Historique
![E-cigarettes: A framework for comparative history and policy [Addiction opinion and debate]](https://bdoc.ofdt.fr/img_cache/pmb_ofdt_record_87448.webp)
Article de Périodique
E-cigarettes: A framework for comparative history and policy [Addiction opinion and debate] (2024)
Auteur(s) :
BERRIDGE, V. ;
FAIRCHILD, A. L. ;
MORPHETT, K. ;
GARTNER, C. ;
HALL, W. ;
BAYER, R.
Année :
2024
Page(s) :
1864-1870
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Refs biblio. :
30
Domaine :
Tabac / Tobacco / e-cigarette
Discipline :
SAN (Santé publique / Public health)
Thésaurus géographique
AUSTRALIE
;
ROYAUME-UNI
;
ETATS-UNIS
;
NOUVELLE ZELANDE
;
SCANDINAVIE
Thésaurus mots-clés
E-CIGARETTE
;
HISTOIRE
;
COMPARAISON
;
POLITIQUE
;
REGULATION
;
NICOTINE
;
REDUCTION DES RISQUES ET DES DOMMAGES
Autres mots-clés
Note générale :
Commentaries:
- E-cigarette policies in Aotearoa (New Zealand): An Indigenous perspective. Waa A., p. 1871-1872. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16573
- Adopting the Berridge et al.: Framework to understand differences in the e-cigarette policy between the Nordic countries. Lund K.E., Saebo G., p. 1873-1874. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16577
- A tobacco control policy analysis framework that extends into the future. Deguchi T.K., Tabuchi T., p. 1875-1876. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16597
- Evidence and policy is certainly more complex than it seems. Berridge V., Hall W., Morphett K., Fairchild A., Bayer R., Gartner C., p. 1877-1878. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.16660
Résumé :
BACKGROUND: England, Australia and the United States have approached the regulation of e-cigarettes in very different ways, yet all three countries have appealed to the concept of evidence as underpinning policy responses. We compared these policy responses using a combination of the methodologies of historians and policy scientists in order to elucidate the factors that had influenced policy in each country.
ARGUMENT/ANALYSIS: Each country's evidence and values intersected in different ways, producing very different responses within specific national contexts and histories. Our analysis accordingly emphasized the historical precursors of the policy issues raised by e-cigarettes and placed the policy debate within the context of regulatory bodies and the networks of researchers and advocates who influenced policy. Issues also of importance were the nature of the state; political context; the pre-history of nicotine for smoking cessation; the role of activism and its links with government; the influence of harm reduction ideas from drugs and HIV; and finally, whom policy was perceived to benefit. In the United Kingdom, based on this pre-history of the smoking issue, it was the existing smoker, while in the United States and Australia, protecting children and adolescents has played a central role.
CONCLUSIONS: Structural and historical factors appear to underpin differences in e-cigarette policy development in England, Australia and the United States. [Author's abstract]
ARGUMENT/ANALYSIS: Each country's evidence and values intersected in different ways, producing very different responses within specific national contexts and histories. Our analysis accordingly emphasized the historical precursors of the policy issues raised by e-cigarettes and placed the policy debate within the context of regulatory bodies and the networks of researchers and advocates who influenced policy. Issues also of importance were the nature of the state; political context; the pre-history of nicotine for smoking cessation; the role of activism and its links with government; the influence of harm reduction ideas from drugs and HIV; and finally, whom policy was perceived to benefit. In the United Kingdom, based on this pre-history of the smoking issue, it was the existing smoker, while in the United States and Australia, protecting children and adolescents has played a central role.
CONCLUSIONS: Structural and historical factors appear to underpin differences in e-cigarette policy development in England, Australia and the United States. [Author's abstract]
Affiliation :
Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Cote :
Abonnement