Introduction
In the seventh month of 2007, the UK enforced sweeping guidelines prohibiting smoking in enclosed public areas. This prohibition affected bars, restaurants, and workplaces to decrease exposure to second-hand smoke’s adverse effects on individuals’ well-being while concurrently motivating smokers to abandon their dependence (Anyanwu, 2020, p. 1973). Its global importance is highlighted by its nature; nevertheless, it stands out prominently for being revolutionary in Britain because its implementation permanently altered political policies, commercial laws, plus social mores, which influence routine lives. When initially implemented, there were divergent opinions amongst groups comprising tobacco users or business owners along with advocates backing health awareness regarding this indoor-smoking regulation owing largely due differing perceptions among them nonetheless.
Upon careful consideration, those in favour of the prohibition advocated for its implementation to ensure that individuals who do not smoke are protected from the detrimental aftermath of second-hand smoking and encourage healthier living. They conjectured that enforcing this ban would effectively minimise diseases caused by tobacco usage and holistically bettering community welfare (Mayne et al., 2018, p. 1251). Contrariwise, individuals against the regulation posited it hinders personal freedoms; hence businesses within hospitality industries may bear ominous effects. The detractors had reservations about regulating such a rule because enforcement mechanisms could need to be improved, coupled with the possibility of increasing outdoor smokers’ activities.
This composition delves into an intellectual and financial evaluation of the prohibition on smoking indoors in Britain, scrutinises its inception and effects, and justifications. It inspects how this action has affected the healthcare status quo and commercial entities dependent on smoker patronage while reflecting on public opinion from diverse perspectives (Cairney, 2019, p. 85). This work also explores possible impediments encountered during the execution of said ban, along with cogent analyses that offered challenging efficacy towards attaining set targets for health enhancement. All-encompassing is the aim whilst providing a vast analysis of this indoor smoke control approach by British authorities which serves more than one purpose, including positively impacting policies related to people’s welfare across nations beyond UK precincts.
Overview and Background
Issue targeted to be addressed by the intervention
To alleviate the harmful consequences of passive smoking and assist smokers in their cessation attempts, a public health campaign was inaugurated in 2007 by enforcing an indoor ban on cigarette smoke throughout the United Kingdom (Smith, et al., 2021, p. 87). Exposure to second-hand smoke presents itself as a substantial peril towards one’s physical welfare, which can give rise to different disorders including but not limited to lung carcinoma, cardiovascular illnesses or respiratory infections. Overexposure amongst non-smokers could potentially enhance susceptibility levels leading them closer towards contracting these diseases through inhalation of secondary tobacco fumes.
The enactment of the ban on smoking indoors was carried out with a specific purpose in mind – to diminish potential threats posed by second-hand smoke through its restriction within enclosed public spaces like restaurants, offices and social gathering areas (East et al., 2022, p. 2). In addition, this prohibition also aimed at encouraging smokers to quit their habit while creating fume-free environments that do not endorse tobacco usage. This rule simultaneously serves two objectives, curtailing tacit approval for cigarette consumption whilst promoting cessation among users.
Intervention features
As of July 1st, in the year two thousand and seven, a law was enacted in England. This new legislation meant that smoking inside designated public structures has since been disallowed. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales implemented similar laws afterwards. The prevailing statute prevents individuals from inhaling tobacco smoke within closed areas built for shared usage purposes (Nanninga, et al., 2018, p. 3). It includes but is not limited to bars or pubs where liquor might be served alongside eateries such as cafes; it also accounts for commercial privately owned vehicles deployed by those who work professionally like cabs used for transportation services or autos explicitly employed by businesses operating with their dedicated fleet.
The prescription is executed by local authorities who can dispense sanctions against persons and businesses found guilty of violating this decree. Enterprises are obliged to display instructional signs that explicitly ban smoking while at the same time refraining from doing so in areas where such conduct has already been prohibited (Paul, 2007, p. 45). On a different note, it remains acceptable for private residences, correctional facilities, and specific sections belonging to hotels’ jurisdiction, which may be excluded from following these regulations without any penalties.
