Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Aug 22;26(9):1159-1165.
doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntae043.

Evaluations of Compliance With California's First Tobacco Sales Bans and Tobacco Marketing in Restricted and Cross-Border Stores

Affiliations

Evaluations of Compliance With California's First Tobacco Sales Bans and Tobacco Marketing in Restricted and Cross-Border Stores

Lisa Henriksen et al. Nicotine Tob Res. .

Abstract

Introduction: Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach were the first California cities to end tobacco sales. Previous research assessed retailers' perceptions of the laws. This study is the first to evaluate compliance (Study 1), assess whether branded or unbranded tobacco cues remain, and examine cigarette prices/discounts in cross-border stores (Study 2).

Aims and methods: Each of the four data collectors requested Marlboro or e-cigarettes (randomly assigned) in all restricted stores (n = 33) until four attempts were exhausted or a violation occurred. Follow-up visits recorded whether former tobacco retailers advertised tobacco or contained unbranded cues. In a random sample of 126 cross-border stores (half within 1 mile of no-sales cities and half 2-4 miles away), data collectors recorded price of Marlboro and presence of cigarette discounts. Mixed models (stores within tracts), tested for differences between near and far stores, adjusting for store type and median household income.

Results: Compliance was 87.5%: three stores sold Marlboro (US $8, $10, and $10) and one sold Puff Bar (US $16). Tobacco-branded items and unbranded tobacco cues remained in one store each. Mean Marlboro price was US $10.61 (SD = 1.92) at stores within 1 mile of no-sales cities, averaging US $0.73 more than at stores farther away (p < .05). However, odds of advertising cigarette discounts did not differ between stores nearby and farther from no-sales cities.

Conclusions: Nearly all retailers complied with tobacco sales bans within 6-12 months of implementation. In addition, retail tobacco marketing was nearly eliminated in the two cities. There was no evidence of price gouging for Marlboro cigarettes in cross-border stores.

Implications: Evidence from two early adopters of tobacco sales bans suggests that such local laws can be implemented effectively in California, although results from these high-income cities in a state with a strong tobacco control record limits generalizability. Enforcement involving routine purchase attempts rather than visual inspection of tobacco products is recommended. Although Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach are each surrounded by communities where tobacco sales persist, there was no evidence of price gouging for cigarettes or greater presence of discounts in cross-border stores. Evaluations of the economic impacts and public health benefits of tobacco sales bans are much needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No authors have any conflicts of interest to report. CDPH contributed to the study design, data collection, interpretation, and writing. CDPH reviewed the text prior to submission but did not influence whether or where to submit it for publication.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Data collection timeline.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Puljević C, Feulner L, Hobbs M, et al.. Tobacco endgame and priority populations: a scoping review. Tob Control. Published online January 31, 2023. doi:10.1136/tc-2022-057715 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nargis N. Healthy people countdown 2030: reaching 5% cigarette smoking prevalence among US adults through state cigarette excise tax increases. Tob Control. 2023;32(3):388–392. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. State cigarette tax rates & rank, date of last increase, annual pack sales & revenues, and related data. Published June 2023. https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0099.pdf
    1. California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2021. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health; 2021. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Lib...
    1. Max W, Sung HY, Shi Y, Stark B.. The cost of smoking in California. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016;18(5):1222–1229. - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources