Influences of the Kanagawa Prefectural Government Ordinanceon Prevention of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke in Public Facilities on passive smoking measures in workplace .

-The first report based on considerations results of a questionnaire survey after enforcement of the Kanagawa Prefectural Government Ordinance on Prevention of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke in Public Facilities-

Abstract

Abstract
Purpose: To understand the actual status after the enforcement of the Kanagawa Prefectural Government Ordinance on Prevention of Exposure to Secondhand Smoke in Public Facilities, and to investigate factors that facilitate or inhibit the implementation of measures against passive smoking.
Subjects and Methods: A questionnaire survey was carried out using a self-reporting questionnaire about the actual status at public facilities in Kanagawa Prefecture after enforcement of the Ordinance.
Results: The results of the questionnaire survey of 918 facilities revealed that the rate of awareness of the Ordinance was 88.6%, overall, after 6 months of enforcement of the Ordinance, and measures against passive smoking were enhanced after the Ordinance in 38% of the facilities. Facilities at which the number of users and the sales amount remained unchanged after the Ordinance accounted for the highest proportion, 56.3%. There were significant differences according to the measures taken against passive smoking; the sales amount decreased prominently at facilities that provided separate areas for smokers. Facilities that had a plan for promoting measures against passive smoking cited the following reasons for such promotion (in descending order of frequency): “...because passive smoking may affect people’s health,” “...because of the Health Promotion Act,” and “...because of the Passive Smoking Prevention Ordinance.” At facilities where there was no such plan, the absence of the plan was explained as follows: “prevention of passive smoking is a matter of the smokers’ choice,” and “there is no space for setting up a smoking compartment.”
Conclusion: The rate of awareness of the Ordinance was high, and the number of users and the sales amount tended to have decreased at facilities with imperfect measures in place against passive smoking, such as separation of smoking areas. It became apparent that measures against passive smoking were promoted by law enforcement and the recognition of health hazards from passive smoking, and inhibited by poor recognition of the issues of passive smoking and the need of space for setting up a smoking compartment.