Banning Loose Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products in India: A Policy Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sale of single cigarettes (also known as singles or loosies) is a key driver for early initiation of smoking and is a leading contributor to the smoking epidemic in India. Sale of singles additionally deter implementation of tobacco control strategies of pictorial health warnings including plain packaging and defeat effective taxation and promote illicit trade. We review India's tobacco control policy responses towards banning singles and other products sold as loose tobacco and identify opportunities for future policy intervention especially in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Existing national and sub-national policy documents were analyzed for their content since the inception of the tobacco control laws in the country. RESULTS: There are no effective provisions at national level to ban loose tobacco products in India. However, the implementation of multiple legislative and regulatory measures (Acts/circulars/letters/notifications/orders/court judgements) in 16 Indian states and jurisdictions provide sufficient legal framework to substantiate its complete ban pan India. While the majority of state governments have adopted state level measures, Rajasthan had issued specific directive to all the 33 districts banning loose cigarettes and other tobacco products. Himachal Pradesh introduced the most unique and comprehensive legislation, for banning the sale of cigarettes and beedis (Dated November 7, 2016). The most recent notification in the state of Maharashtra (September 24, 2020) is the first to leverage powers using a mix of national and state legislations including the legislation addressing the rapidly emerging challenge of managing COVID-19. CONCLUSION: A robust national policy which supports strong provision to deter tobacco companies, their distribution network and vendors from selling singles or loose tobacco products is urgently needed. Such policy should be backed by cautionary messaging for consumers as well. Eliminating singles and loose tobacco sale will help in blunting tobacco use prevalence besides curbing spread of infectious diseases like COVID-19 pandemic.

[Trends of Implementation of Nonsmoking at Eating and Drinking Establishments One Year before and after April 2020: Consideration of the Status of Implementation of the Amendment Bill for the Health Promotion Act of Japan].

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to clarify the transition to the implementation of smoking prohibition at eating and drinking establishments one year before and after April 2020, the time when they became "nonsmoking" in principle following the implementation of the amendment bill for the Health Promotion Act of Japan. METHODS: The total number of nonsmoking/smoking eating and drinking establishments by industry were obtained using the data from "Tabelog®." The number of people who tested positive for COVID-19 by the polymerase chain reaction test on the day of the survey nationwide and the bankruptcy status of the companies (eating and drinking establishments, etc.) for each month were ascertained. RESULTS: In 2020, a state of emergency was declared owing to the increase in the number of people positive for COVID-19, and many eating and drinking establishments went bankrupt. Despite these circumstances, the number of nonsmoking eating and drinking establishments exceeded that of smoking establishments in March 2020 and continued to increase thereafter. Additionally, the number of nonsmoking "restaurants" increased and exceeded that of smoking restaurants in June 2020. The number of nonsmoking "cafes" already exceeded that of smoking "cafes" at the beginning of this survey and continued to increase. The number of nonsmoking "bars" increased, but that of smoking "bars" remained high. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to promote measures against passive smoking while paying attention to the trends for different types of eating and drinking establishments, rather than considering all establishments together.

What containment strategy leads us through the pandemic crisis? An empirical analysis of the measures against the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since January 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak has been progressing at a rapid pace. To keep the pandemic at bay, countries have implemented various measures to interrupt the transmission of the virus from person to person and prevent an overload of their health systems. We analyze the impact of these measures implemented against the COVID-19 pandemic by using a sample of 68 countries, Puerto Rico and the 50 federal states of the United States of America, four federal states of Australia, and eight federal states of Canada, involving 6,941 daily observations. We show that measures are essential for containing the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. After controlling for daily COVID-19 tests, we find evidence to suggest that school closures, shut-downs of non-essential business, mass gathering bans, travel restrictions in and out of risk areas, national border closures and/or complete entry bans, and nationwide curfews decrease the growth rate of the coronavirus and thus the peak of daily confirmed cases. We also find evidence to suggest that combinations of these measures decrease the daily growth rate at a level outweighing that of individual measures. Consequently, and despite extensive vaccinations, we contend that the implemented measures help contain the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and ease the overstressed capacity of the healthcare systems.

Misalignment between coronavirus financial aid and public health policies: negative incentives for outpatient clinics in the United States.

The United States Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) led to creation of the Paycheck Protection Program, as well as an expansion of reimbursements for telemedicine. CARES Act drafters over emphasized maintaining employment and overlooked negative downstream effects the policies had on outpatient clinics. The misalignment between this financial aid package and public health policy is most apparent in the pressure administrators face to maintain clinic operations, without a transition plan to adopt telemedicine and associated best practices. If this continues, the result will be suboptimal clinical practices and an increased risk of COVID-19 infection to both staff and patients. Particularly in times of crisis, financial aid packages should not be evaluated in isolation; policymakers should consider their implications for public health while designing, enacting, and implementing such measures.