The crux of the ban on smoking indoors revolves around statutes, execution and teaching. The legislation underpinning this prohibition was established via the Health Act 2006; it experienced widespread adoption amongst professionals in healthcare circles as well as political factions without exception (Pinila, et al., 2019, p. 537). A comprehensive publicity campaign aligned seamlessly with its enforcement aimed to foster awareness regarding the inherent dangers of tobacco usage and methods for relinquishing said dependency’s grip.
The relationship between the intervention and policy making
The outlawing of smoking indoors in the United Kingdom directly resulted from governmental policy. This regulation came to fruition after several years of advocacy, including that from healthcare professionals, scholars and various non-government organisations who campaigned for healthier public practices (Gredner et al., 2021, p. 3). The British administration initially disclosed its plan to institute a prohibition on smoking indoors in a speech by Queen Elizabeth II in 2004, which detailed the government’s agenda of laws for the forthcoming year. The proclamation ensued an account from the Health Committee of House Commons that proposed outlawing cigarette consumption within enclosed communal areas.
In an effort to lessen the number of smokers and, correspondingly, promote better health outcomes in Great Britain, a comprehensive public health policy was instituted, with one aspect being the indoor smoking ban (Cesaroni et al., 2008, p. 1184). This prohibition worked alongside other measures such as amplified taxes on tobacco products, accessibility to smoking cessation services for those who need them most and limiting advertisement or promotion by manufacturers alike.
Questions relevant to the topic
An inquiry about the subject matter is whether or not the prohibition of smoking indoors has been efficacious in accomplishing its designed objectives. Research shows that the ban has successfully diminished exposure to second-hand smoke and enhanced public health results (Mayers, et al., 2009, p. 1250). Examinations have revealed noteworthy declines concerning hospital admissions for tobacco use conditions ( cardiovascular disease and respiratory infections) following the enactment of this regulation. Additionally, evidence suggests a decrease in smoking rates consistently with increased efforts toward discontinuing such behaviour among individuals who previously engaged therein after the restriction, as mentioned earlier, was introduced into policy.
Despite being implemented, the prohibition has encountered censure and opposition. Detractors contend that it has resulted in adverse financial consequences, especially for modest enterprises within the hospitality sector (Flor et al., 2021). Several have expressed apprehensions regarding its implementation and potential escalation of public smoking activities outdoors. The ban’s influence on personal liberties continues to fuel deliberation; some maintain that it infringes upon one’s right to smoke indoors privately.
As a final point, introducing an indoor smoking prohibition in the UK in 2007 represented a significant public health intervention that aspired to diminish second-hand smoke’s harmful consequences and encourage smokers to cessation. Public health advocates had lobbied for years before policy-making brought about this ban enforced by local authorities upon its adoption (WHO, 2015). Its efficacy has been proven with research showing significant declines regarding exposure to passive smoke levels being achieved and reduced hospitalisations due to illnesses caused by tobacco consumption alongside lower smoking rates across populations. Despite these successes, criticisms have surfaced concerning potential economic damage done towards small hospitality businesses along with possible infringement on individual rights (Ko, 2020). Issues that continue revolving around debates over effectiveness and implications within academia today, making it both controversial yet influential all at once when considering such public interventions affecting society in general terms.
Concepts, frameworks and theories
Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework
The theory of Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework explains policy-making, observing three distinct streams; the stream concerning problems, policies and politics. By scrutinising these streams through this framework, we can assess how they apply to the UK Indoor Smoking Ban implemented in 2007;
The problem stream recognises and identifies an issue that necessitates a policy solution. Concerns about second-hand smoke’s health effects initially sparked the problem stream about indoor smoking prohibition (Banha, et al., 2022, p. 540). There has been accumulating evidence linking passive exposure to smoke with ailments such as respiratory illness, heart disease, and lung cancer for several years now which resulted in limitations on smoking habits in public places across many countries already taken place priorly. Researchers have argued that hospitality industry employees are exposed more significantly than others populations; hence it became apparent through campaigns conducted by public healthcare advocates who accentuated this particular concern even further upon the realisation of hazards faced by bartenders or waitstaff from inhaling second-hand tobacco.
The course of action flow: It pertains to the generation of policy remedies towards an established complication. In prohibiting indoor smoking, myriad solutions were proposed and executed in numerous countries- Ireland, Norway and Italy, among others, even before the UK enacted a ban. These policies provided relevant instances for UK policymakers who capitalised on other nations’ experiences while creating their unique solution set (Goyal, 2021, p. 1023). The stream also involved public health experts whose wealth of knowledge aided them in influencing the formulation process positively by lending professional contributions toward shaping said remedy blueprint.
The stream of politics pertains to the political landscape in which policies are established and executed. In reference to the prohibition on indoor smoking, this particular stream was moulded by diverse factors, including but not limited to shifting public attitudes regarding tobacco use, expanding the influence of advocates for public health, and unwavering intention from government authorities towards enforcing the said ban (Hoefer, 2022, p. 3). The then ruling Labour party had already demonstrated an unwavering commitment toward safeguarding public welfare through various policies like outlawing cigarette adverts and introducing conspicuous warning labels onto packaging material, ergo, making it easier for people to comprehend its stance when prohibiting indoor smoking- a logical continuation of their plans’- garnered support from influential political figures alongside regular citizens alike.
Overall, the Indoor Smoking Ban in the United Kingdom illustrates how Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework can shed light on policy-making. The ban was propelled by realising health hazards correlated with second-hand smoke; policy alternatives anchored upon global benchmarks and fortified political resolve were also instrumental to its implementation within a conducive political climate (De Waals, et al., 2019).
Political, policy, and economic analysis
Principal political, policy and economic factors that shaped the policy or intervention
The prime determinants that moulded the ban on indoor smoking in the UK comprised political and public health-related aspects. The inception of this decree was a byproduct of an increasing consciousness towards the detriments traced to secondary smoke exposure, along with efforts made by healthcare advocates and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to safeguard passive smokers from tobacco fumes (Levy et al., 2018, p. 449). Moreover, pledges were also undertaken by the UK government to curb cigarette consumption rates, generate better public wellness results, and entail conformity to global health treaties such as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).
Additionally, eminent political influence persuaded the government to enforce a prohibition. The collective perspective on smoking underwent an alteration, with most individuals favouring its interdiction in communal arenas (Evans, et al., 1999, p. 748). The aforementioned prohibitive measures were demanded by media outlets and groups against tobacco consumption alongside adversaries of the ruling party due to fatal cases and dire health predicaments caused by cigarette smokers’ conduct.
From an economic standpoint, there were apprehensions about the after-effects of implementing a smoking prohibition on establishments in the hospitality sector, explicitly watering holes and dining places. A faction claimed this would result in reduced earnings and unemployment rates escalating alongside industry deterioration (Mlinaric et al., 2018, p. 5). In contrast, others defended their stance by stating that it could reap financial benefits with better productivity levels, decrease healthcare expenditures, and promote tourism activities.
The main policy actors and what they sought to achieve
Indoor smoking prohibition in the UK was a collaborative effort encompassing governmental authorities, multiple NGOs and public healthcare advocates. In addition to this alliance, individuals within the hospitality sector and ordinary citizens had an indispensable input towards instigating and implementing said legislation that disallowed indoor smoking practices (Giri, et al., 2021, p. 37). In order to enhance the well-being of society and dissuade tobacco consumption, legislators have implemented new measures designed to proscribe smoking. Furthermore, governing bodies are dedicated to fulfilling their worldwide healthcare responsibilities and intend to respond to constituents’ demands for an anti-smoking initiative constructively.
