Evaluations of Compliance With California's First Tobacco Sales Bans and Tobacco Marketing in Restricted and Cross-Border Stores
- PMID: 38430219
- PMCID: PMC11339157
- DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntae043
Evaluations of Compliance With California's First Tobacco Sales Bans and Tobacco Marketing in Restricted and Cross-Border Stores
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.
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.
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.
Similar articles
-
Cigarette and E-Cigarette Retail Marketing on and Near California Tribal Lands.Health Promot Pract. 2020 Jan;21(1_suppl):18S-26S. doi: 10.1177/1524839919883254. Health Promot Pract. 2020. PMID: 31908191 Free PMC article.
-
Retail Marketing of Menthol Cigarettes in Los Angeles, California: a Challenge to Health Equity.Prev Chronic Dis. 2021 Feb 11;18:E11. doi: 10.5888/pcd18.200144. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021. PMID: 33571082 Free PMC article.
-
Are retailers compliant with zoning regulations that ban tobacco sales near schools in Changsha, China?Tob Control. 2017 Jul;26(4):446-451. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052787. Epub 2016 Jul 25. Tob Control. 2017. PMID: 27457789
-
Protecting children from tobacco products in retail environments: A review of Australian tobacco control laws.Drug Alcohol Rev. 2025 May;44(4):1062-1078. doi: 10.1111/dar.14033. Epub 2025 Mar 9. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2025. PMID: 40057945 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The actual and anticipated effects of restrictions on flavoured electronic nicotine delivery systems: a scoping review.BMC Public Health. 2022 Nov 19;22(1):2128. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14440-x. BMC Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36402989 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Tobacco retail outlet marketing exposure and growth of e-cigarette and cigarette use over adolescence and early young adulthood.Tob Control. 2025 May 19:tc-2024-059081. doi: 10.1136/tc-2024-059081. Online ahead of print. Tob Control. 2025. PMID: 40393722 Free PMC article.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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...
-
- 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
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources