Explore the vast range of titles available.

In June 2019, Beverly Hills, California, became the first American city in the 21st century to pass an ordinance ending the sale of most tobacco products, including cigarettes, and it is unlikely to be the last. Knowledge of previous efforts to ban tobacco sales in the US, both successful and unsuccessful, may help inform tobacco control advocates' approach to future efforts. We retrieved and analyzed archival tobacco industry documents. We confirmed and supplemented information from the documents with news media coverage and publicly available state and local government materials, such as meeting minutes and staff reports, related to proposed bans. We found 22 proposals to end the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products from 1969-2020 in the US. Proposals came from five states, twelve cities or towns, and one county. Most came from elected officials or boards of health, and were justified on public health grounds. In opposing tobacco sales bans, the tobacco industry employed no tactics or arguments that it did not also employ in campaigns against other tobacco control measures. Public health groups typically opposed sales ban proposals on the grounds that they were not evidence-based. This changed with Beverly Hills' 2019 proposal, with public health organizations supporting this and other California city proposals because of their likely positive health impacts. This support did not always translate into passage of local ordinances, as some city council members expressed reservations about the impact on small businesses. Tobacco control advocates are likely to encounter familiar tobacco industry tactics and arguments against tobacco sales ban proposals, and can rely on past experience and the results of a growing body of retail-related research to counter them. Considering how to overcome concerns about harming retailers will likely be vital if other jurisdictions are to succeed in ending tobacco sales.

Video games have grown in popularity since the 1970s, and tobacco imagery is present in a substantial subset of games, including those oriented to youth. Much like exposure to tobacco content in films, exposure to tobacco content in video games may influence smoking uptake and use; however, the tobacco industry's role in facilitating or promoting the use of tobacco imagery in video games is unclear. We explored the industry's interest in and use of video games to market their products to youth and young adults. We retrieved and analyzed archival tobacco industry documents. We supplemented information from the documents with current and archived versions of several brand and corporate websites and one website containing user-supplied information on video games. Tobacco companies recognized the youth appeal and marketing potential of video games as early as 1980. Initial marketing ideas included incorporating video game themes into product packaging and design. More fully realized plans focused on incorporating video games into product promotions in bars, as a high visibility way to attract younger patrons and increase long-term marketing opportunities by generating names for tobacco company direct-marketing databases. Tobacco companies also incorporated video games into in-home product promotions, primarily as components of brand websites, in order to enhance brand image and generate repeat website traffic. A similar desire to attract and keep visitors led to discussions about the inclusion of video games on corporate youth smoking prevention websites, although only one company, Lorillard, followed through. Video game players are an attractive target market for tobacco companies. Video games, as used by these companies, facilitate consumer engagement with particular tobacco brands or particular corporate messages. Eliminating the use of video games as a promotional vehicle may require limiting tobacco marketing in both physical and online environments.

Tobacco retailers are key players in the ongoing tobacco epidemic. Tobacco outlet density is linked to a greater likelihood of youth and adult smoking and greater difficulty quitting. While public policy efforts to address the tobacco problem at the retail level have been limited, some retailers have voluntarily ended tobacco sales. A previous pilot study examined this phenomenon in California, a state with a strong tobacco program focused on denormalizing smoking and the tobacco industry. We sought to learn what motivated retailers in other states to end tobacco sales and how the public and media responded. We conducted interviews with owners, managers, or representatives of six grocery stores in New York and Ohio that had voluntarily ended tobacco sales since 2007. We also conducted unobtrusive observations at stores and analyzed media coverage of each retailer's decision. Grocery store owners ended tobacco sales for two reasons, alone or in combination: health or ethics-related, including a desire to send a consistent health message to employees and customers, and business-related, including declining tobacco sales or poor fit with the store's image. The decision to end sales often appeared to resolve troubling contradictions between retailers' values and selling deadly products. New York retailers attributed declining sales to high state tobacco taxes. All reported largely positive customer reactions and most received media coverage. Forty-one percent of news items were letters to the editor or editorials; most (69%) supported the decision. Voluntary decisions by retailers to abandon tobacco sales may lay the groundwork for mandatory policies and further denormalize tobacco. Our study also suggests that high tobacco taxes may have both direct and indirect effects on tobacco use. Highlighting the contradictions between being a responsible business and selling deadly products may support voluntary decisions by retailers to end tobacco sales.

