Implications of Oklahoma House Bill 1341 of 2015

Implications of okay manse add-in 1341 of 2015Kesha AbbanantoIn looking over the multitude of government notes being presented to the 2015 Regular Session of the Oklahoma secernate Legislature, m whatsoever could be related to health. wellness is affected by so m either issues one could think over how an agricultural food labeling note of hand or a burn ban could potenti entirelyy amaze ostracise consequence to ones health. The add up of legislature presented in the 2015 session was a little sc ar away but quite educational. At this time, at that place is no shortage of health related bills in this evince.virtuoso such piece of legislation introduced deals with an issue affecting minorren nationwide smoking bandage a child is passenger in a get fomite. Second-hand smoke causes numerous complications to the health of non-smokers most of which are all in all preventable. Children are vulnerable to the dangers of second-hand smoke, such as asthma, bronchitis and lung infections (Rees Connolly, 2006). Jarvie Malone (2008) state effects of second hand smoke on children are sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory issues, lung asscer, and heart disease, to name a few. The authors go on to say, although, the issue of an adults right to smoke threatens autonomy, the childrens health and well-being should be the principal(a) commission (Jarvie Malone, 2008). Desapriya, Turcotte, Subzwari, Pike (2009) explain that toxin concentrations within a motor fomite containing cigarette smoke is twenty-three times greater than that of a bar and they further point out that many national areas already discourage or prohibit smoking due to the negative health effects of cigarette smoke. Murphy-Hoefer, Madden, Maines, Coles (2014) make-up the prevalence smoking in railroad car and space were significantly decreased after Maine passed its smokeless vehicle faithfulness. This result is stick outive of the implementation of rights such as Oklahoma H.B . 1341 (2015).IssueOklahoma syndicate Bill No. 1341 was introduced to the Oklahoma planetary house of Representatives on February 2, 2015, where it was read for the first time in the House. The second instruction occurred on February 3, 2015 and it was then then forwarded to the House Alcohol, baccy, and Cont paradiddleed Substances Committee, where it remains. The bill was authored and sponsored by Oklahoma Representative Jason Dunnington. It would act as a new truth under Crimes and Punishments within Title 21 and under Public wellness and Safety within Title 63 (Oklahoma H.B. 1341, 2015 The Oklahoma State Courts Network, 2014).Bill SummaryOklahoma House Bill 1341 (2015) deals with the subject of an act relating to tobacco use that makes smoking in a vehicle plot of land a minor child is present, unlawful. infringement penalty, defining terms, and effects on driving commemorate are disclosed as well.H.B. 1341 (2015) proposes that no person whitethorn smoke in a motor vehi cle where a child is present. The result of this violation would be a fine of one hundred dollars. The bill defines a child as a person sixteen years old or younger and defines smoke as the burning of, inhaling from, exhaling the smoke from or the possession of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco or any other matter that can be smoked (Oklahoma H.B. 1341, 2015). The bill additionally states that the Department of Public Safety will not record points toward the driving record of a person when convicted of a violation of this law. The projected effective date of this bill is November 1, 2015.Policy InitiationThe model design that would most effectively produce the desired results is the Kingdon model of order of business setting and insurance formation. This model was developed in 1984 by Professor John Kingdon. He launch three streams problem, policy, and political that can facilitate government policy changes. When these thre e streams come together, a windowpane of opportunity opens (Funiversal resource locatorong, 2016).The identified problem is the harmful effect victimized smoke has on children in motor vehicles. Children usually do not have a choice of who they ride with and whether more or lessone in the car smokes, yet they are at a greater risk of second-hand smoke damage due to a faster breathing rate and immune systems that are less developed (Clinical Digest, 2012). Even when windows are roll down the car window, the levels of toxic matter exceed maximum limits set for safety.The policy stream is the proposed law of Oklahoma House Bill 1341 (2015). Research in the area of negative health effects of secondhand smoke to children support the need for mandates created for accountability of persons who smoke around children in the confines of a vehicle. Violation of this mandate should result in a fine.The political stream is supported by non-smoking laws already passed by legislatures such as Ok lahoma Statutes on Smoking in Public Places and Indoor Workplaces which includes childcare facilities, the focus on preventive health measures in Obamacare, and for growing concern for the health rights of those that do not have a say in their exposure.With the converging of these three streams, the window of opportunity for H.B. 1341 (2015) is open and it is likely public opinion on this subject will support change.ImplementationThis bill could potentially change and/or improve the health of children in Oklahoma. The long term effects of better children will be healthier adults, thus projecting a future decrease in health care cost would be acceptable. Passing this legislation will be a step forward in protecting the rights of those who do not have a say. H.B. 1341 (2015) is currently in the House Alcohol, Tobacco, and Controlled Substances Committee. At this stage in the process, there is still time for nurses to become politically involved in support of this bill.Lanier (2016) s uggests strategies individuals can participate in advocacy of legislative change. Lobbying legislators by mail, social media, or personally are examples of advocacy. Since the bill has remained in the House Alcohol, Tobacco, and Controlled Substances Committee from February 3, 2015 to present, ghost with this committee would be reasonable, followed by contact with your area Representatives.Tips for communication in create verbally to a legislator, if a nurse chooses, include professionally worded personal letters with professional credentials and contact information added. Research articles that support your position on the bill are encouraged attachments. Phone calls or email can be apply when making initial contact or follow up (Lanier, 2016).Social media is an additional method of communication (Lanier, 2016). Organization online platforms, networking sites, blogs, and online media are great ways to draw support or attention to a topic and an efficient way to disperse informat ion.Additionally, in-person contacts are effective and can make a lasting impact on legislators, staff, and professional and layperson alike. If an in-person meeting is scheduled, remember to include credentials when identifying one self, structure your time well, and do not assume the legislator understands technological medical jargon (Lanier, 2016). Lanier further recommends to providing a one page summary of key points and to send a thank you note or email after the meeting (Lanier, 2016).Education can and should be used in all of the above venues. Nurses can offer unique perspectives and insight to various topics due to the constitution of their profession and all that nursing addresses when it comes to patient, community, and global issues. Nurses can also join professional peer committees and groups so one voice becomes many. The American Nurses Association is one such professional group that is politically active. The fall in of nurses to focus on specific issues is an e ffective way to support positive legislative change in healthcare.ImplicationsStakeholders in H.B. 1341 (2015) are in one of two groups pro-tobacco stakeholders or anti-tobacco stakeholders. Both sides have interest in the outcome of this bill and those groups are listed below as identified by the Centers for unhealthiness Control and Prevention, (2008)Pro-tobacco stakeholdersTobacco growersTobacco processing companiesTobacco manufacturersCigarette manufacturersAdvertisersSmokers or right-to-smoke supportersAnti-tobacco stakeholdersGovernment agencies like public health departments and the Centers for Disease Control and PreventionState tobacco control programsHealth care insurance providersLocal smoke-free programs and lawsSmoke-free associations and supportersHealthcare professionalsChild health protection groups and supportersOklahoma H.B. 1341 (2015) would include anyone who smokes in a motor vehiclewhile a child is present, children that are in vehicles while someone smokes, t he healthcare system, and any of the above listed groups.Excluded from this bill would be non-smokers, those that do not smoke while children are in the vehicle, children who do not ride in vehicles with a smoker, and those that do not care to get involved.EvaluationThe military rating of policy is a normal event in the political arena. Government funded programs, non-profit organizations, and many private foundations take away regular evaluation of programs or policies to ensure programs are conducted properly, that set goals are being met, and that the outcomes are coveted (Sudduth, 2016). Advanced Practice Registered Nurses and nurses are accustomed to evaluation and have used this method to measure things such as programs, goals, self, clinical-based outcomes, and effectiveness of treatments. The evaluation of policy is a natural extension of this skill and one that comes in handy in politics. The evaluation of the bill presented in this paper, is listed below in five response sThe problem that need to be addressed is children being exposed to second-hand smoke in motor vehicles, where they cannot get away from it.Although there arent effective to a faultls for stopping this from happening at this time, laws have been made to limit or bend smoking in some public areas and facilities.Advantages of this