These groups have implemented preemptive actions in shielding non-smokers from the perils of second-hand smoke while simultaneously endeavouring to urge smokers to terminate their smoking habits altogether. These establishments have identified the implementation of a smoking prohibition as imperative in safeguarding human existence and diminishing associated occurrences of sicknesses (Bauld, 2011, p. 8). Expressions of concern were heard from the hospitality sector, specifically pubs and restaurants, regarding a potential ban’s implications. In lieu of economic fallout induced by these limitations and maintaining their status quo in smokers’ social hub spaces while safeguarding customer rights took precedence among their priorities.
The enforcement of prohibition received crucial aid from the populace, without which its success would not have been possible (Bauld 2011, p. 9). This support was reflected in numerous surveys that revealed widespread approval for this endeavour and helped raise awareness about the harmful effects of smoking. These factors played an instrumental role in ensuring favourable outcomes.
How policy shaped ideology
An interplay between political and health-related ideologies influenced the development of the UK’s prohibition of indoor smoking. The ban originated from a healthcare methodology favouring safeguarding non-smokers against secondary smoke-induced dangers and complying with worldwide obligations centred around good health practices (Strassmann et al., 2023, p. 145). Furthermore, it exemplified a broader shift towards state intervention in ensuring public welfare in matters relating to health – emphasising more proactive measures for protecting citizens’ collective well-being through paternalistic means.
Nevertheless, debates of ideological nature arise over fundamental rights and freedoms, as some argue that prohibition constitutes an encroachment on one’s autonomy. Such a discussion mirrors more extensive deliberations surrounding state involvement in regulating individual conduct and finding an equilibrium between private entitlements versus public well-being (Faber et al., 2019).
Problem presentation
The subject of smoking and the ingestion of tobacco by individuals who do not indulge in it has been portrayed as a matter that holds immense gravity concerning public well-being. It has catastrophic implications for people on a personal level, their families, and society overall (Maes, 2019, p. 323). The negative ramifications of this habit are widely recognised; illnesses linked to using tobacco products comprise significant contributors to sickness and fatalities within Britain.
The consciousness pertaining to smoking’s deleterious consequences has been mounting among citizens, and demands action have followed suit. It is equally significant that particular attention be drawn towards how second-hand smoke can prove incredibly damaging (Bobadilla et al., 2014, p. 350). Protective measures should also encompass non-smokers, a pivotal group needing due consideration.
Proposed solutions
The primary measure proposed for tackling indoor smoking in the United Kingdom was a sweeping prohibition on indoor smoking. This proposal sought to disallow smoking within confined public areas and workspaces to shield non-smokers from inhalation of secondary smoke’s perils (Schechter et al., 2018, p. 1). The Health Act 2006 introduced this ban comprehensively, receiving permission from the Royal command in July 2006; it became operational commencing July 1st of the following year.
The legislation was enacted to prohibit smoking in indoor public spaces, encompassing establishments like eateries, taverns, lounges and job sites. Additionally affected were shared areas confined by university dormitories or residential apartments (Chardi, 2022, p. 3768). Vehicle types for business usage- specifically taxis and buses – also fell under the scope of this prohibition on cigarette inhalation while in use.
The genesis of the resolution came about by recognising how harmful second-hand smoke is to non-smokers who cannot evade it in public areas. This proposal was founded on burgeoning scientific proof that smoking and exposure to secondary smoke produce hazardous health outcomes like respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and lung cancer. The genesis of the resolution came about by recognising how harmful second-hand smoke is to non-smokers who cannot evade it in public areas (Kvasnicka et al., 2018, p. 5). This proposal was founded on burgeoning scientific proof that smoking and exposure to secondary smoke produce hazardous health outcomes like respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and lung cancer. By imposing a ban on indoor smoking activities, authorities aimed at shielding non-smoking citizens from negative consequences linked with tobacco consumption while simultaneously encouraging healthier surroundings and decreasing rates of nicotine intake.
The authorities suggested various additional actions to facilitate the enforcement of the indoor smoking prohibition. These strategies encompassed disseminating data and recommendations to companies and supervisors, extending cessation backing for cigarette users, and boosting people’s knowledge about the harmful outcomes of tobacco consumption and inhaling secondary smoke (Mlinaric et al., 2018, p. 4).
