on students' behavioural outcomes showed how in schools without STPs, smoking was more prevalent among pupils ( Sellström 2006 ), but no detailed description of the characteristics of the policies was provided.

Implications for practice

Despite a comprehensive search of the literature evaluating the effectiveness of school policies for preventing smoking among young people, we did not find any evidence of an effect. This is mainly explained by the absence of rigorous studies. Whlie this finding suggests that STP is an ineffective stand‐alone intervention, we believe that the theoretical basis of this intervention ( Wilson 2012 ) should be tested under the control of well designed studies.

Implications for research

Large, possibly multi‐centric studies, employing an experimental or a quasi‐experimental design, are needed to assess the effectiveness of this intervention.

Future research in this area must be rigorously designed and evaluated. Design issues of particular importance include the following:

A cluster‐randomised study design, with a sufficient number of clusters (schools) in each comparison group. When new national smoking bans outside schools are enforced, researchers could take the chance to evaluate their impact by the adoption of study designs such as interrupted time series.
The intervention should be accurately and objectively described, in particular the rules of the policy, the persons involved, the penalties for the infringement of rules, and the process of enforcement.
Outcome variables should be standard and validated where possible, and should include process as well as behavioural change data.
Information relating to context (e.g. social, political and cultural factors) should also be collected and factored into the analysis.

Several STP components can play an essential role in contributing to policy effectiveness; the most important ones suggested by this review are:

degree of formality: form of statements of the policy (whether written or other);
participants to which the policy applies (students, staff, visitors/guests);
extent of the ban (in all indoor areas or on external school premises);
level of enforcement including: rules for surveillance and for referral of smoking ban infringements; definition of the person responsible for policy evaluation and review; agenda for periodic evaluation and policy review;
sanctions for transgression;
assistance with smoking cessation;
combination with prevention and education activities.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editorial staff of the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group for running the search strategy and for their advice and support during the review process.

Appendix 1. MEDLINE search strategy

1 RANDOMIZED‐CONTROLLED‐TRIAL.pt.

2 CONTROLLED‐CLINICAL‐TRIAL.pt.

3 CLINICAL‐TRIAL.pt.

4 Meta analysis.pt.

5 exp Clinical Trial/

6 Random‐Allocation/

7 randomized‐controlled trials/

8 double‐blind‐method/

9 single‐blind‐method/

10 placebos/

11 Research‐Design/

12 ((clin$ adj5 trial$) or placebo$ or random$).ti,ab.

13 ((singl$ or doubl$ or trebl$ or tripl$) adj5 (blind$ or mask$)).ti,ab.

14 (volunteer$ or prospectiv$).ti,ab.

15 exp Follow‐Up‐Studies/

16 exp Retrospective‐Studies/

17 exp Prospective‐Studies/

18 exp Evaluation‐Studies/ or Program‐Evaluation.mp.

19 exp Cross‐Sectional‐Studies/

20 exp Behavior‐therapy/

21 exp Health‐Promotion/

22 exp Community‐Health‐Services/

23 exp Health‐Education/

24 exp Health‐Behavior/

25 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24

26 smoking cessation.mp. or exp Smoking Cessation/

27 "Tobacco‐Use‐Cessation"/

28 "Tobacco‐Use‐Disorder"/

29 Tobacco‐Smokeless/

30 exp Tobacco‐Smoke‐Pollution/

31 exp Tobacco‐/

32 exp Nicotine‐/ (19782)

33 ((quit$ or stop$ or ceas$ or giv$) adj5 smoking).ti,ab.

34 exp Smoking/pc, th [Prevention & Control, Therapy]

35 26 or 27 or 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 or 32 or 33 or 34 [A category smoking terms]

36 exp Smoking/ not 35 [B category smoking terms]

37 1 or 2 or 3 [Likely CT design terms; RCTs, CCTs, Clinical trials]

38 35 and 25 [A category smoking+all design terms]

39 35 and 37 [A category smoking terms+likely CT design terms]

40 (animals not humans).sh. [used with 'not' to exclude animal studies for each subset]

41 ((26 or 27 or 28 or 29) and REVIEW.pt.) not 38 [Set 4: Core smoking related reviews only]

42 36 and 25 [B category smoking+all design terms]

43 (42 and 37) not 40 [Set 3: B smoking terms, likely CT design terms, human only]

44 38 not 39 not 40 [Set 2: A smoking terms, not core CT terms, human only]

45 (35 and 37) not 40 [Set 1: A smoking terms, likely CT design terms, human only]

46 (36 and 25) not 40 not 43 [Set 4: B smoking terms, not core CT terms]

47 (polic* or ban* or restriction* or rule* or environment*).mp.

48 school*.mp.

49 47 and 48 [Topic related terms]

50 45 and 49 [Topic + A smoking terms & core CT terms SET 1 ]

51 44 and 49 [Topic + A smoking terms & wide design terms SET 2 ]

52 43 and 49 [Topic + B smoking terms & core CT terms SET 3 ]

53 46 and 49 [Topic + B smoking terms & wide design terms SET 4 ]

Lines 1 to 24 identify controlled trials and other types of programme evaluations, as used to identify reports of studies for the Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register. Lines 26 to 34 identify reports related to smoking and tobacco control. Lines 47 and 48 identify reports relevant to the topic of this review. Sets 1 to 4 will be screened for the review, Sets 1 and 2 are expected to be the most likely to contain relevant reports, and Set 4 to be unlikely to identify any.

Edited (no change to conclusions)

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study id], characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study id], differences between protocol and review.

Background section has been summarised from the original protocol. List of eligible study designs now uses EPOC recommended terminology.

Contributions of authors

AC was involved in coordinating the review, developing the protocol, extracting data, conducting the analysis and co‐wrote and edited the review.

MRG was involved in developing the protocol and co‐wrote the review.

LG, DB and SB were involved in conducting the analysis and co‐wrote the review.

FF was involved in coordinating the review, developing the protocol, extracting data and co‐wrote and edited the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources.

No sources of support supplied

External sources

Participant organizations in ALICE RAP can be seen at http://www.alicerap.eu/about‐alice‐rap/partners.html. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Declarations of interest

AC, MRG, LG, DB, SB and FF have no potential conflict of interest.

References to studies included in this review

Chen 2014 {published data only}.

Chen L, Chen Y, Hao Y, Gu J, Guo Y, Ling W. Effectiveness of school‐based smoking intervention in middle school students of Linzhi Tibetan and Guangzhou Han ethnicity in China . Addictive Behaviors 2014; 39 ( 1 ):189‐95. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

References to studies excluded from this review

Adams 2009 {published data only}.

Adams ML, Jason LA, Pokorny S, Hunt Y. The relationship between school policies and youth tobacco use . Journal of School Health 2009; 79 ( 1 ):17‐23. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Aldinger 2008 {published data only}

Aldinger C, Zhang X, Liu L, Pan X, Yu S, Jones J, et al. Changes in attitudes, knowledge and behavior associated with implementing a comprehensive school health program in a province of China . Health Education Research 2008; Vol.23 ( 6 ):1049–67. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Andersen 2012 {published data only}

Andersen A, Krolner RS, Nielsen L, Thygesen LC, Due P. Prevention of smoking among adolescents: First year results from the cluster randomised X:IT trial . European Journal of Epidemiology. Conference: IEA‐EEF European Congress of Epidemiology 2012: Epidemiology for a Fair and Healthy Society; Porto, Portugal. September . 2012.

