Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE  OF

INSPECTOR  GENERAL

YOUTH ACCESS TO TOBACCO

OEI-02-91-00880 
DECE~ER 1992  E X E C U T I V E   S U M M A RY

PURPOSE 
To assess the level and characteristics of State and local enforcement of laws limiting 
youth access to tobacco. 
BACKGROUND 
In 1990, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)inspection, '' Youth Access to 
Cigarettes found that 45 States had laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. 
However, States were not enforcing their laws.  The report provided information for 
the development of the Secretarys Model Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors 
Control Act: A Model Law Recommended for Adoption by States or Localities to 
Prevent the Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors. 
The Office of the Secretaxy has asked the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to 
conduct a follow-up survey of the enforcement of State laws limiting youth access to 
tobacco. In addition, the Congressional Subcommittee on Health and the 
Environment has requested the OIGS assistance in determining the extent to which 
States have adopted and are enforcing youth access laws. 
Recently, significant youth access legislation has been enacted. In July 1992, the 
President signed the ADAMHA Reorganization Act, PL 102-321, which requires 
States to ban the sale and distribution of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 
18 by October 1, 1994. It also requires States to enforce their laws in a manner that 
can reasonably be expected to reduce the extent to which tobacco products are 
available to underage youths. 
FINDINGS 
Although most States prohiiit the sale of tobacco to minors, their failure to enforce 
their laws would place them out of compliance wth the new Federal law 
AU but three States ban the sale of tobacco to minom under the age of M 
Montana does not have a law prohibiting the sale of tobacco, New Mexico only 
prohibits the sale of smokeless tobacco and Georgia bans sales to minors under 
17 years of age rather than 18. 
Only two States are enforcing their kzws restricting the sale to minorx statenvik 
In Florida and Vermont, the liquor control agencies enforce their youth access 
laws statewide. 
A fw Sta@ are jiudkg local initiatives to reduce youth access.  Four States 
(California, New Jersey, North Dakota and Utah) make funds available 
,  i

i  specifically to limit youth access or as part of broader tobacco education and 
control efforts. 
Low priority by police and lack of a desi@ated enforcer are seen as obstackx to 
enforcement. State respondents also frequently cite a lack of community 
awareness of youth access issues and a lack of commitment to enforcing these 
laws as serious problems. 
Despite lack of State efforts, some localities are demonstrating enforcement is possible

These localities have developed different enforcement models. All, however, enforce 
State or local laws, designate an agency responsible for enforcement, and choose a 
method of enforcing that best meets their needs.

Vending machine restrictions are the most common initiative

In addition to their State laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors, 21 States and 
Washington D.C. have passed laws that restrict vending machines. 
CONCLUSION

Our finding that most States are not enforcing their laws limiting youth access to

tobacco is a major concern given the requirements of PL 102-321. While we found

that most States have laws that prohibit the sale of tobacco to minors, they must move

quickly to enforce their laws to avoid the penalty.

State Options

The models that exist at the State and local levels present successful options for

enforcing youth access laws.
 This report describes steps that can be taken by States 
that can reasonably be expected to reduce tobacco usage by youth. The states can: 
Designate an enforcer

Ban vending machines

Enact provision of the model law

Educate communities and vendors

Post signs 
Conduct stings

Federal Options

HHS has already taken steps to provide guidance to the States, however, as the

Department implements the new law, there may be other ways to provide leadership

and direction to the States.  The Department can:

Provide technical assistance to the States

Monitor States activities and collect base line data

Conduct research on effective enforcement models

Develop criteria

ii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS

EXE~ SUMMARY 
1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . ........ . 
INTJ?ODU~ON . . . . . . . . . . 
mwDINGS 
5

.  ..  ----- ---
 . . . . . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . ---
State laws and enforcement 
. . . . .  8