To reduce smoking prevalence and enhance collective well-being, the decision to disallow indoor tobacco consumption was executed as one element of an extensive plan. Among other proposed solutions were higher taxes on tobacco goods, offering assistance for quitting cigarettes, and incorporating plain packaging regulations (Mlinaric et al., 2018, p. 7). The objectives behind these actions focused on diminishing this practice’s allure through elevated pricing levels and increasing understanding of its harmful effects.
Key events that triggered the action
Multiple occurrences were the impetus that sparked the initiative and culminated in prohibiting indoor smoking within UK boundaries. Such events comprised a manifold number:
Increasingly abundant proof of the harmful impact of second-hand smoke: The scientific substantiation regarding the dangers to health stemming from exposure to second-hand smoke continued its accumulation, and mass communication platforms comprehensively disseminated this substantiated research (Hoefer, 2022, p. 2). Consequently, policymakers were besieged with mounting public opinion demanding definitive action.
Public opinion: An escalating preoccupation with the detrimental effects of passive smoking caused an upsurge in public apprehension. Consequently, a fervent appeal arose for measures to be taken that would safeguard non-smokers from inhaling tobacco smoke exhaled by smokers nearby (Goyal, 2021, p. 1023). The surveys conducted on popular opinion demonstrated formidable backing for enforcing legislation banning indoor smoking across all publicly accessible sites and facilities.
International developments: Amidst global happenings, Ireland and other nations have already implemented laws forbidding smoking in public areas. This move ultimately prompted the UK administration to do the same (Anyanwu, 2020, p. 1973). A directive from the European Union emphasising non-smokers’ safety towards tobacco smoke was also passed, necessitating member countries to enforce protective arrangements for those who do not smoke.
Health campaigns and advocacy: Multiple advocacy organisations, including the British Heart Foundation and the British Lung Foundation, have publicly used arms to campaign against smoking. Said groups played a crucial role in enlightening people on how detrimental second-hand smoke could be and working towards effecting policy changes (Bobadilla et al., 2014, p. 350).
Political support: During that same period, the administration led by Labour possessed a strong determination to enhance joint health and diminish any unfairness in medical treatment. Notably, implementing an indoor prohibition on smoking was deemed pivotal for meeting these objectives, thus sparking widespread political backing from various parties.
Legal challenges: The tobacco industry faced legal obstacles that coerced the government to take measures to safeguard public health. Remarkably, one such legal challenge occurred when the European Court of Justice granted workers a right to be protected against harmful second-hand smoke; this decision provided cogent justification for implementing an indoor smoking ban within the UK territory (Goyal, 2021, p. 1023). Overall, a combination of significant occurrences and elements engendered an environment in politics that facilitated the establishment of legislation prohibiting smoking indoors throughout UK territories. The ruling body successfully garnered backing from various parties, such as health institutions, the citizenry, and political partners, to carry out said policy.
How the evidence was used to inform the design of the intervention
The United Kingdom’s decision to enforce an indoor smoking prohibition was grounded on a substantial and comprehensive review of studies on the health effects of passive inhalation of smoke. Numerous inquiries demonstrated that exposure to second-hand smoke could be highly destructive, as it can lead to fatal medical conditions such as heart disease and lung cancer (Gredner et al., 2021, p. 3). Many government agencies commissioned reports, including one by Scientific Laboratories exploring tobacco-related matters, which suggested prohibiting cigarette usage within enclosed communal spaces. These scientific findings served as valid counter-arguments in response towards opposing views raised over apprehensions regarding its potential impact on trade or infringement upon personal autonomy.
Decision-making and dispute resolution
After deliberation and scrutiny, the UK administration initiated an indoor smoking ban. This choice garnered support from health institutions, labour unions, and political confidants. The resolution reached through fusing public consultations with politicking resulted in the widespread acceptance of this directive by the government’s affiliates/associates/sympathisers (Hoefer, 2022, p. 7). Transparency and accountability were preserved throughout, as there was unrestricted access to critical information via inter-parliamentary debates and open discussions between concerned parties regarding disputes during policy-making procedures.