bill are that it will not cost the state any additional funds to initiate and enforce this law and much of the public should accept this law due to the health risks to the child. Other positive outcomes are that fines from violations of the law should increase state funds and health risks from second-hand smoke should decrease as a result of this bill being signed into law.Disadvantages of H.B. 1341 (2015) are that some of the public may not support the law due to feelings of rights infringement and fines may prove too costly for some violators. The effectiveness of this law is only as good as the enforcement of said law, enforcement of not smoking in a v ehicle with a child may be difficult to enforce. Also, law may be tied up ticketing this population, instead of fulfilling other lawful duties.Fines for smoking while a child is in the motor vehicle can be an effective tool in reduction this issue. However, law enforcement officer time directed toward upholding this law could leave other, more pressing matters unattended. Additionally, enforcement of this law may prove to be difficult, as smoking can be easily concealed.ConclusionDuring the course of this year and in writing this paper, I have realized how little I knew about politics and the amount of advocacy useable for nurses to partake in. I have learned much but have volumes stay to learn. The need for nurses to be advocates beyond the bedside is dire and educating nurses beyond nursing school of these opportunities are a essential for effective healthcare changes to culminate from support and efforts of the profession. Participation in local or work-related political ori ent events would be one way to increase knowledge, awareness, and empowerment of nurses. Issues like H.B. 1341 (2015) are easy to understand, easy to support, and the benefits to a childs health is evident in research. These points make exposure to this piece of legislation the correct starter for nurses that are new to politics.The issue of smoking in a motor vehicle while a child is present is an international issue. Although this bill will only be an enforceable law in the state of Oklahoma, similar laws have already been passed in other cities, states, and countries. With the educational information available concerning this subject, Im hopeful the importance of this issue is noted so this law will reclaim support by legislators. The confinement of a car combined with smoking produces increased health risks for children. With all of the potential dangers out there, passing H.B. 1341 (2015) can help in controlling preventable health issues children verbalism when subjected to second-hand smoke in a motor vehicle.ReferencesCenters for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Evaluation toolkit for smoke-free policies.Retrieved May 16, 2015, fromwww.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/evaluation_toolkit/pdfs/evaluation_toolkit.pdfClinical digest . (2012). Smoking in cars likely to be harmful to child passengers health. NursingStandard, 27(11), 14. Retrieved fromhttp//ezproxy.okbu.edu2048/login?url=http//search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truedb=c8hAN=2011758286site=ehost-livescope=siteDesapriya, E., Turcotte, K., Subzwari, S., Pike, I. (2009). Smoking inside vehicles should bebanned globally. American Journal Of Public Health, 99(7), 1158-1159. inside10.2105/AJPH.2009.160127Furlong, E. A. (2016). The Impact of Social Media and the Internet on Healthcare Decisions. In J.Milstead (Ed.), Health policy and politics A nurses guide (pp. 50-54). Burlington, MA Jones and Bartlett Learning.Jarvie, J., Malone, R. (2008). Childrens secondhand smok e exposure in private homes andcars an ethical analysis. American Journal Of Public Health, 98(12), 2140-2145. doi10.2105/AJPH.2007.130856Lanier, J. K. (2016). The Impact of Social Media and the Internet on Healthcare Decisions. In J.Milstead (Ed.), Health policy and politics A nurses guide (pp. 87-90). Burlington, MA Jones and Bartlett Learning.Murphy-Hoefer, R., Madden, P., Maines, D., Coles, C. (2014). Prevalence of smoke-free carand home rules in Maine before and after passage of a smoke-free vehicle law, 2007-2010. Prevention of Chronic Disease, 11. 130-132. Retrieved fromwww.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2014/pdf/13_0132.pdfOklahoma H.B. 1341. (2015). Retrieved April 25, 2015 fromhttp//www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB%201341Rees, V.W., Connolly, G. (2006). Measuring air quality to protect children from secondhandsmoke in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(5), 363-368. Retrieved fromhttp//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17046406?dopt=AbstractPlusSudduth, A. (2016). The Impact of Social Media and the Internet on Healthcare Decisions. In J.Milstead (Ed.), Health policy and politics A nurses guide (pp. 196-207). Burlington, MA Jones and Bartlett Learning.The Oklahoma State Courts Network. (2014). Oklahoma Statutes Citationized. Retrieved May16, 2015, from http//www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/index.asp?ftdb=STOKSTlevel=1