Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Licensing Laws (licensing + law)
Selected AbstractsThe impact of changing nicotine replacement therapy licensing laws in the United Kingdom: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country SurveyADDICTION, Issue 8 2009Lion Shahab ABSTRACT Aim To evaluate the impact of a new licence for some nicotine replacement therapy products (NRT) for cutting down to stop (CDTS) on changes in the pattern of NRT use. Design Quasi-experimental design comparing changes in NRT use across two waves of a population-based, replenished-panel, telephone survey conducted before and after the introduction of new licensing laws in the United Kingdom with changes in NRT use in three comparison countries (Australia, Canada and United States) without a licensing change. Participants A total of 7386 and 7013 smokers and recent ex-smokers participating in the 2004 and/or 2006/7 survey. Measurements Data were collected on demographic and smoking characteristics as well as NRT use and access. In order to account for interdependence resulting from some participants being present in both waves, generalized estimation equations with an exchangeable correlation matrix were used to assess within-country changes and linear and logistic regressions to assess between-country differences in adjusted analyses. Findings NRT use was more prevalent in the United Kingdom and increased across waves in all countries but no wave × country interaction was observed. There was no evidence that the licensing change increased the prevalence of CDTS or the use of NRT (irrespective of how it was accessed) for CDTS in the United Kingdom relative to comparison countries. There was also no evidence for a change in concurrent smoking and NRT use among smokers not attempting to stop in the United Kingdom relative to comparison countries. Conclusion The addition of the CDTS licence for some NRT products in the United Kingdom appears to have had very limited, if any, impact on NRT use in the first year after the licence change. [source] UK Government announces first major relaxation in the alcohol licensing laws for nearly a century: drinking in the UK goes 24,7ADDICTION, Issue 7 2000D. Colin Drummond First page of article [source] Differences in licensee, police and public opinions regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm associated with licensed premisesAUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Issue 2 2009Nathan Hawkins Abstract Objectives: To determine the level of support by licensees, police and the general public for interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm associated with licensed premises and to identify differences between the three groups. Methods: Participants were 108 licensees of premises licensed to sell alcohol; 132 police officers; 200 members of the public. Questionnaires were administered either through work settings or by mail. Respondents' levels of agreement with interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm associated with licensed premises: responsible service of alcohol; security and crowd control; policing; patron transport; and linking of alcohol-related harm to licensed premises and communication. Results: Police and members of the public were significantly more likely than licensees to agree with strategies under licensee control, such as subsidising patron transport and training staff to deal with intoxicated patrons. Police were more likely than licensees and members of the public to agree with strategies requiring community action and changes to liquor licensing laws. Licensees had significantly lower levels of agreement than the other groups about licensees' responsibility to reduce alcohol-related harm as a consequence of drinking at their premises. Conclusions: While there was good agreement between police officers and members of the public about strategies for reducing alcohol-related harm at licensed premises, licensees held divergent views about strategies within their control. Licensees were less likely than police and members of the public to agree they were responsible for reducing alcohol-related harm resulting from drinking at their premises. [source] | ||||||||||