Ariza 2008 {published data only}

Ariza C, Nebot M, Tomás Z, Giménez E, Valmayor S, Tarilonte V, et al. Longitudinal effects of the European smoking prevention framework approach (ESFA) project in Spanish adolescents . European Journal of Public Health 2008; 18 ( 5 ):491–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Baillie 2008 {published data only}

Baillie LE, Lovato CY, Taylor E, Rutherford MB, Smith M. The pit and the pendulum: the impact on teen smokers of including a designated smoking area in school tobacco control policy . Health Education Research 2008; 23 ( 6 ):1008–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Barnett 2007 {published data only}

Barnett TA, Gauvin L, Lambert M, O’Loughlin J, Paradis G, McGrath JJ. The influence of school smoking policies on student tobacco use . Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2007; 161 ( 9 ):842‐8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Boris 2009 {published data only}

Boris NW, Johnson CC, Huang S, Myers L, Andrew K, Webber LS. Targeting school tobacco policy: lessons from the Acadiana Coalition of Teens Against Tobacco (ACTT) . Health Promotion Practice 2009; 10 ( 4 ):549‐56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Clarke 1994 {published data only}

Clarke V, White V, Hill D, Borland R. School structural and policy variables associated with student smoking . Tobacco Control 1994; 3 ( 4 ):339‐46. [ Google Scholar ]

Darling 2003 {published data only}

Darling H, Reeder A. Smoke‐free schools? Results of a secondary school smoking policies survey 2002 . New Zealand Medical Journal 2003; 116 ( 1180 ):U560. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Darling 2006 {published data only}

Darling H, Reeder AI, Williams S, McGee R. Is there a relation between school smoking policies and youth cigarette smoking knowledge and behaviours? . Health Education Research 2006; 21 ( 1 ):108–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

De Vries 2003 {published data only}

Vries H, Mudde A, Kremers S, Wetzels J, Uiters E, Ariza C, et al. The European Smoking Prevention Framework Approach (ESFA): short‐term effects . Health Education Research 2003; 18 ( 6 ):649‐63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

De Vries 2006 {published data only}

Vries H, Dijk F, Wetzels J, Mudde A, Kremers S, Ariza C, et al. The European Smoking prevention Framework Approach (ESFA): effects after 24 and 30 months . Health Education Research 2006; 21 ( 1 ):116‐32. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Elder 1996 {published data only}

Elder JP, Perry CL, Stone EJ, Johnson CC, Yang M, Edmundson EW, et al. Tobacco use measurement, prediction, and intervention in elementary schools in four states: The CATCH Study . Preventive Medicine 1996; 25 ( 4 ):486‐94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Evans‐Whipp 2007 {published data only}

Evans‐Whipp TJ, Bond L, Toumbourou JW, Catalano RF. School, parent, and student perspectives of school drug policies . Journal of School Health 2007; 77 ( 3 ):138‐46. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Evans‐Whipp 2010 {published data only}

Evans‐Whipp TJ, Bond L, Ukoumunne OC, Toumbourou JW, Catalano RF. The impact of school tobacco policies on student smoking in Washington State, United States and Victoria, Australia . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2010; 7 ( 3 ):698‐710. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Galán 2012 {published data only}

Galán I, Díez‐Gañán L, Gandarillas A, Mata N, Cantero JL, Durbán M. Effect of a smoking ban and school‐based prevention and control policies on adolescent smoking in Spain: a multilevel analysis . Prevention Science 2012; 13 ( 6 ):574–83. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Garcìa‐Vàzquez 2009 {published data only}

García‐Vázquez J, Arbesú Fernández E, Rodríguez Vigil L, Alvarez Iglesias G, Fernández Rodríguez S, Mosquera Tenreiro C. Evaluation of a school based intervention to promote smokefree areas [Evaluaciòn de una intervenciòn de promociòn de espacios sin humo en el àmbito educativo]. Gaceta Sanitaria 2009; 23 ( 1 ):23–8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Gorini 2014 {published data only}

Gorini G, Carreras G, Bosi S, Tamelli M, Monti C, Storani S, et al. Effectiveness of a school‐based multi‐component smoking prevention intervention: the LdP cluster randomized controlled trial . Preventive Medicine 2014; 61 :6‐13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Griesbach 2002 {published data only}

Griesbach D, Inchley J, Currie C. More than words? The status and impact of smoking policies in Scottish schools . Health Promotion International 2002; 17 ( 1 ):31‐41. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Hamilton 2003 {published data only}

Hamilton G, Cross D, Lower T, Resnicow K, Williams P. School policy: What helps to reduce teenage smoking? . Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2003; 5 ( 4 ):507–13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Hamilton 2005 {published data only}

Hamilton G, Cross D, Resnicow K, Hall M. A school‐based harm minimization smoking intervention trial: outcome results. . Addiction 2005; 100 ( 5 ):689‐700. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Huang 2010 {published data only}

Huang HL, Chen FL, Hsu CC, Yen YY, Chen T, Huang CM, et al. A multilevel‐based study of school policy for tobacco control in relation to cigarette smoking among children in elementary schools: gender differences . Health Educ Res 2010; 25 ( 3 ):451‐63. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Johnson 2009 {published data only}

Johnson CC, Myers L, Webber LS, Boris NW, He H, Brewer D. A school‐based environmental intervention to reduce smoking among high school students: the Acadiana Coalition of Teens against Tobacco (ACTT) . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2009; 6 ( 4 ):1298‐316. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Kumar 2005 {published data only}

Kumar R, O'Malley PM, Johnston LD. School tobacco control policies related to students' smoking and attitudes toward smoking: national survey results, 1999‐2000 . Health Education & Behavior 2005; 32 ( 6 ):780‐94. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Labiris 2005 {published data only}

Labiris G, Voutsinas A, Niakas D. Preliminary evaluation of the school‐smoking‐prevention policy in Greece . European Journal of Public Health 2005; 15 ( 3 ):329‐30. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lipperman‐Kreda 2009a {published data only}

Lipperman‐Kreda S, Paschall MJ, Grube JW. Perceived enforcement of school tobacco policy and adolescents' cigarette smoking . Preventive Medicine 2009; 48 ( 6 ):562‐6. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lipperman‐Kreda 2009b {published data only}

Lipperman‐Kreda S, Grube JW. Students' perception of community disapproval, perceived enforcement of school antismoking policies, personal beliefs, and their cigarette smoking behaviors: results from a structural equation modelling analysis . Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2009; 11 ( 5 ):531‐9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lovato 2007 {published data only}

Lovato CY, Sabiston CM, Hadd V, Nykiforuk CI, Campbell HS. The impact of school smoking policies and student perceptions of enforcement on school smoking prevalence and location of smoking . Health Education Research 2007; 22 ( 6 ):782‐93. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lovato 2010a {published data only}

Lovato CY, Pullman AW, Halpin P, Zeisser C, Nykiforuk CI, Best F, et al. The influence of school policies on smoking prevalence among students in grades 5‐9, Canada, 2004‐2005 . Preventing Chronic Disease 2010; 7 ( 6 ):A129. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Lovato 2010b {published data only}

Lovato CY, Zeisser C, Campbell HS, Watts AW, Halpin P, Thompson M, et al. Adolescent smoking: effect of school and community characteristics . American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010; 39 ( 6 ):507‐14. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Maes 2003 {published data only}

Maes L, Lievens J. Can the school make a difference? Amultilevel analysis of adolescent risk and health behaviour . Social Science & Medicine 2003; 56 ( 3 ):517‐29. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Moon 1999 {published data only}

Moon AM, Mullee MA, Rogers L, Thompson RL, Speller V, Roderick P. Helping schools to become health‐promoting environments—an evaluation of the Wessex Healthy Schools Award . Health Promotion International 1999; 14 ( 2 ):111‐22. [ Google Scholar ]

Moore 2001 {published data only}

Moore L, Roberts C, Tudor‐Smith C. School smoking policies and smoking prevalence among adolescents: multilevel analysis of cross‐sectional data from Wales . Tobacco Control 2001; 10 ( 2 ):117‐23. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Murnaghan 2007 {published data only}

Murnaghan DA, Sihvonen M, Leatherdale ST, Kekki P. The relationship between school‐based smoking policies and prevention programs on smoking behavior among grade 12 students in Prince Edward Island: a multilevel analysis . Preventive Medicine 2007; 44 ( 4 ):317‐22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Murnaghan 2008 {published data only}

Murnaghan DA, Leatherdale ST, Sihvonen M, Kekki P. A multilevel analysis examining the association between school‐based smoking policies, prevention programs and youth smoking behavior: evaluating a provincial tobacco control strategy . Health Education Research 2008; 23 ( 6 ):1016‐28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Murnaghan 2009 {published data only}

Murnaghan DA, Leatherdale ST, Sihvonen M, Kekki P. School‐based tobacco‐control programming and student smoking behaviour. . Chronic Dis Can 2009; 29 ( 4 ):169‐77. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Novak 2001 {published data only}

Novak SP, Clayton RR. The influence of school environment and self‐regulation on transitions between stages of cigarette smoking: a multilevel analysis . Health Psychology 2001; 20 ( 3 ):196‐207. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

O'Brien 2010 {published data only}

O'Brien LM, Polacsek M, Macdonald PB, Ellis J, Berry S, Martin M. Impact of a school health coordinator intervention on health‐related school policies and student behavior . Journal of School Health 2010; 80 ( 4 ):176‐85. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Paek 2013 {published data only}

Paek HJ, Hove T, Oh HJ. Multilevel analysis of the impact of school‐level tobacco policies on adolescent smoking: the case of Michigan . Journal of School Health 2013; 83 ( 10 ):679‐89. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Pentz 1989 {published data only}

Pentz MA, Brannon BR, Charlin VL, Barrett EJ, MacKinnon DP, Flay BR. The power of policy: the relationship of smoking policy to adolescent smoking . American Journal of Public Health 1989; 79 ( 7 ):857‐62. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Pinilla 2002 {published data only}

Pinilla J, González B, Barber P, Santana Y. Smoking in young adolescents: an approach with multilevel discrete choice models . Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2002; 56 ( 3 ):227‐32. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Piontek 2008a {published data only}

Piontek D, Buehler A, Rudolph U, Metz K, Kroeger C, Gradl S, et al. Social contexts in adolescent smoking: does school policy matter? . Health Education Research 2008; 23 ( 6 ):1029‐38. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Piontek 2008b {published data only}

Piontek D, Buehler A, Donath C, Floeter S, Rudolph U, Metz K, Gradl S, Kroeger C. School Context Variables and Students’Smoking . Eur Addict Res 2008; 14 ( 1 ):53‐60. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Poulin 2007 {published data only}

Poulin CC. School smoking bans: do they help/do they harm? . Drug and Alcohol Review 2007; 26 ( 6 ):615‐24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Reitsma 2004 {published data only}

Reitsma AH, Manske S. Smoking in Ontario schools: does policy make a difference? . Canadian Journal of Public Health 2004; 95 ( 3 ):214‐8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Rosendhal 2002 {published data only}

Rosendahl KI, Galanti MR, Gilljam H, Bremberg S, Ahlbom A. School and class environments are differently linked to future smoking among preadolescents . Preventive Medicine 2002; 34 ( 6 ):649–54. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Roski 1997 {published data only}

Roski J, Perry CL, McGovern PG, Williams CL, Farbakhsh K, Veblen‐Mortenson S. School and community influences on adolescent alcohol and drug use . Health Education Research 1997; 12 ( 2 ):255‐66. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Sabiston 2009 {published data only}

Sabiston CM, Lovato CY, Ahmed R, Pullman AW, Hadd V, Campbell HS, et al. School smoking policy characteristics and individual perceptions of the school tobacco context: are they linked to students' smoking status? . Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2009; 38 ( 10 ):1374‐87. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Schofield 2003 {published data only}

Schofield MJ, Lynagh M, Mishra G. Evaluation of a Health Promoting Schools program to reduce smoking in Australian secondary schools. . Health Education Research 2003; 18 ( 6 ):678‐92. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Sinha 2004a {published data only}

Sinha DN, Gupta PC, Warren CW, Asma S. Effect of school policy on tobacco use by school personnel in Bihar, India . Journal of School Health 2004; 74 ( 1 ):3‐5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Sinha 2004b {published data only}

Sinha DN, Gupta PC, Warren CW, Asma S. School policy and tobacco use by students in Bihar, India . Indian Journal of Public Health 2004; 48 ( 3 ):118‐22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Trinidad 2005 {published data only}

Trinidad DR, Gilpin EA, Pierce JP. Compliance and support for smoke‐free school policies . Health Education Research 2005; 20 ( 4 ):466‐75. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wakefield 2000 {published data only}

Wakefield MA, Chaloupka FJ, Kaufman NJ, Orleans CT, Barker DC, Ruel EE. Effect of restrictions on smoking at home, at school, and in public places on teenage smoking: cross sectional study . BMJ 2000; 321 ( 7257 ):333‐7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Watts 2010 {published data only}

Watts AW, Lovato CY, Card A, Manske SR. Do students' perceptions of school smoking policies influence where students smoke?: Canada's Youth Smoking Survey . Cancer Causes & Control 2010; 21 ( 12 ):2085‐92. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wen 2010 {published data only}

Wen X, Chen W, Gans KM, Colby SM, Lu C, Liang C, et al. Two‐year effects of a school‐based prevention programme on adolescent cigarette smoking in Guangzhou, China: a cluster randomized trial . International Journal of Epidemiology 2010; 39 ( 3 ):860‐76. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wiium 2011a {published data only}

Wiium N, Burgess S, Moore L. Brief report: multilevel analysis of school smoking policy and pupil smoking behaviour in Wales . Journal of Adolescence 2011; 34 ( 2 ):385‐9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wiium 2011b {published data only}

Wiium N, Wold B. Actions taken by schools when tobacco policies are violated: associations with adolescent smoking prevalence . Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 2011; 25 ( 2 ):494‐501. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Wold 2004 {published data only}

Wold B, Torsheim T, Currie C, Roberts C. National and school policies on restrictions of teacher smoking: a multilevel analysis of student exposure to teacher smoking in seven European countries . Health Education Research 2004; 19 ( 3 ):217‐26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Østhus 2007 {published data only}

Østhus S, Pape H, Lund KE. Smoking restrictions and smoking prevalence in high schools [Røykerestriksjonerog røykevaner i videregående skole]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2007; 127 ( 9 ):1192‐4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Øverland 2010 {published data only}

Øverland S, Aarø LE, Lindbak RL. Associations between schools' tobacco restrictions and adolescents' use of tobacco . Health Education Research 2010; 25 ( 5 ):748‐56. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Additional references

Alesci 2003.

