Summer-School NCDs & the Law

The working of partial smoking bans: Lessons from the Netherlands.

Willem Bantema- PhDw.bantema@rug.nl

Structure• Some unknown smoking ban facts (history)• Short history of smoking bans in the Netherlands• Timeline of smoking ban in the Dutch hospitality industry • Legal context• Research question/ Theory / Study design• Results• Conclusion and discussion• Focus on smoking rooms (the remaining exception)

History (1) of smoking bans

History of smoking bans

Dutch smoking bans• Since 1950’s: Debate on dangers smoking

• 1974: First anti-smoking foundation founded (STIVORO)

• 1990: Tobacco-Act entering into force

• 2004: Extended Tobacco Act intering into force

• 1 july 2008: A smoking ban in the hospitality industry.

Goals of the smoking ban

• Protecting non-smokers (customers) for dangers of second-hand smoke (public health)

• To protect employees for dangers of second-hand smoke.

• To reduce smoking

Timeline from 2008 till 2016

• 2008: Introducing smoking ban in bars• 2009: Trials• 2010: Smoking ban legally acknowlegdes• 2011 (June): Exception for small bars (<70m2)• 2012: Data collection (surveys)• 2013: Trials about the exception (CAN)• 2014: Abolishing the exception• 2015: New legislation entering into force

Legal context• Enforcement: by the NVWA

• Fines: 300, 600, 1200 and 2400. After some months also prosecution possible.

• Only venue holders (for instance bar) could be fined

• Smoking rooms and terraces (with certain rules) are permitted.

• From 2011 till 2014: Small bars (<70 m2) without staff were allowed to smoke inside.

Legal context (1) – Smoking rooms

• No size restrictions (size)• No restrictions about ventilation• Smoking rooms should be lockable• Smoking rooms should be locked• Bar staff (also owners) aren’t allowed to serve

in the smoking room.• Bar staff (also owners) aren’t allowed to pick

up glasses from the smoking room.

Legal contact – exception small bars (2)

Between juni 2011 and september 2014

• <Smaller 70 m2• Without staff (employees)

Compliance over time (2009-2012)

v 2009 z 2009 n 2009 w 2009 v 2010 z 2010 n 2010 w2010 v 2011 n 2011 v 2012 n 20120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

83

67

46

63

Source: Intraval

Research question

• How can we explain the level of (non) compliance with the smoking ban among Dutch bar owners?

• Focus on bar owners and the Netherlands.

Motivational postures(Braithwaite, V).

- From the perspective of the regulattee (bar owners)

- Demonstrated in different contexts

- Relationship between regulator and regulattee ; also support for the underlying regulation.

- Related to (non)compliance

- Clues for enforcement (styles) and regulation

Commitment

Capitulation

Resistance

Disengagement

Game-playing

Study design

• Surveys (bars & restaurants).

• Semi-structured interviews (N=23)

• Self-reported compliance

• Motivational postures

• Support smoking ban/social distance to regulator/ perceived obligation to obey the law.

Results (compliance)Compliance (specific)

Bars%

Restaurants%

Smoking is never allowed 40 83

Smoking is not allowed anymore 23 15

Smoking is always allowed 10 0

Smoking is allowed nowadays 27 2

100% (175) 100% (115)

Postures & compliance bars (1)Compliance (specific)

Commitment

%

Capitulation

%

Smoking is never allowed 70 59

Smoking is not allowed anymore 23 15

Smoking is always allowed 2 15

Smoking is allowed nowadays 5 11

Compliance 93 % 74%

Postures & compliance bars (2)Compliance (specific)

Resistance%

Disengagement%

Game-playing%

Smoking is never allowed 29 27 21

Smoking is not allowed anymore 27 18 27

Smoking is always allowed 13 18 15

Smoking is allowed nowadays 32 37 38

Compliance 56 % 45 % 48 %

Motivational postures of bar owners

Commitment Capitulation Resistance Disengagement Game-playing0

10

20

30

40

50

60

38

16

58

29

47

Motivational postures: bars versus restaurants

Commitment Capitulation Resistance Disengagement Game-playing0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