. . . . ..- .-.  
. . . . . . . . . ...... .. 
Local laws and enfor=menl 
. 11

Vending macMerestictiom. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
APPENDI~ 
..AI 
StateIXiwPrtiions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
ADAMHAReorg-tion AaPLl~-321 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..B1 
..C1 
Summmyof  tie Model ha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
To assess the level and characteristics of State and local enforcement of laws limiting 
youth access to tobacco. 
BACKGROUND 
The Office of the Secretary has asked the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to 
conduct a follow-up survey to a 1990 OIG inspection of the enforcement of State laws 
limiting youth access to tobacco. In addition, the Congressional Subcommittee on 
Health and the Environment has requested the OIGS assistance in determining the 
extent to which States have adopted and are enforcing youth access laws. 
Federal Initiatives 
In 1990, the OIG surveyed States regarding their laws on the sale of cigarettes to 
minors. The OIG inspection, Youth Access to Cigarettes, OEI-02-90-023 10, reported 
that 45 States had laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. However, states 
were not enforcing their laws. The five States that could provide statistical 
information documented a total of only 32 vendor violations in 1989. The few places 
actively enforcing youth access to tobacco laws were mostly localities. 
The inspection report provided information for the development of the Secretarys 
Model Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors Control Act: A Model 
Law 
Recommended for Adoption by States or Localities to Prevent the Sale of Tobacco 
Products to Minors.  The model law called for: (1) licensing of vendors and 
revocation of their license if they sell to minors, (2) a graduated schedule of penalties 
so that vendors and employees are punished proportionate to their violation of the 
law, (3) penalties for failing to post signs, (4) designating State or local, law or health 
officials for enforcement, (5) civil in addition to criminal penalties to avoid overloading 
the criminal justice system, (6) an age of legal purchase of at least 19, (7) banning or 
greatly restricting access to vending machines, and (8) minimizing the burden of 
compliance on retail outlets. (See Appendix C). 
The model law was widely distributed. Each State governor received a copy, as did 
State health department officials and anti-smoking groups. The law was also made 
available to localities active in establishing and enforcing youth access laws, and to 
experts in the youth smoking field. Further, the Secretary and the Surgeon General 
frequently spoke about the model law. 
The Centers for Disease Controls Office on Smoking and Health is the focal point 
within the Federal government for tobacco-related efforts. The offices activities 
include expanding the science base of tobacco control through implementation of 
1  epidemiologic studies, surveillance activities and publications such as the Surgeon 
Generals Report on the Health Consequences of Smoking; coordinating national 
media information and education campaigns to educate the public on the health 
hazards of tobacco use; and assisting States to build their capacity to sustain broad-
based tobacco control programs. 
Other Federal activity includes the National Cancer Institutes (NCI) ongoing 
Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT) and its American 
Stop Smoking Intervention Study for Cancer Prevention (ASSIST) programs. 
COMMIT promotes community health concepts and technologies in 11 cities. The 
ASSIST program incorporates COMMITs strategy and efforts and extends it 
statewide. The ASSIST program, currently in 17 States, works to create 
comprehensive programs to prevent and control tobacco use. The NCI collaborates 
with the American Cancer Society (ACS), State and local health departments and 
other related organizations. 
Recently, significant youth access legislation has been enacted regarding youth access 
to tobacco. In July 1992, the President signed the ADAMHA Reorganization Act, PL 
102-321. This new law requires States to ban the sale and distribution of tobacco 
products to everyone under the age of 18. It also requires States to enforce their law 
in a manner that can reasonably be expected to reduce the extent to which tobacco 
products are available to underage youths.  The States must annually submit a report 
