There is no author summary for this book yet. Authors can add summaries to their books on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The comparative study arose from our curiosity about why policies towards e-cigarettes were so different in the UK and Australia, two countries with a shared public health history. The US was added as a case study to see how its unique history of tobacco activism and anti-tobacco activism prefigured and influenced its e-cigarette policy. We outline the history of tobacco policy in the context of public health in each country, showing that a major change occurred after World War II, when tobacco became a key issue of public health concern. All the countries developed stances hostile to tobacco smoking and to the tobacco industry, but differences in the way this was done helped to inform their policies towards e-cigarettes, which cover a spectrum of tolerance. An important source of divergence between the three countries was a history of policy in the UK favouring a harm reduction approach to nicotine. In the US and Australia, while nicotine was used as individual therapy, it was in pursuit of a cession-only strategy.

Related collections

Most cited references 28

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Stigma and the ethics of public health: not can we but should we.

Ronald Bayer (2008)

In the closing decades of the 20th century, a broadly shared view took hold that the stigmatization of those who were already vulnerable provided the context within which diseases spread, exacerbating morbidity and mortality by erecting barriers between caregivers and those who were sick and by imposing obstacles upon those who would intervene to contain the spread of illness. In this view, it was the responsibility of public health officials to counteract stigma if they were to fulfill their mission to protect the communal health. Furthermore, because stigma imposed unfair burdens on those who were already at social disadvantage, the process of stigmatization implicated the human right to dignity. Hence, to the instrumental reason for seeking to extirpate stigma, was added a moral concern. But is it true that stigmatization always represents a threat to public health? Are there occasions when the mobilization of stigma may effectively reduce the prevalence of behaviors linked to disease and death? And if so, how ought we to think about the human rights issues that are involved?

0 comments Cited 84 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Effect of increased social unacceptability of cigarette smoking on reduction in cigarette consumption.

Benjamin C Alamar, Stanton A. Glantz (2006)

Taxes on cigarettes have long been used to help reduce cigarette consumption. Social factors also affect cigarette consumption, but this impact has not been quantified. We computed a social unacceptability index based on individuals' responses to questions regarding locations where smoking should be allowed. A regression analysis showed that the social unacceptability index and price had similar elasticities and that their effects were independent of each other. If, through an active tobacco control campaign, the average individual's views on the social unacceptability of smoking changed to more closely resemble the views of California residents, there would be a 15% drop in cigarette consumption, equivalent to a 1.17 dollars increase in the excise tax on cigarettes.