Abstract
Background
Tobacco control policy audacity can make radical ideas seem possible, and set in motion a ‘domino’ effect, where precedents in one jurisdiction are followed by others. This review examines tobacco control policy audacity from seven countries to identify and compares factors that facilitated it.
Methods
A targeted search strategy and purposive sampling approach was used to identify information from a range of sources and analyse key supportive factors for policy audacity. Each case was summarised, then key themes identified and compared across jurisdictions to identify similarities and differences.
Results
Included cases were Mauritius’ ban on tobacco industry corporate social responsibility, Uruguay’s tobacco single brand presentation regulations, New Zealand’s Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan proposals and 2010 parliamentary Māori Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into the Tobacco Industry, Australia’s plain packaging legislation, Balanga City’s (Philippines) tobacco free generation ordinance, Beverly Hills City Council’s (USA) ordinance to ban tobacco sales and the Netherlands’ policy plan to phase out online and supermarket tobacco sales. Each case was one strategy within a well-established comprehensive tobacco control and public health approach. Intersectoral and multi-jurisdiction collaboration, community engagement and public support, a strong theoretical evidence base and lessons learned from previous tobacco control policies were important supportive factors, as was public support to ensure low political risk for policy makers.
Conclusions
Tobacco control policy audacity is usually an extension of existing measures and typically appears as ‘the next logical step’, and therefore within the risk appetite of policy makers in settings where it occurs.
Tobacco control policy audacity can make radical ideas seem possible, and set in motion a ‘domino’ effect, where precedents in one jurisdiction are followed by others. This review examines tobacco control policy audacity from seven countries to identify and compares factors that facilitated it.
Methods
A targeted search strategy and purposive sampling approach was used to identify information from a range of sources and analyse key supportive factors for policy audacity. Each case was summarised, then key themes identified and compared across jurisdictions to identify similarities and differences.
Results
Included cases were Mauritius’ ban on tobacco industry corporate social responsibility, Uruguay’s tobacco single brand presentation regulations, New Zealand’s Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan proposals and 2010 parliamentary Māori Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into the Tobacco Industry, Australia’s plain packaging legislation, Balanga City’s (Philippines) tobacco free generation ordinance, Beverly Hills City Council’s (USA) ordinance to ban tobacco sales and the Netherlands’ policy plan to phase out online and supermarket tobacco sales. Each case was one strategy within a well-established comprehensive tobacco control and public health approach. Intersectoral and multi-jurisdiction collaboration, community engagement and public support, a strong theoretical evidence base and lessons learned from previous tobacco control policies were important supportive factors, as was public support to ensure low political risk for policy makers.
Conclusions
Tobacco control policy audacity is usually an extension of existing measures and typically appears as ‘the next logical step’, and therefore within the risk appetite of policy makers in settings where it occurs.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 328-334 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Tobacco Control |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2022 |