to the Secretary describing their enforcement activities and annually conduct random, 
unannounced inspections, commonly called stings or observed buys. States must 
implement these provisions by Fiscal Year 1994, or risk a reduction in Federal funds 
for mental health, alcohol and other drug abuse programs. (See Appendix B). 
Tobacco Use Among Youth 
Despite the States laws and national attention to the problem, tobacco use continues 
to be widespread among youth. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates 
that as many as 1 million American minors start to smoke each year, about 3,000 per 
day. They also estimate that in 1990 teenagers bought 947 million packs of cigarettes 
and 26 million cans of smokeless tobacco, which is chewing tobacco and snuff. 
Further, approximately 75 percent of current smokers became addicted to tobacco by 
age 18, generally before it was even legal for them to purchase tobacco products. 
About half of the tobacco industrys profits, $3.35 billion, derives from sales to 
smokers who became addicted as children.1  Tobacco is also an initial drug preferred 
by young people and is associated with other drug use.z 
Other studies also suggest tobacco use is prevalent among youth. The 1990 school-
based Youth Risk Behavior Survey, conducted by the CDC, found that about 36 
percent of all students nationally, in grades 9-12, reported using some form of tobacco 
2
 during the 30 days preceding the survey. About 32 percent of students used cigarettes, 
10 percent used smokeless tobacco, and some used both? 
Another study indicates minors use smokeless tobacco extensively. Between 1970 and 
1986, the use of snuff increased 15 times and the use of chewing tobacco four times 
among males aged 17 to 19. 4 An OIG inspection, Youth Use of Smokeless Tobacco: 
More Than a Pinch of Trouble/ P-06-86-O058, published in 1986, concluded that 
addiction is a serious problem for many (smokeless tobacco) users...youth use of 
smokeless tobacco is a growing national problem with serious current and future 
health consequences.5 
Research shows that children can still easily buy tobacco products. A 1990 study by 
Drug Free Youth, covering 93 communities in 38 States, found that merchants readily 
sell cigarettes to children in every city.b  This study, as well as others, indicates that 
70 to 80 percent of merchants sell cigarettes to minors. These sale rates support 
Secretary Sullivans statement that access of minors to tobacco products is a major 
problem in every State.  Based on current rates of smoking, he projects 5 million 
American children alive today will die of a smoking-related disease. 
A recent study by the American Cancer Society suggests that the public supports youth 
access laws and their enforcement. The survey of 1,096 adults from four States found 
that 86 percent believe there should be stronger laws to prevent tobacco sales to 
minors; 90 percent believe there should be better enforcement.7 
METHODOLOGY 
The inspection team interviewed the 51 National Network of State Tobacco 
Prevention and Control contacts, a group of State health department officials 
representing the 50 States and Washington D. C.. The team asked these respondents 
to identify legislative and enforcement activity occurring at the State level. State 
respondents also identified local officials enforcing youth access laws and any research 
evaluating the effectiveness of enforcement. 
Additionally, the team reviewed all State youth access laws. We requested the laws 
from each State contact and analyzed them according to key components. (See 
Appendix A). 
The team also interviewed selected local officials to assess enforcement activity and to 
obtain their opinions and experience about effective methods of enforcement. These 
methods include stings and observed buys. For the purposes of this inspection, a sting 
is an enforcement technique where underage youth are accompanied by an 
enforcement agent and attempt to buy tobacco. An observed buy is a technique 
whereby the enforcer checks or watches stores to see if they sell to minors. The team 
selected localities based upon discussions with the State respondents, informal 
discussion with experts in the tobacco field and a review of the Tobacco Access Law 
News (a compilation of current legislative and enforcement activity). The local 
3  officials interviewed were also selected to represent different geographical locations 
and enforcement approaches. 
4
 FINDINGS

ALTHOUGH MOST STATES PROHIBIT THE SALE OF TOBACCO TO 
MINORS, THEIR FAILURE TO ENFORCE THEIR LAWS WOULD PLACE 
THEM OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW FEDERAL LAW 
AU but three Statzs ban the salk of tobacco to minors under the age of 18. 
PL 102-321 requires States by October 1, 1994 to ban the sale and distribution of 
tobacco products to minors under 18 years of age. All but three States have laws that 
ban the sale of tobacco to minors. Montana is the only State without any law 
prohibiting the sale of tobacco products.  Georgia prohibits sales to minors under 17 
years of age rather than 18 and New Mexico only prohibits the sale of smokeless 
tobacco. (All other laws include both cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.) Three States 
(Georgia, Louisiana and Virginia) however, only address the sale of tobacco products 
and not distribution. Since 1990, youth access legislation has been a dynamic area of 
change; 23 States have enacted new legislation. 
States youth access laws vary. Alabama, Alaska, and Utah prohibit tobacco sales to 
minors under 19. About two-thirds (36) of the States laws are criminal; 13 States 
laws are civil. Californias law may be enforced as either a criminal law or a civil law. 
However, very few States (8) name a specific agency or organization to enforce the 
law. Enforcement is often placed, almost by default, with local police departments. 
All of the States with laws have fines as a penalty for violating the law, and 17 include 
jail. 
Many of the States (29) require that signs be present at the point of sale. Thirty-one 
States require vendors of tobacco products to be licensed. Further, 23 States make it 
illegal for minors to purchase tobacco products and 21 limit minors from possessing 
tobacco products. Lastly, five States preempt localities from creating more stringent 
local ordinances that relate to minors access to tobacco products. (See Appendix A 
for a summary of State law provisions.) 
Only two States are enfoming thak kzws restricting the saik to miruxr statewide. 
State enforcement has not changed greatly since the previous OIG report, Youth 
Access to Cigarettes, two years ago. Although States have laws, interviews with the 
State Tobacco Prevention and Control contacts indicate that 48 States and Washington 
D.C. do not enforce their laws statewide. Respondents in seven of these States report 
enforcement is minimal and is conducted randomly at the local level; they cite only a 
handful of vendor violations. 
Florida and Vermont are the only States enforcing their laws statewide. Since 1990 
Vermont is the only State that began enforcing youth access laws statewide. Both 
5
 Florida and Vermont designate the state liquor control agency for this purpose. 
However, Floridas law is criminal and Vermonts is civil. 
In Flori@ the Department of Business Regulations enforces tobacco as well as 
alcohol access laws. It conducts stings, observes buys, and responds to complaints 
from the public of vendors selling to minors. Alcohol licensing fees in the past have 
funded these activities. However, recent legislation, effective January 1993, requires 
tobacco vendors to be licensed and their fees to be used to fund full-time tobacco 
enforcement staff. State respondents report it is easier to convict vendors in Florida 
by conducting a sting or a buy in response to a complaint because it establishes a 
predisposition. Some judges consider random stings to be entrapment. Last year, 
Florida reported 22 violations. 
Vermont has only recently begun enforcing its youth access law. The Department of 
Liquor Control enforces it statewide.  Initially, the liquor agency sent signs, posters 
and license applications to retailers. Following this campaign, a team of 14 liquor 
control inspectors began making random unannounced visits twice a week to vendors. 
No violations have yet been reported. 
Two other States, Utah and South Dakota, enforce youth possession laws. In 1991, 
Utah police and school monitors issued nearly 5,000 violations to minors, but only 30 
to vendors. Similarly, in FY 1991 South Dakota police issued 58 violations to minors 
but only 3 to vendors. PL 102-321 does not address youth possession. 
A fm Stata are @ding ilxal Miativtx to redkce youth access. 
While not actually enforcing their State access laws, four States make funds available 
to localities interested in limiting youth access to tobacco. (Utah, California, North 
Dakota and New Jersey). Three of them, Utah, California, and New Jersey, 
encourage local initiatives to reduce youth access as part of broader tobacco education 
and control efforts. North Dakota makes grants specifically for youth access. Further, 
Utah and California make grants to all counties while the other two States fund only 
select local sites. 
Utahs Department of Health contracts with district health departments to 
conduct tobacco control and prevention activities. Districts choose from a 
number of different tobacco initiatives, ranging from youth access to worksite 
smoking policies. Every district addresses youth access in some way. All twelve 
districts have extensive vendor education campaigns; five districts educate law 
enforcement officers about the importance of the law. Law enforcement and/or 
health departments conduct observed buys in six districts. In one district, law 
enforcement officials have issued violations. 
California provides funding for local youth access initiatives. In 1988 California 
passed Proposition (Prop) 99, which increased the cigarette tax to 35 cents to 
fund anti-tobacco education and control programs. Prop 99 created tobacco 
6  control programs throughout the State by funding county health departments, 
non profit organizations and schools. These programs include prevention 
education, cessation and policy initiatives. Many of the programs target youth 
among other groups. Prop 99 funds two projects specifically to reduce youth 
access, STAMP, Stop Tobacco Access to Minors Project and TRUST, Teens 
and Retailers United to Stop Tobacco. So far, TRUST has conducted 
merchant education, while STAMP has more actively enforced youth access. In 
conjunction with STAMP, three communities in Solano County, conduct regular 
stings and issue violations. STAMP also conducts merchant and community 
education campaigns and underage buy surveys in six counties. Three counties 
are currently exploring civil prosecution of vendors who have repeatedly sold to 
minors. A study by the University of San Diego suggests that the anti-smoking 
campaign has contributed to a 17 percent decline in smoking from 1987 to 
1990. 
New Jersey makes youth smoking prevention grants to localities. The State 
Health Department issued eight three-year grants to local health departments 
to encourage innovative education and youth cessation programs. Most of the 
communities receiving grants focus on educating vendors. Some local health 
departments visit vendors to inform them of the State law and to encourage 
them to voluntarily comply. However, one community also uses the grant to 
conduct observed buys and stings, and to enforce a local vending machine 
restriction. This community began enforcing the law following a highly 
publicized educational campaign. So far, health department officials have 
issued warnings to vendors who violate the law and are planning to issue 
citations shortly. 
North Dakota also encourages local youth access initiatives. Its Department of 
Health made youth access grants to seven cities. These grants encourage cities 
to educate and work with police and retailers, and to enact city ordinances 
limiting vending machines. The seven cities have achieved these goals to 
varying degrees. Some have successfully enacted local vending machine laws. 
A few have also conducted observed buys. So far, none have issued violations 
against vendors. 
Low priority by police and lack of a daignated  enfoNw are seen as obstacles to 
erlfo?ulnenL 
State respondents cite a number of problems in enforcing youth access laws. Most 
State youth access laws are criminal and, therefore, only enforceable by police. State 
respondents most frequently cite the low priority given by police to enforcing tobacco 
sale laws. One respondents notes, Law enforcement agencies are understaffed and 
they have no desire to enforce anything not considered pressing. Other respondents 
cite the lack of an agency clearly identified as responsible for enforcement as a 
problem. One respondent, typical of many, said, Theres no one charged with 
enforcement, its not coordinated in any way. 
7  State respondents frequently cite a lack of community awareness of youth access and 
smoking and a lack of commitment to enforcing the laws as serious problems. Several 
believe that communities do not consider tobacco and youth access important issues. 
We need an evolution of attitudes - the public has a general attitude that alcohol 
should not be sold to kids. They dont feel the same way about cigarettes. Several 
respondents report that the police will not enforce the law if the community is not 
supportive. One reports, The community must motivate police to enforce youth 
access...the police will respond to this pressure.  A few States also mention the lack of 
concern by vendors as a problem. 
State respondents report difficulties in convicting vendors. Several State respondents 
believe State legislative language is vague and causes difficulties in enforcing the law. 
Several States laws contain the phrase, to knowingly sell tobacco products to minors. 
Respondents claim this makes it difficult to convict vendors because vendors claim 
they did not know the person they sold to was underage. Further, judges are 
sometimes reluctant to convict clerks for selling cigarettes to minors. They often 
dismiss the cases, believing the vendor should be penalized, not the clerk. Also, some 
judges dismiss violations issued as the result of random stings, considering them as 
entrapment. 
DESPITE  LACK  OF  STATE  EFFORTS,  SOME  Localities  ARE 
DEMONSTRATING ENFORCEMENT IS POSSIBLE 
Based on our interviews with State respondents and experts and a literature review, 
we identified localities that enforce laws prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors 
and/or laws prohibiting the possession of tobacco by minors. In several instances State 
and Federal programs have encouraged localities, through grants and contracts, to 
enforce youth access laws.  In other instances, individuals interested in the issue and 
grassroots groups have taken youth access on as their own cause. Some localities have 
developed coalitions, working together with advocacy groups and local health 
departments, to raise community awareness and win the support of local merchants 
and police. As one local respondent comments We needed to develop enforcement 
at the local level... there is no enforcement at the State level and it is easier to enforce 
at the local level. 
Regarding sale to minors laws, we identified 52 localities in 19 States that enforce 
these laws and have developed varying models. All, however, enforce either State or 
local laws, designate an agency responsible for enforcement, and choose a method of 
enforcing that best meets their needs. Some have conducted research to evaluate the 
effectiveness of their efforts. The following are examples of how local models differ 
on these characteristics. 
Z@e of kzw: Slightly more than half of the localities enforce State laws while the others 
have enacted and are enforcing local laws. Several localities enforce the State law 
8
 prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors, but have enacted and enforce local 
ordinances restricting vending machines. 
Research suggests that the effect of enacting and implementing local ordinances 
varies. Preliminary analyses of a study, which compared Marquette County, Michigan 
to a county with no access law, indicates that passing a law does not significantly 
change the perceived difficulty of buying tobacco, knowledge of the legal age or 
smoking rates among youth.8  However, the previously mentioned study by Drug Free 
Youth conducted in 95 communities in 38 States, found that passage of an ordinance 
j 
has some effect on sales to minors. Stores in cities with ordinances sold to minors 
about 48 percent of the time; stores in cities without ordinances sold to them about 82 
percent of the time.g 
Designated Enfonxm In 23 localities, local police enforce the law. In another 21 
localities, local health officials enforce the law, and in the remaining localities licensing 
or regulatory agencies are responsible for enforcement. A few localities have 
coordinated efforts between the health department and police. 
Opinions differ as to who should enforce youth access laws. State respondents most 
frequently designate health departments. The majority of these respondents believe 
that health departments are more concerned about tobacco than are police. One 
comments, It is not a public safety issue, but rather a health issue. However, other 
State respondents consider police the best enforcers. Most of these respondents 
believe it is more appropriate for the police to enforce because as one says, 
enforcement is their business.  Still others believe licensing and other regulatory 
agencies should be responsible; since these departments would issue the license to sell 
tobacco, they would have authority to suspend it. 
Method of Enfonxment:  Localities enforce their laws differently. They enforce access 
by using stings, observing buys, responding to complaints by the public or a 