Alesci NL, Forster JL, Blaine T. Smoking visibility, perceived acceptability, and frequency in various locations among youth and adults . Preventive Medicine 2003; 36 ( 3 ):272–81. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Aveyard 2004

Aveyard P, Markham WA, Cheng KK. A methodological and substantive review of the evidence that schools cause pupils to smoke . Social Science & Medicine 2004; 58 ( 11 ):2253‐65. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Bandura 1986

Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action . New York: Prentice‐Hall, 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
Bowen DJ, Kinne S, Orlandi M. School policy in COMMIT: a promising strategy to reduce smoking by youth . Journal of School Health 1995; 65 ( 4 ):140‐4. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chen J, Millar WJ. Age of smoking initiation: implications for quitting . Health Reports 1998; 9 ( 4 ):39‐46. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

DiFranza 2007

DiFranza JR, Savageau JA, Fletcher K, O'Loughlin J, Pbert L, Ockene JK, et al. Symptoms of tobacco dependence after brief intermittent use: the Development and Assessment of Nicotine Dependence in Youth‐2 study . Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2007; 161 ( 7 ):704‐10. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Eccles 1999

Eccles JS, Roeser R. School and community influences on human development . In: Bornstein M, Lamb M editor(s). Developmental Psychology: An Advanced Textbook . 4th Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999:503‐4. [ Google Scholar ]

Evans‐Whipp 2004

Evans‐Whipp TJ, Beyers JM, Lloyd S, Lafazia AN, Toumbourou JW, Arthur MW, et al. A review of school drug policies and their impact on youth substance use . Health Promotion International 2004; 19 ( 2 ):227‐34. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Everett 1999

Everett SA, Warren CW, Sharp D, Kann L, Husten CG, Crossett LS. Initiation of cigarette smoking and subsequent smoking behaviour among U.S. high school students . Preventive Medicine 1999; 29 ( 5 ):327‐33. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Faggiano 2010

Faggiano F, Vigna‐Taglianti F, Burkhart G, Bohrn K, Cuomo L, Gregori D, et al. The effectiveness of a school‐based substance abuse prevention program: 18‐month follow‐up of the EU‐Dap cluster randomized controlled trial . Drug and Alcohol Dependendence 2010; 108 ( 1‐2 ):56‐64. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Fletcher 2008

Fletcher A, Bonell C, Hargreaves J. School effects on young people's drug use: a systematic review of intervention and observational studies . Journal of Adolescent Health 2008; 42 ( 3 ):209‐20. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Friend 2011

Friend KB, Lipperman‐Kreda S, Grube JW. The impact of local U.S. tobacco policies on youth tobacco use: A critical review . Open Journal of Preventive Medicine 2011; 1 ( 2 ):34‐43. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Galaif 1996

Galaif ER, Sussman S, Bundek N. The relations of school staff smokers’ attitudes about modelling smoking behaviour in students and their receptivity to no‐smoking policy . Journal of Drug Education 1996; 26 ( 4 ):313‐22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Galanti 2014

Galanti MR, Coppo A, Jonsson E, Bremberg S, Faggiano F. Anti‐tobacco policy in schools: upcoming preventive strategy or prevention myth? A review of 31 studies . Tobacco Control 2014; 23 ( 4 ):295‐301. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for SystematicReviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 . The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. [ Google Scholar ]

Iannotti 1992

Iannotti RJ, Bush PJ. Perceived vs. actual friends’ use of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and cocaine: which has the most influence? . Journal of Youth and Adolescence 1992; 21 ( 3 ):375–89. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Langford 2014

Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E, et al. The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well‐being of students and their academic achievement . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4 . [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008958.pub2] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lloyd B, Lucas K, Holland J, McGrellis S, Arnold S. Smoking in Adolescence: Images and Identities . New York: Routledge, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]

MacBride 2005

MacBride M. School Smoking Policy. Discussion Paper Prepared for Tobacco Control Program . Victoria, Canada: BC Ministry of Health, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]

Nakamura 2004

Nakamura M, Kitayama N, Inoue M. Smoke free schools . Japanese Journal of School Health 2004; 45 :502‐4. [ Google Scholar ]

Poulsen 2002

Poulsen LH, Osler M, Roberts C, Due P, Damsgaard MT, Holstein BE. Exposure to teachers smoking and adolescent smoking behaviour: analysis of cross sectional data from Denmark . Tobacco Control 2002; 11 ( 3 ):246‐51. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Reid D. Failure of an intervention to stop teenagers smoking . BMJ 1999; 319 ( 7215 ):934‐935. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Sellström 2006

Sellström E, Bremberg S. Is there a "school effect" on pupil outcomes? A review of multilevel studies . Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2006; 60 ( 2 ):149‐55. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Thomas 2013

Thomas RE, McLellan J, Perera R. School‐based programmes for preventing smoking . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 4 . [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001293.pub3] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tyas SL, Pederson LL. Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: a critical review of the literature . Tobacco Control 1998; 7 ( 4 ):409‐20. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Warren 2008

Warren CW, Jones NR, Peruga A, Chauvin J, Baptiste JP, Costa de Silva V. Global youth tobacco surveillance 2000‐2007 . MMWR Surveillance Summaries 2008; 57 ( 1 ):1–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
World Health Organization Tobacco Free Initiative. Tobacco Facts . www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/tobacco_facts/en/index.html (accessed May 2012).

Wilson 2012

Wilson LM, Avila Tang E, Chander G, Hutton HE, Odelola OA, Elf JL, et al. Impact of tobacco control interventions on smoking initiation, cessation, and prevalence: a systematic review . Journal of Environmental Public Health 2012; 2012 :961724. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

References to other published versions of this review

Coppo A, Galanti MR, Buscemi D, Giordano L, Faggiano F. School policies for preventing smoking among young people . Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 7 . [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009990] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Introduction

Materials and methods, the relationship between student smoking in the school environment and smoking onset in elementary school students.

Split-Screen
Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data
Peer Review
Open the PDF for in another window
Get Permissions
Cite Icon Cite
Search Site
Version of Record July 19 2005

Scott T. Leatherdale , Steve Manske; The Relationship Between Student Smoking in the School Environment and Smoking Onset in Elementary School Students. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1 July 2005; 14 (7): 1762–1765. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0065

Download citation file:

Ris (Zotero)
Reference Manager

This study examined how perceptions of student smoking in the school environment and the actual smoking rate among senior students at a school are related to smoking onset. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to examine correlates of ever smoking in a sample of 4,286 grade 6 and 7 students from 57 elementary schools in Ontario, Canada. Students are at increased risk for smoking if they (a) often see students smoking near their school, (b) report that students at their school smoke where they are not allowed, and (c) attend a school with a relatively high senior student smoking rate. Each 1% increase in the smoking rate among grade 8 students increased the odds that a student in grades 6 or 7 was an ever smoker versus never smoker (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.08). A low-risk student (no family or friends who smoke) was over twice as likely to try smoking if he/she attended a high-risk school. Prevention programs should target both at-risk schools and at-risk students, and strongly enforced policies preventing students from smoking on or near school property should be implemented.

Preventing young people from starting to smoke is critical for cancer control. The Theory of Triadic Influence ( 1 ) posits that factors from three different levels of context can influence youth smoking onset: individual characteristics (e.g., age and gender), characteristics in the immediate social environment surrounding youth (e.g., friends and family members), and characteristics in the broader social environment surrounding youth (e.g., school community). Understanding how factors from these contexts influence smoking onset can guide the development and implementation of new prevention initiatives.

Much research has examined the influence of individual characteristics and characteristics in the immediate social environment ( 2 - 4 ). Few studies have examined how school characteristics are related to youth smoking behavior ( 5 ). Considering that smoking rates vary across schools ( 5, 6 ) and that the variation is not caused by differences in student characteristics ( 6 ), it is important to identify the influential school characteristics associated with that variability.

Recent research has identified two influential school characteristics related to youth smoking. The first is school-level social modeling characteristics ( 7 - 10 ). For instance, smoking initiation is more likely to occur in schools with higher smoking rates in the senior student population ( 7 - 9 ). The second is school smoking restrictions ( 11 - 15 ). For instance, strong enforcement of school smoking restrictions is related to lower levels of student smoking ( 12 - 15 ).

The 1994 Ontario Tobacco Control Act banned smoking in school buildings and on school property in all publicly funded schools in Ontario, Canada ( 16 ). However, wide variation in the enforcement of these restrictions exists ( 17 ). As such, student perceptions of school smoking restrictions may have more influence on smoking behavior than the actual presence of a restriction. Furthermore, the number of smokers at a school may also influence student perceptions of school smoking restrictions because awareness of restrictions would partially depend on the prevalence of smokers affected by the restrictions ( 18 ).

The purpose of this study was to extend findings to a younger cohort and develop a more nuanced understanding of these phenomena by examining how the combination of (a) the prevalence of grade 8 students who smoke at a school and (b) student perceptions of smoking restrictions might interact to influence early initiation of smoking among younger students.

This study used cross-sectional elementary school data (grades 6-8) from the School Smoking Profile Project (details have been described previously; ref. 11 ). The School Smoking Profile is a data collection system using machine-readable questionnaires to measure tobacco use behavior and potential determinants of tobacco use of whole-school samples.

The School Smoking Profile was administered to students at 57 elementary schools (grades 6-8) in the province of Ontario, Canada. Passive consent was used to reduce demands on schools and to increase participation rates. The researcher informed the parents of the students via mail and asked them to call a toll-free phone number to their child's school if they declined participation. The University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics approved all procedures, including passive consent.

Participants

There were 7,044 grade 6, 7, and 8 students in the 57 elementary schools eligible to participate in the survey. Overall, 91.3% ( n = 6,431) of eligible students completed the School Smoking Profile. Missing respondents resulted from absenteeism on the day of the survey (6.1%) and parent/student refusal (2.6%).

Outcome Variables. Never smokers were defined as students who reported that they had never smoked a cigarette, not even a puff. Ever smokers were defined as students who reported that they had smoked a whole cigarette.

Predictor Variables. The validity and reliability of these measures has been reported previously ( 7 - 9, 11, 12 ).

Social Influences in the Broader School Environment. The senior student school-level smoking rate was operationally defined as the prevalence of grade 8 students in the school who reported that they were ever smokers and had smoked more than once in the 30 days before the survey (i.e., current smoker).

Student Perceptions of Smoking in the School Environment. Student perceptions of smoking at school were measured by asking students if they often see students smoking near their school (true or usually true/usually false or false), if their school has clear rules about smoking (true or usually true/usually false or false), if students at their school get into trouble for breaking smoking rules (true or usually true/usually false or false), and if students at their school smoke where they are not allowed (a lot or some/a few or none).

Social Influences in the Immediate Social Environment. Parental smoking was measured by asking students if they had a father who smoked (yes/no) or mother who smoked (yes/no). Sibling smoking was measured by asking students if they had an older brother or older sister who smoked (yes/no). Close friend smoking behavior was measured by asking students how many of their five closest friends smoked cigarettes (0-5).

Low-Risk Student. If a student had no close friends or family members who smoked, he/she was classified as a “low-risk” student.

High-Risk School. If a school had an above average grade 8 student smoking rate compared with the other 57 elementary schools, it was classified as a “high-risk” school.

First, a two step multilevel logistic regression analysis modeling procedure was used to differentiate ever smokers from never smokers. In step 1, a model was developed to test if the school-level differences in the odds of being either an ever smoker or never smoker were random or fixed. In step 2, a model was developed to examine the direct effect of the senior student smoking rate at a school and the direct effects of student perceptions of smoking in the school environment, controlling for the smoking behavior of family and friends, age, and gender. Second, multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to examine if a “low-risk” student was at increased risk for ever smoking if he/she attended a “high-risk” school. Statistical analyses were conducted with ML wiN Version 1.1 ( 19 ).

Demographics

The sample contained 2,758 grade 8 students and 4,286 students in grades 6 or 7 within the 57 schools. Of the grade 6 and 7 students, 282 (6.6%) were classified as ever smokers and 3,615 (84.3%) were classified as never smokers; the remaining 389 (9.1%) students reported that they had tried a puff of a cigarette but had not smoked a full cigarette and were excluded from the analysis. This distribution is consistent with 2002 data from the Canadian Youth Smoking Survey ( 20 ). Average age was 12.7 (±0.7) years and the sample was 51.2% female. Among all never smokers and ever smokers, 14.4% reported that they often see students smoking near their school, 43% reported that their school has clear rules about smoking, 62.1% reported that students at their school get in trouble for breaking the school smoking rules, and 10.8% reported that students at their school smoke where they are not allowed. A summary of school, family, and friend influences is presented in Table 1 . The average senior student smoking rate among the grade 8 students in the 57 elementary schools was 9.5% (range, 0-39%). Cameron et al. ( 9 ) reported a similar distribution.