In the late 1990s, American tobacco companies began offering limited cessation assistance to smokers by posting links on their company websites to government-sponsored smoking cessation resources. Philip Morris USA (PM) went further, funding youth cessation programs and creating its own online cessation program, QuitAssist. We explore why PM entered the cessation arena, and describe the variety of options considered and how PM-supported cessation programs were evaluated and promoted. We retrieved and analyzed archival PM documents from 1998-2005. We supplemented information from the documents with scholarly articles assessing QuitAssist and archived versions of the PM and QuitAssist websites. PM's Youth Smoking Prevention department began funding youth cessation projects and programs soon after its creation in 1998, motivated by the same issue that drove its interest in youth smoking prevention: regulatory threats posed by public and policymaker concern about youth smoking. The department took a similar approach to youth smoking cessation as it did with prevention, rejecting curricula with \"anti-industry\" themes. In 2002, a \"cessation exploration team\" examined a variety of rationales for and approaches to company support for adult smoking cessation. Ultimately, PM chose QuitAssist, a limited and less expensive option that nonetheless provided opportunities for engagement with a variety of public health and government officials. Independent research indicates that QuitAssist is not an effective cessation tool. While the transformation of ambitious plans into a mundane final product is a recurring theme with PM's corporate responsibility efforts, it would be inappropriate to dismiss PM's smoking cessation endeavors as half-hearted attempts to appear responsible. Such endeavors have the potential to inflict real harm by competing with more effective programs and by helping to maintain a tobacco-favorable policy environment. If PM truly wanted to support cessation, it could drop legal and other challenges to public policies that discourage smoking.

In this Perspective on the research article by Ulucanlar and colleagues, Elizabeth Smith and Patricia McDaniel discuss how industry opposition to regulation can undermine the public's overall confidence in government and science.

In the US, denormalizing tobacco use is key to tobacco control; less attention has been paid to denormalizing tobacco sales. However, some localities have placed limits on the number and type of retailers who may sell tobacco, and some retailers have abandoned tobacco sales voluntarily. Understanding community norms surrounding tobacco sales may help accelerate tobacco denormalization. We conducted 15 focus groups with customers of California, New York, and Ohio retailers who had voluntarily discontinued tobacco sales to examine normative assumptions about where cigarettes should or should not be sold, voluntary decisions to discontinue tobacco sales, and government limits on such sales. Groups in all three states generally agreed that grocery stores that sold healthy products should not sell tobacco; California groups saw pharmacies similarly, while this was a minority opinion in the other two states. Convenience stores were regarded as a natural place to sell tobacco. In each state, it was regarded as normal and commendable for some stores to want to stop selling tobacco, although few participants could imagine convenience stores doing so. Views on government's role in setting limits on tobacco sales varied, with California and New York participants generally expressing support for restrictions, and Ohio participants expressing opposition. However, even those who expressed opposition did not approve of tobacco sales in all possible venues. Banning tobacco sales entirely was not yet normative. Limiting the ubiquitous availability of tobacco sales is key to ending the tobacco epidemic. Some limits on tobacco sales appear to be normative from the perspective of community members; it may be possible to shift norms further by problematizing the ubiquitous presence of cigarettes and drawing connections to other products already subject to restrictions.

Background According to the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, twelve states in the United States (U.S.) have government retail monopolies on spirits/liquor sales. With a new federal minimum legal sales age for tobacco (raised from 18 to 21, the minimum legal sales age for alcohol), we examine possible unintended consequences of a hypothetical policy change restricting retail tobacco sales to state-run spirits/liquor stores in alcohol control states, which has been proposed as a tobacco endgame strategy. Methods We used cross-sectional survey data from 14,821 randomly-selected adults ages 21 and older who responded to the 2015 or 2020 U.S. National Alcohol Survey (51.8% female; 65.8% identified as non-Hispanic White, 12.4% as Black or African American, 14.2% as Hispanic or Latinx; 34.0% had a low level of education), including 2,274 respondents (18.9%) residing in one of the alcohol control states (representing 42.2 million (M) adults ages 21+). We estimated associations between tobacco measures (lifetime smoking status, lifetime daily smoking, past-year daily smoking) and alcohol measures (drinking status, beverage choices, lifetime alcohol use disorder (AUD) status, recovery status) overall and for specific subgroups. Results In control states, 55.1% of people who smoked daily in the past year also reported lifetime AUD, including an estimated 3.56 M adults ages 21 + who reported prior (but not current) AUD. The association of daily smoking with lifetime AUD was stronger among those with low education compared to those with higher education. Further, 58.8% of people in recovery from an alcohol and/or drug problem (1.49 M adults ages 21+) smoked daily, and this was more marked among women than men in control states. Conclusion There could be negative consequences of an endgame strategy to restructure tobacco retail sales, including increased risk for relapse to drinking among people who smoke daily, especially among women and people with low levels of education. Strategies to mitigate unintended harms would be needed if such a policy were implemented.

