What Retailers are Doing to Prevent Tobacco Sales to Minors

Abstract

One essential factor in youth tobacco use is a ready source of tobacco products. In May 1994, twelve state Attorneys General formed a working group to study the problem of illegal tobacco sales to minors. The working group met with various segments of the retail community to identify actions that could be taken to effectively prevent tobacco sales to minors. The goal of this research was to determine the extent to which tobacco selling retailers have implemented seven of the key recommendations of a working group of state Attorneys General. To address this goal, a five minute telephone survey of owners/managers of 174 tobacco selling retail outlets in Erie County, New York was conducted in February 1995. Results show that nearly all tobacco-selling retailers have implemented at least some store policy designed to prevent tobacco sales to minors. However, most stores continue to sell tobacco products in self-service displays and few stores with electronic price scanners have programmed them to prompt clerks to ask tobacco-purchasing customers for age identification. Shoplifting of tobacco products appears to be a bigger problem in stores with self-service displays.

Strategies for Reducing Youth Access to Tobacco: a framework for understanding empirical findings on youth access policies

“…Rigotti et al (1997) compared the effects of interventions in three communities with those in three control communities, and found that sales to minors dropped 73% in counties with compliance checks, compared with a 24% drop in control communities. Cummings et al (1997) also found large reductions in sales rates in both the intervention and the control communities. Forster et al (1998a) found that cities with community mobilizatio n experienced an 87% reduction in sales, compared with a 70% reduction in control cities with less extensive enforcement efforts and no community mobilization .…”

“…They found that, despite the fact that retail compliance was signi®cantly greater in the intervention sites than in controls (18% versus 55%), there was little decrease in youth sales and no reduction in youth use. Cummings et al (1997) also found no decrease in use following various combinations of enforcement and merchant education in 174 tobacco outlets in Erie County, New York. Altman et al (1999) compared two communities with an extensive enforcement and education programme to two control communities.…”

“…Similarly, programmes without signi®cant penalties and merchant awareness may be expected to have small permanent effects. Programmes with substantial checks, ®nes and merchant awareness±community participation, such as those reported by Cummings et al (1997), Feigherty et al (1991), Jason et al (1996a and Rigotti et al (1997), had the most impact on increasing retail compliance. The effects of youth access policies may also depend upon other policies directed at smoking.…”

“…Parents and older siblings and peers may either buy or give away cigarettes to younger adolescents. In addition, youth may steal from their parents or from stores (Cummings et al, 1997). Table 3 reports results from six recent surveys that asked youth smokers where they acquired cigarettes.…”

“…If retail compliance policies are directed only at over-the-counter sales, youth may use more vending machines. Some of the more successful programmes included vending machine policies (Cummings et al, 1997;. Although implementation of a self-service ban may seem redundant if there are intensive retail compliance policies, they may have important effects by decreasing product promotion or theft.…”