Policy Analysis on Smoking Ban

ARTICLE REVIEW

In line to the Reviewed and Presented Policy

Relevant to Hospitality/Tourism Industry

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 26 SERIES 2017

PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF

SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENTS IN PUBLIC AND ENCLOSED PLACES

_________________________________________________________

AIR CONTAMINATION DUE TO SMOKING IN GERMAN

RESTAURANTS, BARS, AND OTHER VENUES—BEFORE AND

AFTER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PARTIAL SMOKING BAN

By: Florian Gleich, Dipl.-Vw., Ute Mons, M.A., & Martina Pötschke-Langer, M.D.

In the Article on Nicotine & Tobacco Research · May 2011

__________________________________________________________

Submitted by:

MARK LENNON A. SITONES

________________________________________________________

I. STRUCTURE

Intention of the study

        The study examined the reduction in exposure to tobacco smoke in German hospitality venues following the implementation of a partial smoking ban by measuring the indoor air concentration of respirable suspended particles (PM2.5)  in 2005 and 2009, that is, before and after the legislation was implemented.

Author’s intention as it carried-on through the paper

        The author clearly presented the intention in the paper. First, they utilized a previous study when there was no smoke-free legislation in Germany sometime in 2005 then lastly, the environments used in the previous study were revisited to determine a clear picture of the impact of the smoke-free legislation when it has been implemented in 2009.

Theory used

        The purpose of conducting the study is to probe on the impact on having a smoke-free legislation among hospitality sectors. However, it was not clearly stated in the study what theory is used aside from citing on severe health implications of second hand smoking and how it can be prevented by implementing comprehensive smoking bans either in public or private places that could result in improvements of indoor air quality based on the studies of Brauer & Mannetje, 1998; Connolly et al., 2009; Ellingsen et al., 2006; Goodman, Agnew, McCaffrey, Paul, & Clancy, 2007; Johnsson et al., 2006; Repace, Hyde, & Brugge, 2006; Semple, Creely, Naji, Miller, & Ayres, 2007; Travers, 2004.

II. AWARENESS OF CURRENT DEBATE

Existing debate addressed in the field of study

        The debate addressed in this field of study is focused on the implementation of the smoking ban policy towards the people who are into the hospitality venues. It aimed to probe on the importance of the policy by presenting facts on the harmful contaminants present in the air within the hospitality venues. This is supported with data got from the occupants in the location by collecting suspended air particles using a laser photometer.

Manner in expanding the debate in the article

        There was a little constraint on making a follow-up on the original venue for being not accessible. The pre-legislation study employed a convenience sample since the information needed for probability sampling was not obtainable (Schneider et al., 2008). Nevertheless, a number of moods were made to ensure generalizability. For the pre-legislation study, the measurements were taken in 10 cities from 9 federal states clustering in the more densely settled western part of Germany; the venues were selected to cover a broad range of size, location, and type. For the follow-up study, the sites of the pre-legislation sample were revisited whenever possible. Only when the original venue was not accessible, it was substituted by the nearest comparable one in the immediate vicinity.

III. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

Assessing the appropriateness of the methodology used

        As mentioned, the device used is the laser photometer and since tobacco smoke particles in the air belong almost entirely to the PM2.5 fraction, the device was set to cut-off the fraction of particles with a diameter larger than 2.5 mm. The device was set to record one data point every minute. It was taken care to inconspicuously sample the air out of the normal breathing zone of the occupants in a central location. The investigator noted parameters such as the measuring period, size of venue, number of guests, and number of cigarettes smoked. It was further paid attention to the presence of alternative sources of particle emissions, such as candles, open kitchens, or fog machines. Whenever there was a substantial physical barrier, like a door, separating the smoke-free and the smoking room, measurements were taken in both rooms.