combination of these mechanisms. Frequently, localities conduct an initial sting to 
document that minors can easily buy tobacco and use this information to attract the 
media, educate retailers and raise community awareness. Twenty-one localities have 
conducted stings for such educational purposes. 
However, research appears to indicate that education alone is not enough. A study in 
Santa Clara, CA reports that while a retailer education campaign reduced sales to 
minors, one year later sales rebounded as a result of no enforcement.l 
Other localities enforce the law more extensively. Twenty-one localities conduct stings 
or observed buys and penalize violators. They issue fines and/or suspend the vendors 
license. Some have taken vendors or clerks to court. Several respondents in these 
localities believe the only way to get compliance is to penalize vendors. Many 
comment that if vendors are threatened with suspension of their license to sell tobacco 
they will comply. 
9
 The remaining localities conduct stings or buys, but do not issue violations. They 
usually warn the vendors or clerks who sell tobacco illegally to minors. Some believe 
initially warning vendors is only fair, but in the future plan to issue violations. Others 
believe conducting observed buys without issuing violations sufficiently alerts vendors 
and discourages them from selling to minors. 
Research suggests that regular stings and violations can be effective in reducing youth 
access and, in some cases, smoking. In Woodridge, Illinois, police conduct regular 
stings and issue criminal violations to vendors. As a result, tobacco sales to minors 
decreased from 70 percent to 5 percent. Experimentation and regular use of 
cigarettes by minors reportedly decreased 50 percent.11 Another study conducted in 
Everett, Washington suggests that a local ordinance enforced by the threat of fines 
and license revocation reduced sales to minors and significantly reduced tobacco use 
among girls.lz 
Other studies indicate that enforcement decreases sales to minors significantly. In 
Solano County, California, local police in two towns conduct stings twice a year and 
issue citations. Researchers report that while originally 71 percent of vendors sold to 
minors, only 24 percent sold after citations were issued.*3 Likewise,  in  Spokane 
County, Washington local health departments conduct regular stings but do not issue 
violations. Researchers here show that passing a local regulation and conducting 
regular reviews decreased sales to about 27 percent.14 
A study, conducted in Bollingbrook, Illinois, suggests frequent checks are necessary to 
maintain compliance.  In 1989 and 1990, when observed buys were conducted 
quarterly, only 18 percent of stores were noncompliant. In 1991, buys were conducted 
less frequently and 35 percent were noncompliant.15 
Regarding youth possession laws, we identified a few localities that enforce youth 
possession laws to reduce youth access. Some localities in North Dakota, Wyoming 
and Minnesota issue violations for possession of tobacco by minors. In Gillete, 
Wyoming, for example, police issue violations to minors to discourage youth from 
using tobacco. Here, the police initially wanted to stop teens from loitering and they 
decided to enforce the law against possession of tobacco by minors. They now work 
successfully with schools to educate and reduce access and tobacco use among youth. 
They believe possession laws limit peer pressure and send a consistent message to 
youth to stop using tobacco. 
Opinions differ as to whether possession should be made illegal. Some respondents 
want minors to share the blame with vendors. They believe that possession and sale 
laws send an appropriate message to both youth and vendors and will effectively 
reduce youth smoking. However, other respondents believe that youth should not be 
blamed and that vendors selling to minors is the issue. 
10
 VENDING MACHINE RESTRICTIONS ARE THE MOST COMMON 
INITIATIVE 
Restricting tobacco vending machines is the most commonly observed way States and 
localities limit youth access to tobacco.  In addition to their State laws prohibiting the 
sale of tobacco to minors, 21 States and Washington D.C. have passed laws that 
restrict vending machines in some manner. 
States have adopted different types of vending machine restrictions. Nine States and 
Washington D.C. restrict the placement of vending machines to areas inaccessible to 
minors, such as bars, liquor stores, work areas and private clubs. Five States require 
that vending machines be supervised by the owner or an employee, or that the 
machines be equipped with a locking device that can be released once the age of the 
person using the machine is verified. Seven States combine these approaches by 
restricting the placement and/or requiring supervision. In five of these States localities 
have enacted even stricter local vending machine ordinances. 
Over 140 localities in 19 States have enacted local ordinances limiting vending 
machines. Nearly one-third of these localities have banned vending machines 
altogether. The remaining localities have limited placement and/or required 
supervision or locking of vending machines. 
All State respondents interviewed agree that vending machines should be limited in 
some way. One respondent expressed the beliefs of many when he said, Ban all 
vending machines, they are easy access (for minors).  Others believe that localities 
should put vending machines only in places that can be monitored or just get rid of 
them altogether. 
Vending machine bans and placement restrictions require minimal enforcement. One 
State respondent comments, vending machines are the only part (of youth access 
laws) that are enforceable.  Often, localities can enforce vending machine restrictions 
by initially reviewing their placement and sending a follow-up notice to vendors not in 
compliance. Another State respondent said, a letter can usually get rid of vending 
machines. 
Ordinances that call for supervision or locking devices are not as easily enforced. 
Supervision of vending machines requires the same enforcement efforts as over the 
counter sales and are therefore, generally not being enforced. Additionally, a recent 
study in Minnesota concludes that compliance with locking device laws is a problem. 
The study suggests that locking devices require additional enforcement to ensure 
compliance and may not be as effective as vending machine bans. The author of the 
study also notes the importance of restricting vending machines, stating it is hard to 
get over-the-counter merchants to take the age-of-sale laws seriously when they know 
that cigarettes are available in vending machines freely.lb 
11
 Our finding that most States are not enforcing their laws limiting youth access to