Policy instrument presented by the intervention
Within the UK, an instance of a policy instrument is represented through the imposition of the indoor smoking ban (Smith et al., 2021, p. 87). This regulatory measure utilises governmental regulation to yield a particular outcome; that being said, it prohibits smoking in enclosed public areas like workplaces, restaurants, or pubs while levying fines and penalties for those who resist this mandate.
How the intervention was put into practice
An intricate strategy was utilised to execute indoor smoking prohibition, encompassing legal measures, implementation strategies and awareness-raising initiatives. The Health Act 2006 laid down legislative foundations for this regulation whilst partnerships between state organisations facilitated quick adjustment by commercial premises (Cairney, 2019, p. 85). Enforcement mechanisms were implemented via local governance structures in collaboration with police personnel, whereby breaches of this policy resulted in monetary sanctions inflicted on individuals or corporate entities who contravened guidelines stipulated under said act.
Stakeholders’ roles
Implementing the plan in question was primarily facilitated by an extensive network comprising a diversified array of stakeholders, encompassing entities ranging from individuals with vested interests to established institutions with considerable authority. These contributors ranged from medical institutions to commercial ventures and influential persons (Bauld, 2011, p. 8). Authority was established via an amalgamation that included political sway, legal acumen, and popular opinion. The regulatory agencies responsible for health care, alongside advocacy groups committed to promoting public welfare, effectively utilised their influence to mould regulations receiving widespread backing, ultimately leading up to its prohibition. This legislation’s strict adherence compelled companies they would not to incur financial penalties or any form of retaliation at all costs.
Circumstances that impeded the intervention
The feasibility of implementing the indoor smoking ban was realised through various factors. These elements include but are not restricted to the increased public interest in understanding the negative health implications of second-hand smoke; support from governmental bodies and international organisations like The European Union (Cesaroni et al., 2008, p. 1184). Nevertheless, despite these ideal conditions that facilitated its successful execution, certain obstacles existed, such as resistance from tobacco industries and business groups and concerns about potential adverse impacts on the hospitality sector. Additionally, it was necessary to widely disseminate information regarding newly imposed regulations amongst all members of society at large before their application could be undertaken effectively.
Equitability of the intervention
The primary aim of enforcing an indoor prohibition against smoking was to guarantee and uphold physical well-being, security, and comfort for all persons. Regardless of whether they smoke, all individuals should be protected from involuntary exposure to secondary tobacco smoke that may negatively impact their respiratory function (Bauld, 2011, p. 8). The homogeneity in implementing this rule has been sustained across diverse sectors, with no significant influence noted so far amongst distinct socioeconomic groups.
Conclusion
The ban on smoking indoors within the boundaries of the UK has proven to be an effective measure in minimising second-hand tobacco exposure while concurrently producing positive public health results. Multiple analyses have discovered that this regulation resulted in noteworthy reductions regarding indoor air pollution and fewer hospital admittances due to heart disease and respiratory issues; furthermore, hospitality workers’ well-being improved (Anyanwu, 2020, p. 1973). Implementing it was also economically worthwhile since benefits such as better healthcare consequences exceeded both enforcement charges and operational costs for putting it into effect. Despite these advantages, though, faults were still found concerning the decision made by lawmakers regarding said action taken against cigarette smoke inside enclosed areas which include concerns over small businesses being adversely impacted, particularly those in the hospitability industry experiencing lowered rates of clientele quantity coupled together alongside increased expenses through outdoor spots designated solely for smoking usage purposes (Cairney, 2019, p. 85). Furthermore, civil rights advocates worry about how banning private establishments from allowing individual smokers could impact privacy laws among others who share their views on freedom cessation policies involving cigarette prohibition altogether.
