Analysis of Foreign Experience of Law Enforcement Structures in the Field of Preventing the Illegal Trafficking of Pyrotechnic Products
Annotation / Abstract
Abstract. The article provides a comparative analysis of international legal norms, as well as the practice and legislation of a number of leading foreign countries regarding this issue. The author has examined examples from the practice of law enforcement agencies in such developed countries as the USA, Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain, China, Australia, Russia, and others. At the same time, special attention is paid to legislative measures, methods of control and supervision, as well as cooperation with international organizations and the private sector. Recommendations are formulated for improving and adapting these practices to the conditions of the Republic of Uzbekistan in order to enhance the effectiveness of combating the illegal circulation of pyrotechnic products and ensuring public safety.
Full text
Results / Tahlil va natijalar
Analysis of scientific research related to bans and restrictions on pyrotechnic products indicates the existence of three distinct periods: the prohibitive, permissive, and liberal periods.
The prohibitive period refers to the 1950s and 1960s, when researchers documented the prevalence of injuries associated with pyrotechnic products and presented arguments in favor of stricter restrictions. As a result, during the 1960s and 1970s, regulations governing the circulation of pyrotechnic products became more stringent. However, there was no convincing evidence regarding the consequences of these prohibitions, as most available data were collected before the implementation of the bans. Proponents of this approach, including L. R. Berger, S. Kalishman, and F. P. Rivara [14], also noted that countries with stricter bans generally experienced fewer pyrotechnic-related injuries.
The permissive period is associated with efforts to oppose the repeal or excessive restriction of controls on pyrotechnic products. During this period, researchers advanced arguments supporting regulated use of pyrotechnic products, drawing certain parallels with debates concerning drug legalization. A prominent advocate of this perspective, R. S. Wilson (1982) [15], actively opposed bans on consumer fireworks, arguing that countries with less restrictive regulations reported fewer injuries. Supporting this position, L. R. Berger, S. Kalishman, and F. P. Rivara [16] suggested that restrictive and prohibitive legislation could increase injuries because illegally manufactured pyrotechnic products tend to be more dangerous.
The liberal period (legalization) encompasses studies devoted to the liberalization of legislation regulating pyrotechnic products. Among the notable contributors are Dj. S. Rosler, X. Dey [17, pp. 46–47], T. M. Rudisill, K. Preambula, K. Pilkerton [18, p. 137], Goggans, S. S. Shaftel, C. S. Chang [19, pp. 806–809], and K. Galet (2022) [20, pp. 553–559]. A representative of this period, S. Bitter [21], found that during the liberalization period from 2008 to 2017 there was a sharp increase in the number of injuries caused by pyrotechnic products.
C. Chen, L. Jiang, W. Liu, and H. Sun (2022) [22] concluded that moderate regulatory measures do not provide significant environmental benefits. In contrast, strict regulations reduce the concentration of particulate matter in the atmosphere by approximately 8% during festive periods, thereby improving public health through a reduction in respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
References
Results / Tahlil va natijalar
Analysis of scientific research related to bans and restrictions on pyrotechnic products indicates the presence of three periods: the "prohibitive," "permissive," and "liberal" periods.
The prohibitive period refers to the 1950s and 1960s, documenting the prevalence of injuries associated with pyrotechnic products and providing arguments for stricter limitations. As a result, during the 1960s and 1970s, regulations concerning the circulation of pyrotechnic products became more stringent. However, there was no convincing evidence regarding the effectiveness of these bans, since the available data mainly reflected the situation before their introduction. Researchers such as L. R. Berger, S. Kalishman, and F. P. Rivara [14] also noted that countries with stricter bans generally reported fewer injuries caused by pyrotechnic products.
The permissive period is associated with efforts to oppose the repeal or excessive restriction of consumer access to pyrotechnic products. During this stage, scholars advanced arguments supporting regulated use rather than complete prohibition, drawing certain parallels with debates surrounding drug legalization. One of the leading proponents of this approach, R. S. Wilson (1982) [15], argued against banning consumer fireworks, claiming that countries with more flexible regulations experienced lower injury rates. Supporting this position, L. R. Berger, S. Kalishman, and F. P. Rivara [16] maintained that overly restrictive legislation may actually increase injuries by encouraging the circulation of more dangerous illegal products.
