Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Addiction. 2024 Nov;119(11):1864-1870. doi: 10.1111/add.16462. Epub 2024 Mar 11.
England, Australia and the United States have approached the regulation of e-cigarettes in very different ways, yet all three countries have appealed to the concept of evidence as underpinning policy responses. We compared these policy responses using a combination of the methodologies of historians and policy scientists in order to elucidate the factors that had influenced policy in each country.
ARGUMENT/ANALYSIS: Each country's evidence and values intersected in different ways, producing very different responses within specific national contexts and histories. Our analysis accordingly emphasized the historical precursors of the policy issues raised by e-cigarettes and placed the policy debate within the context of regulatory bodies and the networks of researchers and advocates who influenced policy. Issues also of importance were the nature of the state; political context; the pre-history of nicotine for smoking cessation; the role of activism and its links with government; the influence of harm reduction ideas from drugs and HIV; and finally, whom policy was perceived to benefit. In the United Kingdom, based on this pre-history of the smoking issue, it was the existing smoker, while in the United States and Australia, protecting children and adolescents has played a central role.
Structural and historical factors appear to underpin differences in e-cigarette policy development in England, Australia and the United States.
英国、澳大利亚和美国在电子烟监管方面采取了非常不同的方法,但这三个国家都诉诸于证据概念,作为政策回应的基础。我们使用历史学家和政策科学家的方法相结合,比较了这些政策反应,以阐明影响每个国家政策的因素。
论点/分析:每个国家的证据和价值观以不同的方式相交,在特定的国家背景和历史中产生了非常不同的反应。因此,我们的分析强调了电子烟引发的政策问题的历史前因,并将政策辩论置于监管机构以及影响政策的研究人员和倡导者网络的背景下。同样重要的问题是国家的性质;政治背景;尼古丁用于戒烟的历史;激进主义的作用及其与政府的联系;减少毒品和艾滋病毒危害的想法的影响;最后,政策被认为对谁有利。在英国,基于吸烟问题的这一历史背景,是现有吸烟者,而在美国和澳大利亚,保护儿童和青少年则发挥了核心作用。
结构和历史因素似乎是导致英国、澳大利亚和美国电子烟政策发展差异的基础。