Notwithstanding the negative comments, one cannot dispute that prohibiting smoking indoors in the UK is a well-received public health scheme. It manifests an instance of policy contrived specifically to tackle distinct matters about public health and executed to advance welfare outcomes for all citizens (Evans, et al., 1999, p. 748). The intervention was founded on various proofs, including scientific scholarship and feedback from surveys based upon ordinary people’s perceptions, furthermore encompassed multiple stakeholders such as policymakers or healthcare providers along with advocacy outfits representing interests affected by this initiative.
The triumph of enforcing a prohibition on indoor smoking in the United Kingdom carries far-reaching consequences for communal health measures. It showcases how critical it is to draft and execute policy based on conclusive proof and stresses the significance of stakeholder participation coupled with successful techniques for conveying information effectively (WHO, 2015). In addition, it underscores the government’s contribution towards promoting and safeguarding public health while at once emphasising that policies must preserve individual autonomy alongside societal welfare considerations.
The smoking prohibition applied indoors throughout the UK has been a triumph in public health policy intervention as substantial gains have been observed for people’s physical and emotional well-being. This initiative is considered an excellent model where policies are formulated solely targeting specific issues imposed on health backed by ample evidence base with implementation accommodating individual liberties while promoting the greater common good at large (Levy et al., 2018, p. 449). Therefore, this example emerges as highly significant, providing pivotal insights into how politicians and practitioners of public healthcare may construct apt interventions focusing towards the betterment of the overall population’s welfare whilst ensuring their success rate remains optimal.
References
Anyanwu, P. E., 2020, p. 1973. Impact of UK Tobacco Control Policies on Inequalities in Youth Smoking Uptake: A Natural Experiment Study. Nicotine Tob Res., 22(11), p. 1973–1980. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa101.
Banha, F., Flores, A. & Coelho, S. L., 2022, p. 540. A New Conceptual Framework and Approach to Decision Making in Public Policy. Knowledge , 2(4), pp. 539-556. https://doi.org/10.3390/knowledge2040032.
Bauld, L., 2011, p. 8. Impact of smokefree legislation in England: Evidence review. [Online]
Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216319/dh_124959.pdf
Bobadilla et al., F. J., 2014, p. 350. Laws Restricting Smoking in Public Places Reduce the Incidence. Rev, Esp. Cardiol, 67(5), pp. 349-352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2013.08.018.
Cairney, P., 2019, p. 85. The Transformation of UK Tobacco Control. In: Great policy success. s.l.:s.n., p. 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198843719.003.0005.
Cesaroni et al., G., 2008, p. 1184. Effect of the Italian Smoking Ban on Population Rates of Acute Coronary Events. Circulationaha, 117(9), pp. 1183-1188. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.729889.
Chardi, C., 2022, p. 3768. Smoking bans leisure time and subjective well-being. Journal of happiness studies, 23(8), pp. 3765-3797. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-022-00580-9.
De Waals, P., Espinonza-Moya, M.-E. & Beland, D., 2019. Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework and the Analysis of Decision-Making Processes Regarding Publicly-Funded Immunization Programs. Expert review of vaccines, 18(6), pp. 575-585. https://doi.org/10.1080/14760584.2019.1627208.
East et al., K. A., 2022, p. 2. Evaluating the Outcomes of the Menthol Cigarette Ban in England by Comparing Menthol Cigarette Smoking Among Youth in England, Canada, and the US, 2018-2020. JAMA Network Open, 5(5), pp. 1-16. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.10029 (Reprinted).
Evans, W. N., Farelly, M. C. & Montgomery, E., 1999, p. 748. Do Workplace Smoking Bans Reduce Smoking? American economic review, 89(4), pp. 727-747.
Faber et al., T., 2019. Investigating the effect of England’s smoke-free private vehicle regulation on changes in tobacco smoke exposure and respiratory disease in children: a quasi-experimental study. Lancet Public Health, 4(12), pp. e607-e617. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30175-6.
Flor et al., L., 2021. The effects of tobacco control policies on global smoking prevalence. Nature Medicine, Volume 27, pp. 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-01210-8.
