非法贸易作为一种抵消效应:FDA评估烟草法规必须知道什么

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Drug Policy Analysis Pub Date : 2016-12-01 DOI:10.1515/jdpa-2015-0016
M. Kleiman, J. Prieger, Jonathan Kulick
{"title":"非法贸易作为一种抵消效应:FDA评估烟草法规必须知道什么","authors":"M. Kleiman, J. Prieger, Jonathan Kulick","doi":"10.1515/jdpa-2015-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [P.L. 111–31] gives the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco products, including placing restrictions on product composition, sale, and distribution. A complete accounting of the costs and benefits of any tobacco regulation includes harms from possible illicit trade in tobacco products (ITTP): costs of enforcement, violence, incarceration, etc. Indeed, the law instructs the FDA to take into account the “countervailing effects” of regulation on public health, “such as the creation of a significant demand for contraband or other tobacco products that do not meet the requirements.” While the law’s narrow focus on public health may limit the scope of an inquiry by the FDA compared to a full benefit-cost analysis, aspects of ITTP such as violence and incarceration have substantial health impacts. Illicit markets in drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, not to mention the grand experiment of alcohol Prohibition in the early twentieth century, illustrate the substantial risks of unwanted side effects of drug prohibition. But taxes, product limitations, access restrictions, and narrowly defined product bans constitute “lesser prohibitions,” and are subject to the same kind (if not degree) of risks. All tobacco policy-making should therefore consider ITTP. This article sets forth a research agenda for the FDA to consider in order to estimate the effects of contemplated tobacco-product regulation and ITTP. To carry out fully its legislative mandate, the FDA would have to determine the current size and impacts of ITTP, analyze how these may be expected to change under new regulations, and look for interdependencies among tobacco-product markets that may complicate single-product regulation. A more challenging element of the research agenda would be to develop a better theoretical groundwork for the prediction of the emergence, size, and side effects of illicit markets. We close with discussion of how the proposed research agenda may lead to insights into other policy areas as well.","PeriodicalId":38436,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","volume":"9 1","pages":"1 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2015-0016","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Illicit Trade as a Countervailing Effect: What the FDA Would Have to Know to Evaluate Tobacco Regulations\",\"authors\":\"M. Kleiman, J. Prieger, Jonathan Kulick\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jdpa-2015-0016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [P.L. 111–31] gives the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco products, including placing restrictions on product composition, sale, and distribution. A complete accounting of the costs and benefits of any tobacco regulation includes harms from possible illicit trade in tobacco products (ITTP): costs of enforcement, violence, incarceration, etc. Indeed, the law instructs the FDA to take into account the “countervailing effects” of regulation on public health, “such as the creation of a significant demand for contraband or other tobacco products that do not meet the requirements.” While the law’s narrow focus on public health may limit the scope of an inquiry by the FDA compared to a full benefit-cost analysis, aspects of ITTP such as violence and incarceration have substantial health impacts. Illicit markets in drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, not to mention the grand experiment of alcohol Prohibition in the early twentieth century, illustrate the substantial risks of unwanted side effects of drug prohibition. But taxes, product limitations, access restrictions, and narrowly defined product bans constitute “lesser prohibitions,” and are subject to the same kind (if not degree) of risks. All tobacco policy-making should therefore consider ITTP. This article sets forth a research agenda for the FDA to consider in order to estimate the effects of contemplated tobacco-product regulation and ITTP. To carry out fully its legislative mandate, the FDA would have to determine the current size and impacts of ITTP, analyze how these may be expected to change under new regulations, and look for interdependencies among tobacco-product markets that may complicate single-product regulation. A more challenging element of the research agenda would be to develop a better theoretical groundwork for the prediction of the emergence, size, and side effects of illicit markets. We close with discussion of how the proposed research agenda may lead to insights into other policy areas as well.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jdpa-2015-0016\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2015-0016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Drug Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jdpa-2015-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

家庭吸烟预防和烟草控制法案[P.L.][111-31]赋予美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)监管烟草制品的权力,包括对产品成分、销售和分销施加限制。对任何烟草管制的成本和收益的全面核算包括可能的烟草制品非法贸易的危害:执法成本、暴力、监禁等。事实上,该法律指示FDA考虑监管对公众健康的“反补贴效应”,“例如对违禁品或其他不符合要求的烟草产品产生大量需求”。虽然与全面的收益-成本分析相比,该法律对公共卫生的狭隘关注可能限制了FDA调查的范围,但ITTP的暴力和监禁等方面对健康有实质性影响。可卡因、海洛因和甲基苯丙胺等毒品的非法市场,更不用说20世纪初的大规模禁酒实验,说明了禁药副作用的巨大风险。但是,税收、产品限制、访问限制和狭义的产品禁令构成了“较小的禁令”,并且受到相同类型(如果不是程度)的风险。因此,所有烟草政策制定都应考虑国际烟草合作计划。本文提出了一个供FDA考虑的研究议程,以便评估预期的烟草制品法规和ITTP的影响。为了充分执行其立法授权,FDA必须确定ITTP目前的规模和影响,分析这些在新法规下可能发生的变化,并寻找可能使单一产品监管复杂化的烟草产品市场之间的相互依赖关系。研究议程中一个更具挑战性的因素将是为预测非法市场的出现、规模和副作用建立更好的理论基础。最后,我们讨论了拟议的研究议程如何可能导致对其他政策领域的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Illicit Trade as a Countervailing Effect: What the FDA Would Have to Know to Evaluate Tobacco Regulations
Abstract The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [P.L. 111–31] gives the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco products, including placing restrictions on product composition, sale, and distribution. A complete accounting of the costs and benefits of any tobacco regulation includes harms from possible illicit trade in tobacco products (ITTP): costs of enforcement, violence, incarceration, etc. Indeed, the law instructs the FDA to take into account the “countervailing effects” of regulation on public health, “such as the creation of a significant demand for contraband or other tobacco products that do not meet the requirements.” While the law’s narrow focus on public health may limit the scope of an inquiry by the FDA compared to a full benefit-cost analysis, aspects of ITTP such as violence and incarceration have substantial health impacts. Illicit markets in drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, not to mention the grand experiment of alcohol Prohibition in the early twentieth century, illustrate the substantial risks of unwanted side effects of drug prohibition. But taxes, product limitations, access restrictions, and narrowly defined product bans constitute “lesser prohibitions,” and are subject to the same kind (if not degree) of risks. All tobacco policy-making should therefore consider ITTP. This article sets forth a research agenda for the FDA to consider in order to estimate the effects of contemplated tobacco-product regulation and ITTP. To carry out fully its legislative mandate, the FDA would have to determine the current size and impacts of ITTP, analyze how these may be expected to change under new regulations, and look for interdependencies among tobacco-product markets that may complicate single-product regulation. A more challenging element of the research agenda would be to develop a better theoretical groundwork for the prediction of the emergence, size, and side effects of illicit markets. We close with discussion of how the proposed research agenda may lead to insights into other policy areas as well.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Drug Policy Analysis
Journal of Drug Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Health (social science)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Frontmatter Don’t Let the COVID-19 Crisis Go to Waste: Breaking Through the Status Quo & Flattening the Opioid Epidemic Curve An Examination of Racial Disparities in Misdemeanor Marijuana Possession Arrests Following Reforms in Four U.S. Jurisdictions Did the 2018 Farm Bill’s Hemp Provisions Decriminalize Marijuana? Problematising ‘Recovery’ in Drug Policy within Great Britain: A Comparative Policy Analysis Between England, Wales and Scotland
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1