The implementation and enforcement of tobacco control laws: policy implications for activists and the industry
- PMID: 10386327
- DOI: 10.1215/03616878-24-3-567
The implementation and enforcement of tobacco control laws: policy implications for activists and the industry
Abstract
We examine the process by which antitobacco laws and ordinances were implemented and enforced in seven states and nineteen localities. Our findings indicate that state- and local-level clean indoor air laws were rarely enforced by governmental agencies. Instead, these laws were largely self-enforcing in that changed social norms regarding appropriate smoking behavior led to generally high compliance rates. In contrast, teen access laws were not self-enforcing, but were often enforced through periodic vendor compliance checks. We also found that antitobacco forces did not devote a significant amount of attention of implementation and enforcement issues. Their focus was primarily on enacting new legislation and fighting tobacco industry attempts to weaken existing laws. Our results do not augur well for public health measures that require state-level enforcement and that are opposed by powerful and politically well-connected interests. For tobacco control laws to be effective, public health advocates need to consider the locus of enforcement responsibility and the sanctions available to the enforcement agency, such as license removal by local authorities. These results suggest that failure to specify such mechanisms in the legislation will lead to delays in implementing and enforcing the laws as well as to a number of compliance problems. Antitobacco coalitions will also need to become more actively involved in the implementation and enforcement process.
Similar articles
-
The Duluth clean indoor air ordinance: problems and success in fighting the tobacco industry at the local level in the 21st century.Am J Public Health. 2003 Aug;93(8):1214-21. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.8.1214. Am J Public Health. 2003. PMID: 12893598 Free PMC article.
-
Oklahoma tobacco policy-making.J Okla State Med Assoc. 2005 Mar;98(3):89-94. J Okla State Med Assoc. 2005. PMID: 15822722
-
Tobacco Institute lobbying at the state and local levels of government in the 1990s.Tob Control. 2002 Mar;11 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):I102-9. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i102. Tob Control. 2002. PMID: 11893820 Free PMC article.
-
The politics of antismoking legislation.J Health Polit Policy Law. 1993 Winter;18(4):787-819. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1993. PMID: 8120346 Review.
-
Teen penalties for tobacco possession, use, and purchase: evidence and issues.Tob Control. 2003 Jun;12 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):i6-13. doi: 10.1136/tc.12.suppl_1.i6. Tob Control. 2003. PMID: 12773781 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Failure of policy regarding smoke-free bars in the Netherlands.Eur J Public Health. 2013 Feb;23(1):139-45. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr173. Epub 2011 Dec 5. Eur J Public Health. 2013. PMID: 22143826 Free PMC article.
-
Community guide recommendations and state level tobacco control programmes: 1999-2004.Tob Control. 2007 Oct;16(5):318-24. doi: 10.1136/tc.2006.019372. Tob Control. 2007. PMID: 17897990 Free PMC article.
-
Smoking on both sides of the pacific: home smoking restrictions and secondhand smoke exposure among Korean adults and children in Seoul and California.Nicotine Tob Res. 2010 Nov;12(11):1142-50. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntq164. Epub 2010 Oct 5. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010. PMID: 20924042 Free PMC article.
-
Content analysis and key informant interviews to examine community response to the purchase, possession, and/or use of tobacco by minors.J Community Health. 2004 Jun;29(3):209-16. doi: 10.1023/b:johe.0000022027.03119.38. J Community Health. 2004. PMID: 15141896
-
Implementation of a workplace smoking ban in bars: the limits of local discretion.BMC Public Health. 2008 Dec 8;8:402. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-402. BMC Public Health. 2008. PMID: 19063716 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical