2a. Identify and explain the public health risk highlighted in Source A. (4 marks)
According to Source A, the public health risk highlighted is second hand smoke (SHS). In the picture, since the smokers, who are the parents, are smoking in the public area, thus lead to the people around them, who are their children, unavoidably inhale the SHS. They look very bitter and they have to wear masks to avoid the SHS. Thus, lead to poor respiratory health of both smokers and the surrounding people and increase the risk of getting respiratory disease, which add burden to the medical system in Hong Kong. Therefore, to sum up, the public health risk highlighted is second hand smoke (SHS).
2c. Which two tobacco control policies shown in
…show more content…
For warning labels on cigarette packets, it is less effective than the two because the smokers can just ignore them and they will not have any money loss if they do not study the warning labels just like the taxation policy, thus they will not have much motivation to give up smoking and this policy can just raise the awareness of the harmful effects of smoking among the smokers to a small extent. For bans on cigarette advertisement, it is not as effective as the two because the root cause of the public health risk is that people lacks understanding of the harmful effects of smoking, this policy is not focusing on the root cause, but curing the symptoms only. Also, they can still buy cigarettes at the same price with any added taxation, thus less effective than the taxation policy as people are reluctant to give up smoking because no economic mean is used. For programmes for giving up smoking, although the correspondence and profoundness are the same as anti-smoking campaigns promoted through the mass media since it can tackle the root problem and raise the awareness of giving up smoking in the general public in Hong Kong, the comprehensiveness is not high because according to the sources, share of world population is 28% for anti-smoking campaigns, but only 14% for programmes for giving up smoking in 2010. Therefore, it is not as effective as the