An observational study of the secondary effects of a local smoke-free ordinance.

INTRODUCTION: The secondary, sometimes unintended effects of smoke-free ordinances have not been thoroughly evaluated. In this observational study, we evaluated the association of a local ordinance implemented in Madison, Wisconsin, with changes in public disturbances; smoking, drinking, and bar-going behaviors in the general population; and smoking and drinking behaviors among university students. METHODS: We obtained data from 4 sources: police records, key informant interviews, a community survey, and an undergraduate survey. Except for interviews, which we conducted postenactment only, we compared measures before and after the ordinance was put into effect. RESULTS: We found no evidence of association of the ordinance with public disturbances. We found that the ordinance was not associated with changes in smoking rates, drinking rates, or bar-going in the general population, although bar-going decreased among the 16% of the general adult population who smokes (from 84% in 2005 to 70% in 2007, P < .001). Student smoking rates also decreased (from 23% in 2005 to 16% in 2007, P < .001), but student binge drinking did not change. CONCLUSION: The study adds unique information to the evidence base on the effect of smoke-free policies, finding little evidence of their secondary, unintended effects. With the addition of these results to existing evidence, we conclude that the potential health benefits of smoke-free ordinances outweigh the potential harms from unintended effects.

Is smokeless tobacco use an appropriate public health strategy for reducing societal harm from cigarette smoking?

Four arguments have been used to support smokeless tobacco (ST) for harm reduction: (1) Switching from cigarettes to ST would reduce health risks; (2) ST is effective for smoking cessation; (3) ST is an effective nicotine maintenance product; and (4) ST is not a "gateway" for cigarette smoking. There is little evidence to support the first three arguments and most evidence suggests that ST is a gateway for cigarette smoking. There are ethical challenges to promoting ST use. Based on the precautionary principle, the burden of proof is on proponents to provide evidence to support their position; such evidence is lacking.

Tobacco harm reduction: a call to address the ethical dilemmas.

The 2001 Institute of Medicine report Clearing the Smoke: Assessing the Science Base for Tobacco Harm Reduction has helped to focus attention on the scientific basis for assessing tobacco harm reduction products. As the tobacco research and policy communities tackle the challenges of evaluating harm reduction, there are ethical issues that must also be addressed. There has, however, been very little writing on the ethics of this field. In an effort to spur research into answering these ethical questions, we present two complementary approaches. First we outline three overarching topics in tobacco harm reduction that would particularly lend themselves to study: (a) Is the pursuit of tobacco harm reduction an ethical goal? (b) What are the ethical considerations of tobacco harm reduction vis-à-vis pharmaceutical companies? and (c) What are the ethical considerations for harm reduction vis-à-vis tobacco companies? We then present one possible framework for analyzing the ethical issues that accompany particular tobacco harm reduction strategies. By considering the ethical dilemmas attendant to tobacco harm reduction in a prospective and thoughtful manner, we will be better prepared to handle the challenges that face us individually as researchers and collectively as a tobacco control community.