Descriptive statistics for the sample of students in grades 6 and 7 who are ever smokers ( n = 282) and never smokers ( n = 3,615)

Multilevel Analysis of Ever Smoking

In step 1, significant [σ 2 μ 0 = 0.62(0.19), P < 0.001] between-school random variation was found. The school a student attended was very important; school-level differences accounted for 45.2% of the variability in the odds of being an ever smoker versus a never smoker.

Table 2 displays the results of step 2. Each 1% increase in the smoking rate among senior students increased the odds that a student in grade 6 or 7 was an ever smoker versus never smoker ( Fig. 1 ). Figure 1 also illustrates the significant contextual interaction between the senior student smoking rate in the school environment and a student's report about often seeing students smoking near the school; the senior student smoking rate at a school had a larger negative influence on students who reported that they do not often see students smoking near their school. The odds of a student being an ever smoker also increased if (a) he/she reported often seeing students smoking near their school (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-5.37) and (b) he/she reported that students at school smoke where they are not allowed (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-4.75).

A multilevel analysis of student smoking behavior in the school environment and the likelihood of being an ever smoker versus a never smoker

NOTE: 1 = ever smoker ( n = 282); 0 = never smoker ( n = 3,615). Controlling for parental and sibling smoking, close friend smoking, gender, and age.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; ns, not significant.

Figure 1. Model-based estimated odds ratio for being an ever smoker versus a never smoker as a function of the senior student smoking rate at a school and often seeing students smoking near the school.

Model-based estimated odds ratio for being an ever smoker versus a never smoker as a function of the senior student smoking rate at a school and often seeing students smoking near the school.

Low-Risk Students in High-Risk Schools

Overall, 1,400 (32.7%) students in grades 6 and 7 were classified as low-risk students, and 23 (40.3%) schools were classified as high-risk schools (grade 8 student smoking rate greater than 9.5%). The odds of a low-risk student being an ever smoker increased if he/she attended a high-risk school (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.75-3.15) even when controlling for student perceptions of smoking in the school environment, age, and gender.

This study found that ever smoking was more likely to occur among grade 6 and 7 students who (a) were in a school with a high prevalence of smokers among grade 8 students, (b) reported often seeing students smoking near their school, or (c) reported that students at their school smoke where they are not allowed. Students typically thought of as low-risk for smoking were more likely to smoke if they attended a high-risk school.

Influence of the School Environment

Characteristics of the school a student attends can influence the risk for smoking. If an student in grades 6 or 7 attends a school with a high prevalence of grade 8 students who smoke, he/she is more likely to be an ever smoker than a similar student attending a school with a lower prevalence of grade 8 students who smoke. This finding is consistent with research examining advanced smoking behavior among high school students ( 7, 8 ). As the prevalence of smoking among older students at a school increases, the chance of developing friendships with an older smoker may increase ( 21, 22 ), smoking may seem more normative and acceptable ( 23 ), more social sources of cigarettes might exist ( 24 ), and it may seem that social prestige or popularity could be improved by smoking ( 25 ). These factors could make a younger student more apt to try smoking ( 26 ).

It seems that a school with a large number of older students who smoke creates a high-risk environment for smoking among the younger students at that school. This finding supports existing research ( 7 - 9 ). In addition, the finding that low-risk students in high-risk schools are more than twice as likely to have tried smoking than their counterparts in low-risk schools suggests that characteristics within the school environment affect even the youth who are least vulnerable to smoking initiation. These findings provide empirical evidence supporting the current theoretical literature ( 1 ); characteristics of the school a student attends may be risk factors for smoking onset above and beyond the characteristics of the student.

Influence of Student Perceptions of Smoking in the School Environment

Student perceptions of smoking in their school environment can also influence the risk for smoking. If an elementary school student reports that they often see students smoking near their school or that students at their school smoke where they are not allowed, he/she is more likely to be an ever smoker than a similar student who does not report seeing student smoking near the school or where they are not allowed. This is also consistent with existing evidence for high school students ( 11, 12 ), and provides additional evidence that the enforcement of school smoking restrictions is an effective tobacco control measure among youth ( 12 - 15 ).

The use of students' perceptions of school smoking policy is a strength of this study when compared with studies that have used an administrator or teacher's report to define the school smoking policy ( 14, 15 ). Regardless of the actual level of enforcement, the perception that smoking restrictions are enforced provides an unequivocal message about the unacceptability of smoking ( 15 ).

Implications for Practice and Research

These findings suggest that it might be beneficial to expand the jurisdiction covered by school smoking restrictions to include the property surrounding a school. When the 1994 Tobacco Control Act banned student smoking on school property in Ontario, it pushed most student smoking from designated smoking areas located out of sight of most students, to highly visible areas in front of schools, at least in high school settings ( 17 ). This shift can inadvertently make smoking more visible and, hence, socially desirable to nonsmoking students ( 27 ). In response, research is required to determine if prohibiting students and adults from smoking in areas visible from a school impacts youth smoking onset and progression. Evidence from a case study where student smoking has been pushed further afield and out of site does support benefits of these actions ( 28 ). However, this approach does require considerably more commitment on the part of people responsible for enforcement (e.g., school staff) and may require buy-in from school neighbors to operate effectively.

These findings also confirm that there is a need to target high-risk elementary schools with prevention activities ( 9 ). By targeting high-risk schools, intensive prevention programs could be implemented in the schools that are putting students at the greatest risk for smoking. For example, low-risk students in grades 6 and 7 were over twice as likely to be ever smokers if they attended a school with an above average prevalence of grade 8 students who smoke. However, educators and public health personnel need school-level data to be able to target their interventions to these high-risk settings. Such targeting can also extend limited education and public health funds for intervention by reducing the number of schools that require intensive intervention.

The utility of the methodology used may also have application to other student health issues, such as physical inactivity and unhealthy eating; other key risk factors for cancer ( 29 ). A surveillance system that could facilitate identification of high-risk settings across multiple risk behaviors would further help rationalize costs of both prevention program planning and intervention. Indeed, a useful research study would answer whether schools that provide risky environments for one type of behavior also contribute to risk for other behaviors.

Limitations

The cross-sectional design of this study precludes examination of temporal relationships among variables. For instance, it would be illuminating to know how patterns of student smoking surrounding a school influence the number of friendships a young person develops with smokers and how entering a high-risk school affects the emergence of smoking friendships. Longitudinal data are required to address such questions. Data were also based on self-reports so the validity of the responses may be questioned. However, the measures in the School Smoking Profile have been previously shown to be reliable and valid; honest reporting was encouraged by ensuring confidentiality during data collection, and some students were asked to provide preannounced saliva samples for biochemical validation to further encourage honest reporting.

This study confirms that social modeling of smoking behavior in the school environment is related to smoking onset in elementary school students. A school with a large number of older students who smoke creates a high-risk environment for smoking among the younger students at that school, above and beyond the characteristics of the student. Furthermore, low-risk youth in grades 6 and 7 are at significantly greater risk of smoking if they attend an elementary school with a relatively high prevalence of smoking among grade 8 students. Prevention programs should target both at-risk schools and at-risk students, and strongly enforced policies preventing students from smoking on or near school property should be implemented.

Grant support: Social Science and Humanities Research Council, and Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation, Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Online First
Online ISSN 1538-7755
Print ISSN 1055-9965

AACR Journals

Blood Cancer Discovery
Cancer Discovery
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Immunology Research
Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Research
Cancer Research Communications
Clinical Cancer Research
Molecular Cancer Research
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Info for Advertisers
Information for Institutions/Librarians

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Smoking in Schools

There is an increasing recognition of the need to restrict smoking in the workplace for employee well-being, medical, legal and financial reasons. This includes recognition of the health effects of passive smoking, and of the need to manage the risk of liability from diseases caused by smoking, as well as encouraging smoking cessation as part of employee health promotion in the workplace.

The secondary objectives of the School’s smoking policy are to protect learners and non-smokers from exposure to second-hand smoke, to enhance the air quality of the work environment for all, and to comply with all relevant legislation in this regard.

Employees who do smoke are therefore expected to respect the health rights of learners and all non-smokers, as well as the preferences of non-smokers while at work, and on the School’s premises.

ISASA member schools are not required to make use of this policy; it is provided by way of example. As a Pro Forma (standardised draft) document, this policy should also be appropriately and properly customised by the user to suit their requirements.

You cannot copy content from this page

IELTS Scores
Life Skills Test
Find a Test Centre
Alternatives to IELTS
General Training
Academic Word List
Topic Vocabulary
Collocation
Phrasal Verbs
Writing eBooks
Reading eBook
All eBooks & Courses
Sample Essays
Ban Smoking Essay

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay

This is a ban smoking in public places essay. It is an example of an essay where you have to give your opinion as to whether you agree or disagree.

The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

It is always a good idea to present a balanced essay which presents both sides of the argument, but you must always make it very clear what your opinion is and which side of the argument you support.

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Smoking not only harms the smoker, but also those who are nearby. Therefore, smoking should be banned in public places.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

Model Answer:

Medical studies have shown that smoking not only leads to health problems for the smoker, but also for people close by. As a result of this, many believe that smoking should not be allowed in public places. Although there are arguments on both sides, I strongly agree that a ban is the most appropriate course of action.

Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons. Firstly, they say that passive smokers make the choice to breathe in other people’s smoke by going to places where it is allowed. If they would prefer not to smoke passively, then they do not need to visit places where smoking is permitted. In addition, they believe a ban would possibly drive many bars and pubs out of business as smokers would not go there anymore. They also argue it is a matter of freedom of choice. Smoking is not against the law, so individuals should have the freedom to smoke where they wish.

However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban. First and foremost, it has been proven that tobacco consists of carcinogenic compounds which cause serious harm to a person’s health, not only the smoker. Anyone around them can develop cancers of the lungs, mouth and throat, and other sites in the body. It is simply not fair to impose this upon another person. It is also the case that people’s health is more important than businesses. In any case, pubs and restaurants could adapt to a ban by, for example, allowing smoking areas.

In conclusion, it is clear that it should be made illegal to smoke in public places. This would improve the health of thousands of people, and that is most definitely a positive development.

(290 words)

This essay is well organized and presented.

The introduction is clear - note how it follows the ban smoking in public places essay question - it paraphrases the information in order to introduce the topic and the argument.

The argument against a ban on smoking in public places is presented first. It is made clear that it is not the authors opinion by the topic sentence:

"Opponents of such a ban argue against it for several reasons".

And also by the use of the word 'they' to refer to the opponents.

The writer then clearly shows they are moving on to the other argument which is their own (and it has clearly been stated in the thesis that this is their argument):

"However, there are more convincing arguments in favour of a ban".

In this paragraph, 'they' is dropped because it is now the writers opinion.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

Human Cloning Essay: Should we be scared of cloning humans?

Human cloning essay - this is on the topic of cloning humans to use their body parts. You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts, and what reservations (concerns) you have.

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay: Should we all be vegetarian to be healthy?

Vegetarianism Essay for IELTS: In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

Click on the HTML link code below.
Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

All Lessons
Band Score Calculator
Writing Feedback
Speaking Feedback
Teacher Resources
Free Downloads
Recent Essay Exam Questions
Books for IELTS Prep
Useful Links

Recent Articles

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

IMAGES

Smoking and Drugs Essay for Students, Children
No Smoking on School Grounds Essay Example
Smoking Informative Essay
Smoking Should Be Banned Essay In English || Essay on Smoking Should Be
≫ Effects of Vaping and Tobacco Smoking: Free Essay Sample on Samploon.com
Pin on essay

VIDEO

Why are you smoking at school??? 😡😡😡😡
Essay on smoking in public places should be banned || Essay writing in English|| essay writing
essay on smoking in english/dhumrapan per nibandh
Essay on Smoking in Urdu
Horrible facts about smoking you never knew before #smoking #factshorts
10 lines on smoking in hindi/dhumrapan per nibandh

COMMENTS

Essay on Smoking in English for Students
500 Words Essay On Smoking. One of the most common problems we are facing in today's world which is killing people is smoking. A lot of people pick up this habit because of stress, personal issues and more. In fact, some even begin showing it off. When someone smokes a cigarette, they not only hurt themselves but everyone around them.
Teenage Smoking Essay: Writing Guide & Smoking Essay Topics
Smoking in School Essay Prompt . Despite the implementation of smoke-free policies, a large percentage of teenagers start smoking during their school years. You can write an essay advocating for more effective initiatives to address not only students' access to cigarettes but also the core causes of teen smoking.
235 Smoking Essay Topics & Titles for Smoking Essay + Examples
In your essay about smoking, you might want to focus on its causes and effects or discuss why smoking is a dangerous habit. Other options are to talk about smoking prevention or to concentrate on the reasons why it is so difficult to stop smoking. Here we've gathered a range of catchy titles for research papers about smoking together with ...
Essay on Teenage Smoking
Teenage smoking has detrimental social and psychological consequences. It can lead to isolation, peer pressure, and impaired social skills. Smokers are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, such as alcohol consumption and drug abuse. Moreover, smoking can negatively impact academic performance, concentration, and memory.
Writing a Smoking Essay. Complete Actionable Guide
Whether you are writing a teenage smoking essay or a study of health-related issues, you need to stay objective and avoid including any judgment into your assignment. Even if you are firmly against smoking, do not let emotions direct your writing. You should also keep your language tolerant and free of offensive remarks or generalizations.
Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned
Campus Smoking: Conclusion of the Essay. In conclusion, smoking should be totally banned in campuses and colleges because of its severe health risks to both smokers and non-smokers. The health risks are much more to non-smokers because they may double up especially to those who already suffer from other ailments such as heart and lung problems.
The Influence of School Smoking Policies on Student Tobacco Use
Of students aged 13 years, 3.8% of boys and 7.1% of girls smoked daily; 21.0% of boys and 25.2% of girls aged 16 years smoked daily. Of schools, 28.0% permitted staff to smoke indoors, 84.1% permitted staff to smoke outdoors on school grounds, and 83.2% permitted students to smoke outdoors on school grounds.
1 Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions
Tobacco use is a global epidemic among young people. As with adults, it poses a serious health threat to youth and young adults in the United States and has significant implications for this nation's public and economic health in the future (Perry et al. 1994; Kessler 1995). The impact of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use on chronic disease, which accounts for 75% of American spending ...
PDF How Schools Can Help Students Stay Tobacco-Free
education.13 Many schools are already required to prohibit smoking because the Federal Pro Children's Act of 1994 prohibits smoking in facilities that regularly provide certain Federally-funded children's services.14 Provide comprehensive tobacco prevention education. School-based education programs to prevent and reduce
The Influence of the Social Environment on Youth Smoking Status
Pro-smoking attitudes and behaviors in the social environment are important institutional factors that can strongly influence youth smoking status. Ambient school-level attitudes and behaviors predict youth smoking susceptibility net of individual factors. Hispanic youth have increased risk of being susceptible nonsmokers relative to non ...
Examples & Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking
Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking. Smoking is one of the leading causes of preventable death in the world. It leads to adverse health effects, including lung cancer, heart disease, and damage to the respiratory tract. However, the number of people who smoke cigarettes has been on the rise globally. A lot has been written on topics related ...
Essay on Smoking for Students and Children in English 500 words
Smoking has a multitude of detrimental physiological, psychological, and social effects that can have a significant negative impact on a person's life. Smoking can have a negative impact on our health. Smoking has a major negative influence on the lungs. Smoking is the primary cause of one-third of all cancer cases.
impact of school smoking policies and student perceptions of
Introduction. School-based strategies are a key element in adolescent tobacco control because school environments are established systems in which adolescent behavior can be targeted and in which social behaviors are reinforced [1, 2].School tobacco policies are critical to a comprehensive adolescent tobacco control program, yet research to date shows inconsistencies in the way policies are ...
Essay: Causes and Effects of Smoking Among Students
The aim of the study is to investigate the motives for starting smoking, the factors that contribute to smoking initiation and how high school students become "regular smokers" from "trying" tobacco products. In February 2019, two focus group discussions were organized to obtain information on young people's smoking experience.
The youth vaping epidemic: Addressing the rise of e-cigarettes in schools
In 2018, 22% of 16-year-olds and 24% of 17-year-olds reported smoking an e-cigarette. This is an increase from 2017, when 11% of 16-year-olds and 14% of 17-year-olds reported smoking an e ...
Essay on Stop Smoking
Benefits of Quitting Smoking. Quitting smoking brings immediate and long-term benefits. Within 20 minutes of quitting, heart rate and blood pressure drop. Within a year, the risk of heart disease is halved. Over time, the risk of stroke, lung cancer, and other diseases decrease significantly.
The Student Vaping Crisis: How Schools Are Fighting Back
"It's been a challenge for us administratively in all of education, and it's a challenge in society," said J. Eric Diener, the principal of Eisenhower High School in Yakima, Wash., where ...
School policies for preventing smoking among young people
Health Environment in school: No‐smoking signs were placed in the school yards. Peer education was conducted to help smokers to quit smoking. ... Students participated in smoking cessation‐related activities including essay competitions, signing a non‐smoking pledge, Additional components: No‐Tobacco‐Day theme activities, self ...
The Relationship Between Student Smoking in the School Environment and
Abstract. This study examined how perceptions of student smoking in the school environment and the actual smoking rate among senior students at a school are related to smoking onset. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to examine correlates of ever smoking in a sample of 4,286 grade 6 and 7 students from 57 elementary schools in Ontario, Canada. Students are at increased risk for ...
Smoking in Schools
The secondary objectives of the School's smoking policy are to protect learners and non-smokers from exposure to second-hand smoke, to enhance the air quality of the work environment for all, and to comply with all relevant legislation in this regard. Employees who do smoke are therefore expected to respect the health rights of learners and ...
How Can We Stop School Children Smoking?
18th May 2012. The announcement of a new lottery-funded project to help young people stop smoking in Wales has thrown the spotlight on the worryingly high numbers of school children who are smoking cigarettes. The BIG Lottery Fund will provide over £850,000 of funding to Ash Wales, an anti-smoking charity, to run the new Young People's Quit ...
Essay Smoking Should Be Banned In School
The only thing comes out of smoking is pleasure and it is a personal freedom verses public health issues. Some of the harmful effects of lung disease, cancers, heart disease and emphysema. Banning smoking also helps the smoker to quit, since they are unable to smoke much if they live on campus.
Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay
Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay. This is a ban smoking in public places essay. It is an example of an essay where you have to give your opinion as to whether you agree or disagree. The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

Essay on Smoking

Ill-Effects of Smoking

How to Quit Smoking?

Conclusion of the Essay on Smoking

FAQ of Essay on Smoking

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Download the App

Teenage Smoking Essay: Writing Guide & Smoking Essay Topics

🔗 References

🚬 Argumentative Essay on Smoking

📈 Cause and Effect Essay on Smoking

🚭 Persuasive Essay on Smoking

🔥 Smoking Essay Topics

Teenage Smoking Essay Prompts

Effects of Teenage Smoking Essay Prompt

Smoking in School Essay Prompt

Peer Pressure Smoking Essay Prompt

Causes of Smoking Essay Prompt

Smoking Is Bad for Health Essay Prompt

Is Smoking Still a Problem Among Teenagers: Argumentative Essay Prompt

How To Write A Smoking Essay That Will Blow Your Classmates out of the Water

Why Choose a Smoking Essay?

Essential Considerations for Your Essay on Smoking

How to Generate Endless Smoking Essay Topic Ideas

How To Write An Essay About Smoking Cigarettes

Smoking Essay Introduction

Smoking Essay Conclusion

Bonus Tips on How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Conclusion of Smoking Should Be Banned on College Campuses Essay

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

What You Need To Know About Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay Examples About Smoking

Argumentative Essay About Smoking Examples

Tips for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Smoking

Choose a Specific Angle

Research the Facts

Make an Outline

Use Persuasive Language

Introduce Opposing Arguments

Finish Strong

Keep reading

Article Contents

The impact of school smoking policies and student perceptions of enforcement on school smoking prevalence and location of smoking

Participants

Data sources and measures

School tobacco policy implementation

Student smoking and perceptions of policy enforcement

Data analyses

Differences between intention and implementation subscales

Predictors of school smoking prevalence and location of smoking behavior

Smoking location: at school, on school property

Smoking location: at school, off school property

Email alerts

Affiliations

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Essay: Causes and Effects of Smoking Among Students

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

The youth vaping epidemic: Addressing the rise of e-cigarettes in schools

Vaping is on the rise in schools

Examining a potential ban of flavored e-cigarettes

Should the age limit be increased?

State and local action

Essay on Stop Smoking

100 Words Essay on Stop Smoking

The Dangers of Smoking

Ways to Quit

Benefits of Quitting

250 Words Essay on Stop Smoking

Smoking and Its Socioeconomic Impact

The Power of Prevention

Personal Responsibility and Collective Action

500 Words Essay on Stop Smoking

The Health Hazards of Smoking

The Economic Impact of Smoking

Environmental Consequences

The Social Aspect of Smoking

Benefits of Quitting Smoking