38

16

58

29

47

78

43

35

11

16

BarsRestaurants

Commitment

• No ventilation• Pointing at custromers more easy• No fines (often)• Lower perceived loss in turnover• More employees (size?)• Venue holder for a longer time• Support for the legislation (+)• Perceived obligation to obey the law (+)• Related to a higher level of compliance

Illustration- commitment

Capitulation

• Lower perceived loss in turnover• Lower social distance to the regulator• No relationship with compliance

Illustration - capitulation

Resistance (1)

- Experienced enforcement problemens- Critical on the way the NVWA inspects- Alternatives for a smoking ban- Low support for a smoking ban (!)- Difficult to point customers at the smoking

ban- Related to a lower level of compliance

Illustration – resistance (1)

Disengagement

- A lack of interest in the regulator (NVWA)- No alternatives for a smoking ban mentioned- Low perceived obligation to obey the law- Great social distance (gap) between those bar

owners and the NVWA

Illustration - disengagement

Game-playing

- Circumvent the spirit of the law (aims)- Violate the letter of the law- Avoid enforcement/penalties (cat & mouse)- Low support for a smoking ban

Illustration – game-playing

Other results (compliance)

• Role of smoking room• Role of having ventilation• Role customers (pointing at smoking ban)• Support for a smoking ban• Perceived obligation to obey the law• Kinds of bars

Goals of the smoking ban (1)Goals of the smoking ban

All bars

Bars compliance

Bars non-compliance

If you are going to work in bars, you know that the environment is smoky (agrees)

72 % 54% 86%

Employees have the right on a smoke-free workplace (agrees)

31% 41% 14%

Non-smoking should go to another bar (agrees)

62% 50% 83%

Conclusion (1)

• Motivational postures are related to compliance

• Different compliance motivations behind non-compliance

• What does it mean for regulatory compliance? (enforcement)

Discussion

Most common postures of non-compliers

• Resistance: Clairity and a more consistent government policy may help. Also more strict enforcement (in general and for exceptions), preferred communal based (!)

• Game-playing: More strict enforcement (idem)

Smoking rooms – the remaining exception

• Between 2009 & 2016, percentage of bars with smoking rooms has increased from 10 to 25 percent.

• Is this effective? What are the main aims of goals of the smoking ban?

• Emperical results concerning the smoking room?

Restrictions for the use of a smoking room

• Smoking rooms should be lockable• Smoking rooms should be locked• Bar staff (also owners) aren’t allowed to serve

in the smoking room.• Bar staff (also owners) aren’t allowed to pick

up glasses from the smoking room.

Bar owners with a smoking room

• Based on 160 bars (with and without food) with a smoking room.

• 4 statements (questions about) handling with their smoking room, based on the four mentioned restrictions

Results (N=160)Compliance with the rules concerning smoking rooms

Compliance

Room is lockable 94%

Room is often locked 53%

Customers aren’t served in the smoking room 66%

Glashes aren’t picked up during working hours 16%

Results (2)Compliance with the rules concerning smoking rooms

Percentage

Full non-compliance (0 rules) 3

Compliance with 1 rule 23

Compliance with 2 rules 28

Compliance with 3 rules 34

Full compliance (4 rules) 12

Illustrations

• Large smoking rooms

• Smoking rooms not locked

• Very creative smoking rooms

• The need for picking glasses….

Illustrations

• Also non-smokers in the smoking room, being social.

• Bar staff are often smokers themselves

• In general terms: Smoking belongs to the work in bars, like chemists have a risk of infection.

How can this non-compliance be explained?

Most import predictor:

Game-playing (-)

Careful with exceptions….because• It gives more opportunities for game-playing, circumvent

the spirit and letter of the law…• It Requires more enforcement….• It leads to discussion between regulator and regulatee• It leads to discussion between bar owners; because of

distorted competition…• It leads to discussion between bar owners and customers• It undermines support with the smoking ban in other bar

owners….

Smoking ban in bars - retrospective

• A small part of the bar owners violated the smoking ban always since 2008 (10%)

• Most violatings occur later on, based on circumstances.

• A lack of experienced enforcement, unfair competition, exeptions for small bars and most important, a lack of support for a smoking ban.