Mariaelena Gonzalez1, Stanton A Glantz. 1. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tobacco companies consistently work to prevent and undermine smoke-free laws. The tobacco industry and its allies have funded hospitality associations and other third parties to oppose smoke-free laws, argue that smoke-free laws will economically damage hospitality venues, promote ventilation and voluntary smoker 'accommodation' as an alternative to smoke-free laws, and to challenge smoke-free laws in court. In 2008, the Netherlands extended its smoke-free law to hospitality venues. METHODS: We triangulated news articles, government documents, scientific papers, statistical reports and interviews to construct this case study. RESULTS: Despite widespread public support for smoke-free hospitality venues, opponents successfully represented these laws as unpopular and damaging to small bars. These challenges and related smokers' rights activities resulted in non-compliance among all bars and reinstating an exemption for small, owner-run venues. This policy reversal was the result of a weak implementing media campaign (which failed to present the law as protecting nonsmokers), smoking room exemptions and reactive (vs. proactive) measures by the Ministry of Health and civil society. CONCLUSION: The policy failure in the Netherlands is the result of poor implementation efforts and the failure to anticipate and deal with opposition to the law. When implementing smoke-free laws it is important to anticipate opposition, used the media to target non-smokers to reinforce public support, and actively enforce the law.
BACKGROUND:Tobacco companies consistently work to prevent and undermine smoke-free laws. The tobacco industry and its allies have funded hospitality associations and other third parties to oppose smoke-free laws, argue that smoke-free laws will economically damage hospitality venues, promote ventilation and voluntary smoker 'accommodation' as an alternative to smoke-free laws, and to challenge smoke-free laws in court. In 2008, the Netherlands extended its smoke-free law to hospitality venues. METHODS: We triangulated news articles, government documents, scientific papers, statistical reports and interviews to construct this case study. RESULTS: Despite widespread public support for smoke-free hospitality venues, opponents successfully represented these laws as unpopular and damaging to small bars. These challenges and related smokers' rights activities resulted in non-compliance among all bars and reinstating an exemption for small, owner-run venues. This policy reversal was the result of a weak implementing media campaign (which failed to present the law as protecting nonsmokers), smoking room exemptions and reactive (vs. proactive) measures by the Ministry of Health and civil society. CONCLUSION: The policy failure in the Netherlands is the result of poor implementation efforts and the failure to anticipate and deal with opposition to the law. When implementing smoke-free laws it is important to anticipate opposition, used the media to target non-smokers to reinforce public support, and actively enforce the law.
Authors: Gera E Nagelhout; Bas van den Putte; Hein de Vries; Matty Crone; Geoffrey T Fong; Marc C Willemsen Journal: Tob Control Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Gera E Nagelhout; Hein de Vries; Christian Boudreau; Shane Allwright; Ann McNeill; Bas van den Putte; Geoffrey T Fong; Marc C Willemsen Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Christopher Millett; John Tayu Lee; Anthony A Laverty; Stanton A Glantz; Azeem Majeed Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-01-21 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Lambros Lazuras; Christos S Savva; Michael A Talias; Elpidoforos S Soteriades Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Els Rennen; Gera E Nagelhout; Bas van den Putte; Eva Janssen; Ute Mons; Romain Guignard; François Beck; Hein de Vries; James F Thrasher; Marc C Willemsen Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2013-07-16