Giri, M. L., Koirala, S. & Ahoto, T. A., 2021, p. 37. Views on smoking-free premise 2007, England; the gains so far. Magna Scientia Advanced Biology and Pharmacy, 2(1), p. 035–045. https://doi.org/10.30574/msabp.2021.2.1.0014.
Goyal, N., 2021, p. 1023. Explaining Policy Success Using the Multiple Streams Framework: Political Success Despite Programmatic Failure of the Solar Energy Policy in Gujarat, India. Politics and policy, 49(5), pp. 1021-1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12426.
Gredner et al., T., 2021, p. 3. Impact of tobacco control policies implementation on future lung cancer incidence in Europe: An international, population-based modelling study. The Lancet Regional Health, Volume 4, pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100074.
Hoefer, R., 2022, p. 3. The Multiple Streams Framework: Understanding and Applying the Problems, Policies, and Politics Approach. J of Pol Practice & Research., 2(1), pp. 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs42972-022-00049-2.
Ko, H., 2020. The effect of outdoor smoking ban: Evidence from Korea. Health economics, 29(3), pp. 1-15. DOI:10.1002/hec.3979.
Kvasnicka, M., Siedler, T. & Ziebath, N. R., 2018, p. 5. The Health Effects of Smoking Bans: Evidence from German Hospitalization Data. IZA institute of labor economics, Volume IZA DP No. 11631, pp. 1-36..
Levy et al., D. T., 2018, p. 449. The Impact of Implementing Tobacco Control Policies: The 2017 Tobacco Control Policy Scorecard. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 5(4), pp. 448-457. DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000780.
Maes, E., 2019, p. 323. Legal implications of smoking (bans) in English prisons. Legal Studies, 39(2), pp. 321-338. doi:10.1017/lst.2018.46.
Mayers, D. G., Neuberger, J. S. & He, J., 2009, p. 1250. Cardiovascular Effect of Bans on Smoking in Public Places: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American college of acrdiology, 54(14), p. 1249–1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.022.
Mayne et al., S. L., 2018, p. 1251. Associations of Bar and Restaurant Smoking Bans With Smoking Behavior in the CARDIA Study: A 25-Year Study. American journal of epidemiology, 187(6), p. 1250–1258. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwx372.
Mlinaric et al., M., 2018, p. 5. Explaining Mechanisms That Influence Smoke-Free Implementation at the Local Level: A Realist Review of Smoking Bans. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 20(20), pp. 1-12. doi:10.1093/ntr/nty206.
Nanninga, S., Lhachimi, S. K. & Bolte, G., 2018, p. 3. Impact of public smoking bans on children’s exposure to tobacco smoke at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health , 18(749), pp. 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5679-z.
Paul, C., 2007, p. 45. A ‘Multiple Lenses’ Approach to Policy Change: The Case of Tobacco Policy in the UK. British Politics, Volume 2, p. 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200039.
Pinila, J., Lopez-Valcarcel, B. G. & Negrin, M. A., 2019, p. 537. Impact of the Spanish smoke-free laws on cigarette sales, 2000–2015: partial bans on smoking in public places failed and only a total tobacco ban worked. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 14(4), pp. 536-552. doi:10.1017/S1744133118000270.
Schechter et al., J., 2018, p. 1. Impact of Smoking Ban on Passive Smoke Exposure in Pregnant Non-Smokers in the Southeastern United States. International journal of environmental research and public health, 15(1), pp. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15010083.
Smith, C. E., Hill, S. E. & Amanda, A., 2021, p. 87. Impact of population tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: a systematic review and appraisal of future research directions. Tob control, 2021, pp. e87-e95. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-055874.
Strassmann et al., A., 2023, p. 145. Nationwide indoor smoking ban and impact on smoking behaviour and lung function: a two-population natural experiment. Thorax, Volume 78, pp. 144-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2021-218436.
WHO, 2015. Smoke-free Policies in China: evidence of effectiveness and implications for action.. ITC Project., pp. 1-48.
write