搜索结果：bans

Government ban on foreign-made robots may hinder instead of help US robotics

The environmental damage that plastic waste is causing has catalyzed government action against plastic bags around the world. Despite anti-plastic bag policies gaining traction globally, there has been limited investigation of why the implementation of bans has varied. The variation in implementing bans is particularly stark in East Africa, a region that has been at the forefront of plastic bag legislation. Rwanda’s implementation of a ban on plastic bags in 2008 has attracted widespread praise for its environmental leadership. Kenya adopted a plastic bag ban before Rwanda but implementation was consistently delayed until a stringent ban was finally imposed in 2018. In Uganda, despite bans being announced on four separate occasions, implementation continues to be delayed. This paper explains why some governments adopt and effectively enforce plastic bag bans while others reverse course or delay implementation. Existing literature has cited the comparative strength of plastic industries as the salient factor in explaining varied adoption of plastic bag bans. This paper argues that though the comparative business power of plastic industries explains whether bans are obstructed, it does not satisfactorily explain varied implementation. Instead, countries that pursue services-based development strategies, which prioritise externally dependent sectors like tourism, are more likely to implement plastic bag bans, which can help bolster their green credentials. For the Rwandan and Kenyan governments, presenting their countries as environmental leaders contributed to their goals of becoming a regional economic hub, reliant on services like tourism. The Kenyan government’s decision to eventually implement the ban was driven by a perceived need to compete with Rwanda for regional environmental leadership while supporting Kenya’s services-based economic development strategy. In contrast, Uganda’s comparatively larger discovery of oil and limited emphasis on services-based development explained the government’s lack of commitment to implementing a plastic bag ban.

BACKGROUND: Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and smoking behaviour of those populations they affect. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which legislation-based smoking bans or restrictions reduce exposure to SHS, help people who smoke to reduce tobacco consumption or lower smoking prevalence and affect the health of those in areas which have a ban or restriction in place. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Conference Paper Index, and reference lists and bibliographies of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; July 1st 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans and restrictions affecting populations. The minimum standard was having a ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before and after studies, interrupted-time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies were extracted by one author and checked by a second. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the studies, we did not attempt a meta-analysis. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: There were 50 studies included in this review. Thirty-one studies reported exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) with 19 studies measuring it using biomarkers. There was consistent evidence that smoking bans reduced exposure to SHS in workplaces, restaurants, pubs and in public places. There was a greater reduction in exposure to SHS in hospitality workers compared to the general population. We failed to detect any difference in self-reported exposure to SHS in cars. There was no change in either the prevalence or duration of reported exposure to SHS in the home as a result of implementing legislative bans. Twenty-three studies reported measures of active smoking, often as a co-variable rather than an end-point in itself, with no consistent evidence of a reduction in smoking prevalence attributable to the ban. Total tobacco consumption was reduced in studies where prevalence declined. Twenty-five studies reported health indicators as an outcome. Self-reported respiratory and sensory symptoms were measured in 12 studies, with lung function measured in five of them. There was consistent evidence of a reduction in hospital admissions for cardiac events as well as an improvement in some health indicators after the ban. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to a reduction in exposure to passive smoking. Hospitality workers experienced a greater reduction in exposure to SHS after implementing the ban compared to the general population. There is limited evidence about the impact on active smoking but the trend is downwards. There is some evidence of an improvement in health outcomes. The strongest evidence is the reduction seen in admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is an increase in support for and compliance with smoking bans after the legislation.

BACKGROUND: Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and the smoking behaviour of those populations they affect. Since the first version of this review in 2010, more countries have introduced national smoking legislation banning indoor smoking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of legislative smoking bans on (1) morbidity and mortality from exposure to secondhand smoke, and (2) smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and reference lists of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; February 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans affecting populations. The minimum standard was having an indoor smoking ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. Our search included a broad range of research designs including: randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author extracted characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies and a second author checked the details. We extracted health and smoking behaviour outcomes. We did not attempt a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity in design and content of the studies included. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: There are 77 studies included in this updated review. We retained 12 studies from the original review and identified 65 new studies. Evidence from 21 countries is provided in this update, an increase of eight countries from the original review. The nature of the intervention precludes randomized controlled trials. Thirty-six studies used an interrupted time series study design, 23 studies use a controlled before-and-after design and 18 studies are before-and-after studies with no control group; six of these studies use a cohort design. Seventy-two studies reported health outcomes, including cardiovascular (44), respiratory (21), and perinatal outcomes (7). Eleven studies reported national mortality rates for smoking-related diseases. A number of the studies report multiple health outcomes. There is consistent evidence of a positive impact of national smoking bans on improving cardiovascular health outcomes, and reducing mortality for associated smoking-related illnesses. Effects on respiratory and perinatal health were less consistent. We found 24 studies evaluating the impact of national smoke-free legislation on smoking behaviour. Evidence of an impact of legislative bans on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption is inconsistent, with some studies not detecting additional long-term change in existing trends in prevalence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the first version of this review was published, the current evidence provides more robust support for the previous conclusions that the introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to improved health outcomes through reduction in SHS for countries and their populations. The clearest evidence is observed in reduced admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is evidence of reduced mortality from smoking-related illnesses at a national level. There is inconsistent evidence of an impact on respiratory and perinatal health outcomes, and on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of workplace smoking restrictions on the prevalence and intensity of smoking among all indoor workers and various demographic and industry groups. DESIGN: Detailed cross sectional data on worker self reported characteristics, smoking histories, and workplace smoking policies were used in multivariate statistical models to examine whether workplace smoking policies reduce cigarette consumption. After analysing the distribution of policies, four main types of workplace programme were defined: (1) 100% smoke-free environments, (2) work area bans in which smoking is allowed in some common areas, (3) bans in some but not all work and common areas, and (4) minimal or no restrictions. SETTING: After environmental tobacco smoke was identified as a health hazard in the mid-1980s, workplace smoking restrictions became more prevalent. By 1993, nearly 82% of indoor workers faced some restriction on workplace smoking and 47% worked in 100% smoke-free environments. PARTICIPANTS: The database included a nationally representative sample from the tobacco use supplements to the September 1992, January 1993, and May 1993 Current Population Surveys of 97,882 indoor workers who were not self employed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of smoking and number of cigarettes smoked daily by smokers. RESULTS: Having a 100% smoke-free workplace reduced smoking prevalence by 6 percentage points and average daily consumption among smokers by 14% relative to workers subject to minimal or no restrictions. The impact of work area bans was lessened by allowing smoking in some common areas. Smoke-free policies reduced smoking for all demographic groups and in nearly all industries. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring all workplaces to be smoke free would reduce smoking prevalence by 10%. Workplace bans have their greatest impact on groups with the highest rates of smoking.