| BackgroundAs WHO<framework convention on tobacco control> took effect in China,more and more countries such as Harbin, Shanghai, Tianjin, Guangzhou,etc. have legislatedor amended laws against smoking in public places.A series of activities were taken to support the law, and had made positive progress. However there still existed many kinds of barriers and problems to overcome and solve. Researches on the smoke-free laws always concentrated in the effects of the laws without considering activitiesor inputs, which would not provide us the relationship between inputs and outputs. This study focused on the activities took by enforcers and owners of places to evaluate situations that influence the effect of laws and regulations against secondhand smoke.MethodsThis study combines methods of interviews and field observation. Haerbin, Shanghai, Tianjin, Guangzhou and Hangzhou, cities that had enforced smoke-free laws or regulations were chose as study sites.1Study of compliance of net bars:One district was selected and about20net bars at each city were observed. Contents of observation include basic information and compliance information of the net bars:no-smoking regulation in bars、no-smoking signs、smoking area/room、inspectors、smoking behaviors and persuasion activities.84observations were accomplished. Results were statistical described and analyzed.2Study of enforcement of smoke-free law:through the way of introduction, invited15officers who were in charge of tobacco control,30liaison officers and enforcers,14owners of net bar. Focus group and in-depth interviews were conducted at five cities. Different interview outline were prepared for interviewees according to their responsibilities. Outline for officers and enforcers are consisted of6parts:brief introduction of the smoke-free law and evaluation, enforcement coordination mechanism and enforcement mode, enforcement agencies, enforcement process and penalties, responsibilities and obligation of compulsory subjects, media campaign and social avocation. Outlines toward owners included: attitudes toward the smoke-free regulation, smoking situations of the bars, techniques requirements and problems.Behavioral ecological model was used to categorize and analyzed the qualitative information.Results:1Compliance situation in the net bars were far from the legal requirements, only56.3%set comprehensive smoking ban in places,38.1%allowed smoking indoor, and8.3%break the regulation with setting smoking area/room, which provided no protection for surfers and attendants. Smoking behaviors were found in69net bars, attendants from only2bars discouraged smokers but failed. Smoking ban in bars didn’t improve no-smoking environments in the bars. There was a significant correlation between no-smoking signs at entrances and smoking status(x2=7.104, P<0.05),. The information on the signs was "only’no-smoking’", complaints phone, penalty, healthtips.2City supervision and enforcement environments need to be improved.2.1Some provisions of the smoke-free law bring about barriers in enforcement activities, such as applicable scope, comprehensive and partial smoke-free places, penalty process and amounts.2.2Social advocacy and mobilization did not fully play its important role in the supervision and enforcement.2.3Funds and personnel are far from enough for a fully coverage of all public places, which also reduced initiative of enforces. 2.4The enforcement coordination mechanism and enforcement pattern is limited by authority, function and power reference, initiative and focus of enforcers.3Various factors influenced owners to take responsibility in the enforcement of law.3.1Inspection activities and penalty for violation are contingences to the owners which promoted a smoke-free environment in places, but without a frequent supervision and enforcement activities, the owners would seek to escape their responsibility.3.2There were misinterpretation of the economic impact of smoke-free bars, bar owners were so afraid of losing customers and incomes that they would not fully comply with the law.3.3Improvements of knowledge of hazards of secondhand smoke and the protection provision increase the demand of the public for smoke-free public places, which influence determination and will of owners to comply with the law.Conclusion1Effect of the enforcement is poor, smoking status in the net bars is serious, and not all of the net bars comply with the law.2Power of the coordination, initiation and knowledge of hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke of the enforcers, all of these influence power of enforcement of net bars.3There is no difference of enforcement strategy between single department and multiple departments; all what counts is the initiation of enforcement based on a sufficient resource.4Failure of creating social atmosphere of smoking ban before and after the law impairs effect of enforcement of the law.5There has not a monitoring and evaluation platform established in cities.Recommendation1Ensuring implementation of the law, and make plan according to the provisions strictly;2Building effective supervision mechanism, and mobilizing initiation of enforcers;3Completing social supervision mechanism and motivating the public;4Legal publicity and education with knowledge of hazards of secondhand smoke during different phase of the implementation of the law.5Amending the law or making detailed enforcement regulation... |
PDF Full Text Request