The liberal period (legalization) includes studies examining the effects of liberalizing legislation governing pyrotechnic products. Representative works include those by Dj. S. Rosler and X. Dey [17], T. M. Rudisill, K. Preambula, and K. Pilkerton [18], M. J. Goggans, S. S. Shaftel, and C. S. Chang [19], as well as K. Galet et al. [20]. However, S. Bitter [21] found that during the liberalization period from 2008 to 2017, the number of pyrotechnic-related injuries increased sharply.
Furthermore, C. Chen, L. Jiang, W. Liu, and H. Sun (2022) [22] concluded that moderate regulatory measures do not provide significant environmental benefits. In contrast, strict regulations reduce the concentration of airborne particulate matter by approximately 8% during festive periods, thereby contributing to improved public health through a reduction in respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
References / Foydalanilgan manbalar
- George Braun. Fireworks, Explosives, Guns, and Minors. Cleveland State Law Review, 15 (1966), p. 566. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395923001299#bbib0008
- S. P. Kraus. The Fire Rises: Refining the Pennsylvania Fireworks Law so that Fewer People Get Burned. Dickinson Law Review, 123 (2018), p. 747.
- S. Egan. (2021). Fireworks Retailers in the US (OD6304). IBISWorld. https://www.ibisworld.com/
- K. Lannan. Novelty Sparklers Would Be Allowed Under Pair of Bills Before State Public Safety Committee. MetroWest Daily News (2021). https://www.metrowestdailynews.com/
- Michael Finnegan. (2021). Man Arrested in South L.A. Fireworks Explosion Is Set to Plead Guilty. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/
- Frank Shyong. (2014). 10 Tons of Fireworks Seized at Warehouse. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/
- C. Dempsey. (2020). Police Seize Drugs, Guns and Fireworks in Hartford. https://www.courant.com/
- H. O. Andradottir, T. Thorsteinsson. Repeated Extreme Particulate Matter Episodes Due to Fireworks in Iceland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236 (2019), Article 117511.
- M. R. Sijimol, M. Mohan. Environmental Impacts of Perchlorate with Special Reference to Fireworks: A Review. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 186(11), 2014.
- L. Goines, L. Hagler. Noise Pollution: A Modern Plague. Southern Medical Journal, 100(3), 2007, pp. 287–294.
- P. Chaparro-Narváez, K. Cotes-Cantillo, C. Castañeda-Orjuela, F. De la Hoz-Restrepo. Injuries Due to Fireworks Use: A Surveillance Data Analysis in Colombia (2008–2013).
- Jonathan P. Caulkins, Kristina Vaia Reimer. When Prohibition Works: Comparing Fireworks and Cannabis Regulations, Markets, and Harms. Carnegie Mellon University, 2023. ScienceDirect
- R. P. L. Wisse, W. R. Bijlsma, J. S. Stilma. Ocular Firework Trauma: A Systematic Review on Incidence, Severity, Outcome and Prevention. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 94(12), 2010.
- L. R. Berger, S. Kalishman, F. P. Rivara. Injuries from Fireworks. Pediatrics, 75(5), 1985.
- R. S. Wilson. Ocular Fireworks Injuries and Blindness. Ophthalmology, 89(4), 1982.
- L. R. Berger, S. Kalishman, F. P. Rivara. Injuries from Fireworks. Pediatrics, 75(5), 1985.
- Dj. S. Rosler, X. Dey. Effect of Legislation on Firework-Related Injuries in Minnesota (1999–2005). Minnesota Medicine, 90(7), 2007, pp. 46–47.
- T. M. Rudisill, K. Preambula, K. Pilkerton. Firework Legislation Liberalization and Its Effect on Firework-Related Injuries in West Virginia. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 2020.
- M. J. Goggans, S. S. Shaftel, C. S. Chang. Firework Injuries Before and After the Michigan Fireworks Safety Act. Academic Emergency Medicine, 28(7), 2021, pp. 806–809.
- K. Galet et al. Firework Injuries Remain High Years After Legalization: Impact on Children. Injury Prevention, 2022, pp. 553–559.
- S. Bitter, Z. Zhang, A. W. Talbert, A. K. Weber, L. Hinyard. Increasing Firework Injuries in the United States. Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open, 2(6), 2021.
- C. Chen, L. Jiang, W. Liu, H. Sun. Firework Regulation, Air Pollution, and Public Health. 2022.
APA
Vancouver
Authors
O'zbekiston Respublikasi Kriminologiya tadqiqot instituti