Background In California, some 40, 000 retailers sell tobacco products. Tobacco's ubiquitousness in retail settings normalizes use and cues smoking urges among former smokers and those attempting cessation. Thus, limiting the number of retailers is regarded as key to ending the tobacco epidemic. In the past decade, independent pharmacies and local grocery chains in California and elsewhere have voluntarily abandoned tobacco sales. No previous studies have examined the reasons for this emerging phenomenon. We sought to learn what motivated retailers to discontinue tobacco sales and what employees and customers thought about their decision. Methods We conducted case studies of seven California retailers (three grocery stores, four pharmacies) that had voluntarily ceased tobacco sales within the past 7 years. We interviewed owners, managers, and employees, conducted consumer focus groups, unobtrusively observed businesses and the surrounding environment, and examined any media coverage of each retailer's decision. We analyzed data using qualitative content analysis. Results For independent pharmacies, the only reason given for the decision to end tobacco sales was that tobacco caused disease and death. Grocers listed health among several factors, including regulatory pressures and wanting to be seen as \"making a difference.\" Media coverage of stores' new policies was limited, and only three retailers alerted customers. Management reported few or no customer complaints and supportive or indifferent employees. Pharmacy employees were pleased to no longer be selling a deadly product. Grocery store management saw the decision to end tobacco sales as enhancing the stores' image and consistent with their inventory of healthy foods. Focus group participants (smokers and nonsmokers) were largely unaware that retailers had stopped selling tobacco; however, almost all supported the decision, viewing it as promoting public health. Many said knowing this made them more likely to shop at the store. Most thought that advertising the store's policy was essential to generate good public relations and tobacco norm changes. Conclusions Voluntary retailer abandonment of tobacco sales both reflects and extends social norm changes that have problematized tobacco in California. Our findings suggest that such voluntary initiatives by retailers are welcomed by consumers and should be publicized, enhancing public health efforts.

Media advocacy plays a critical role in tobacco control, shaping the content of news in ways that generate public support for tobacco control. We examined US media coverage of nonsmoker-only hiring policies, which have little US public support, exploring the extent to which tobacco control advocates and experts have engaged the media on this controversial issue. We searched online media databases (Lexis Nexis, Access World News, and Proquest) for articles published from 1995-2013, coding retrieved items through a collaborative, iterative process. We analyzed the volume, type, provenance, prominence, content and slant of coverage. We found 1,159 media items on nonsmoker-only hiring policies, most published in local newspapers in regions where such policies were enacted. The most common reason given for implementing such policies was to reduce healthcare costs. Most news items offered reasons both to support and oppose such policies; thus, the slant of the majority of news items was neutral or mixed. Tobacco control advocates or experts were infrequently cited or quoted in news items, and rarely authored opinion pieces. Those who expressed opinions were more likely to support than oppose nonsmoker-only hiring policies, for economic and health reasons. Ethical concerns about the policies were seldom raised. As presented in the media, nonsmoker-only hiring policies were primarily framed in terms of business cost savings and had little connection to health initiatives. Tobacco control advocates were rarely quoted and their positions were not consistent. Given their intrusiveness and the lack of strong evidence that such business policies actually do improve worker health, tobacco control advocates may feel that the status quo is preferable to engaging on a policy that the majority of Americans dislike.

BackgroundBeverly Hills and Manhattan Beach, California, are the first two US cities to prohibit the sale of tobacco products, passing ordinances that went into effect on 1 January 2021. We sought to learn about retailers’ experiences with these laws 22 months after implementation.MethodsBrief in-person interviews with owners or managers of businesses that formerly sold tobacco (n=22).ResultsParticipant experiences varied by type of retailer. Managers at large chain stores reported no problems adapting to the law and little effect on overall sales. Many were largely indifferent to the sales bans. By contrast, most managers or owners of small, independent retailers reported losses of both revenue and customers, and expressed dissatisfaction with the laws. Small retailers in Beverly Hills objected particularly to exemptions that city made allowing hotels and cigar lounges to continue their sales, which they saw as undermining the health rationale for the law. The small geographical area covered by the policies was also a source of frustration, and retailers reported that they had lost business to retailers in nearby cities. The most common advice small retailers had for other retailers was to organise to oppose any similar attempts in their cities. A few retailers were pleased with the law or its perceived effects, including a reduction in litter.ConclusionPlanning for tobacco sales ban or retailer reduction policies should include considering impacts on small retailers. Adopting such policies in as wide a geographical area as possible, as well as allowing no exemptions, may help reduce opposition.