tobacco is a major concern given the requirements of PL 102-321. While we found

that most States have laws that prohibit the sale of tobacco to minors, they must move

quickly to enforce their laws to avoid the potential federal penalty on their FY 1994

ADAMHA Block Grant funds.

State Options

The models that exist at the State and local level present different successful options

for enforcing youth access laws.  Most often they include stings and vending machine

restrictions. Each State must develop and implement its own enforcement program to

reduce youth access and youth smoking. This report, however, describes several steps

that can be taken by the States that can reasonably be expected to reduce tobacco

usage by youth. The States can:

-Designate an enforcer

-Ban vending machines

-Enact provisions of the model law

-Educate communities and vendors

-Post signs

-Conduct stings

Federal Options

HHS has already taken steps to provide guidance to the States to assist them with

their efforts to reduce the extent to which tobacco products are available to underage

youth by developing and disseminating the Model law. However, as the Department

implements the new law requiring that States ban the sale and distribution of tobacco

products to anyone under the age of 18 and to enforce their laws, there maybe other

ways for the Department to provide leadership and direction to the States. The

Department can:

-Provide technical assistance to the States

-Monitor States activities

-Conduct research on effective enforcement models

-Develop criteria

-Collect baseline data

12
 ENDNOTES 
1. DiFranza, Joseph R.,et al. 1990. WhoProfitsF romTobaccoS  alestoChildren?, 
Journal of the American Medical Association. V01.263, N014. 
2. Dunnington, Joel. 1992. Tobacco Almanac: A Collection of Tobacco Facts. 
Houston, Texas. 
3. Centers for Disease Control. 1991, Tobacco Use among High School Students-
United States 1990. Morbiditv and Mortality Weekly Report. Vol. 40, No. 36. 
4. U.S. Public Health Service. 1992. Preventing Tobacco Use by Youth, Prevention 
RQPfXL 
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1986. Youth Use of Smokeless 
Tobacco.  Washington, D.C.. 
6. Doctors and Lawyers for a Drug-Free Youth. 1991. Cigarettes Readily Sold to 
Children in 89 U.S. Communities Tobacco Legislation Recommended. Champaign, 
Illinois. 
7. Gambescia, Steve, et al. 1991. Youth Access to Tobacco: Future Promise After 
Decades of Neglect.  Future Choices. Vol. 3. 
8. Trontell, Anne, et al. 1992. Evaluation of a Local Law to Decrease Tobacco Use 
by Minors. Presentation at the 41st Annual Epidemic Intelligence Service 
Conference, Centers for Disease Control. 
9. Doctors and Lawyers for a Drug-Free Youth. 1992. Cigarettes Readily Sold to 
Children in 89 U.S. Communities, Tobacco Legislation Recommended. Champaign, 
Illinois. 
10. Altman, David, et al. 1991. Sustained Effects of an Educational Program to 
Reduce Sales of Cigarettes to Minors,  American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 81, 
No. 7. 
11. Jason, Leonard A., et al. 1991. Active Enforcement of Cigarette Control Laws 
in the Prevention of Cigarette Sales to Minors, Journal of the American Medical 
Association. Vol. 266, No. 22. 
12. Hinds, Ward, MD MPH. 1992. Impact of a Local Ordinance Banning Tobacco 
Sales to Minors. 
13. Feighery, Ellen, et al. 1991. The Effects of Combining Education and 
Enforcement to Reduce Tobacco Sales to Minors,  Journal of the American Medical 
Association. Vol. 266, No. 22. 
13
 14. Spokane County Health District. 1992.	 Compliance Check Results From March 
1992. Spokane, Washington. 
15. Doctors and Lawyers fora Drug-Free Youth. 1991. CigarettesR eadilyS oldto 
Children in 31 Illinois Communities Tobacco Legislation Recommended. Champaign, 
Illinois. 
16. Forster, J., et al. 1992. Locking Devices on Cigarette Vending Machines: 
Evaluation of a City Ordinance, American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 82, No. 9. 
14
 APPENDIX  A

STATE LAW PROVISIONS* 
 
   ISee Lemnd At TEnd Of Matrix       
1 
s  A  s  P  P  L  s  VM   G  P  F  J  R  E  P 
T  G  A  o  u  I  1  E A  REI  I  I  A  E  N  R 
A  E  L  s  R  c  G  N C   A  N  N  I  v  F  E 
T  E  s  c  E  N  D H  DA  I  E  L  o  o  E 
E  E  H  N  s  IIUL  s  c  R  M 
s  A  s  N N   A  T  A  c  P 
s  s  E  G E T   I  T  E  T 
I  E  s  s  E E  I  R  I 
o  DS  o  o 
N I  N N
          
I 
AK  19  Cv  Y  Y  Y  B  Y  Y 
AL  19  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y 
AR  18  CR  Y  Y  B  Y  Y  Y 
Az  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y 
CA  18  **  Y  Y  Y 
c o  18  CR  Y  Y  B  Y 
CT  18  Cv  Y  Y  Y  B  Y  Y 
DC  18  CR  Y  Y  P  Y  Y  Y  Y 
DE  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y 
FL  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y 
GA  17  CR  Y  Y  s  Y  Y 
HI  18  Cv  Y  Y  Y  P  Y  Y  Y 
IA  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  L  Y  Y  Y  Y 
ID  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  s  Y  Y  Y 
IL  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y 
IN  18  Cv  Y  Y  Y  P  Y 
KS  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y 
KY  18  CR  Y  Y  Y 
LA  18  CR  Y  Y  Y 
MA  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y 
MD  18  Cv  Y  Y 
A -1
              
s  ,  A  s  P  P  L  s  V M  G P  F  J  R  E  P 
T  G  A  o  u  I  I  E A  R E  I  A  E  N  R 
A  E  L  s  R  c  G  N C  A N  N  I  v  F  E 
T  E  s  c  E  N  D H  D A  E  L  o  o  E 
E  E  H  N  s  II  U L  s  c  R  M 
s  A  s  N N  A T  A  c  P 
s  s  E  G E  TI  T  E  T 
I  E  s  E E  I  R  1 
o  D S  o  o 
N  N N 
           
ME  18  Cv  Y  Y  Y  s  Y 
Ml  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y 
MN  18  CR  Y  Y  B  Y  Y 
MO  18  CR  Y  Y  Y 
MS  18  CR  Y  Y 
MT 
NC  18  CR  Y  Y 
ND  18  CR  Y  Y  s  Y  Y 
NE  18  CR  Y  Y  P  Y 
NH  18  Cv  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y 
NJ  18  CR  Y  Y  Y 
NM  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  P  Y 
Nv  18  Cv  Y  Y  Y 
NY  18  Cv  Y  Y  P  Y  Y  Y  Y 
OH  18  CR  B  Y  Y 
OK  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y 
OR  18  Cv  Y  Y  Y  P  Y 
PA  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y 
RI  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y 
Sc  18  CR  Y  Y 
SD  18  CR  y  y  Y 
TN  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y 
TX  18  CR  Y  Y  Y 
UT  19  CR  y  Y  Y  P  Y  Y  Y 
VA  18  Cv  Y  Y  Y  Y 
A -2
 s  A  s  P  P  L  s  VM  G P  F  J  R  E  P 
T  G  A  o  u  I  I  E A  R E  I  A  E  N  R 
A  E  L  s  R  c  G  N C  A N  N  I  v  F  E 
T  E  s  c  E  N  D H  D A  E  L  o  0  E 
E  E  H  N  s  I  I  U L  s  c  R  M 
s  A  s  N N  A T  A  c  P 
s  s  E  G E  TI  T  E  T 
I  E  s  E E  1  R  I 
o  D S  o  0 
N  N  N 
VT  18  Cv  Y  Y  Y  P  Y  Y  Y  Y 
WA  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  Y 
WI  18  Cv  Y  Y  Y  B  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y 
w  18  CR  Y  Y  Y 
WY  18  CR  Y  Y  Y  P  Y  Y 
LEGEND 
STATE: The name of the State in abbreviation.

AGE The age at which a person may purchase tobacco products,

SALE: Type of sale law. CR indicates the law is criminal and CV indicates the law is civil. ** indicates that the law 
may be enforced as a civil law or a criminal law. 
POSSESSION: Possession by a minor. Y indicates that it is illegal for a minor to possess tobacco products. 
PURCHASE Purchase by a minor. Y indicates that it is illegal for a minor to purchase tobacco products. 
LICENSE: Licenses for vendors. Y indicates that vendors must have licenses to sell tobacco products. 
SIGNS: Signs at the point of sale. Y indicates that a sign at the point of sale must be present. 
VENDING MACHINES: Vending machine restrictions. S indicates that vending machines (vm) have to be supervised 
by an employee. P indicates that vm are restricted in placement (to areas where minors are not present). B 
indicates that vm have to be supervised and/or restricted in placement. L indicates that vm must have locking 
devices. 
GRADUATED PENALTfES: Y indicates that there is a set graduated scale of penalties for each offense, 
FINES: Y indicates that fines may be a penalty for noncompliance, 
JAIL Y indicates that jail time may be penalty for noncompliance. 
A -3  REVOCATION: Revocation of license. Y indicates that the revocation of a vendors license may be a penalty for 
noncompliance. 
ENFORCER. Enforcer of law. Y indicates that the enforcer is stated in the law. 
PREEMPTION: Preemption clause, Y indicates that there is a preemption clause not allowing localities to create 
stricter laws regarding youth access. 
A -4
 APPENDIX  B

ADAMHA Reorganization Act PL 102-321

B-1
 S. 1306

AT  THE SECOND  SESSION
Begun and held  at the cdy of Washington on F&iuY, the tfdrd day of Januury, 
one thouwxnd nina buired.cwui ninaey-two 
909U 
Ta amand  the PubIjc Hemi& Setica ACC ta rcstmdnra tha AldDl,  Dmg Ahuta, 
and Msnti Heaith Admj&mtin  and  the autiori?iea of 8uch Adn&i.Ycrauon, 
inciuding estabhhing sa~ce block grxnts to  tdiana tha dativeay ot aewxxs 
~~~ding miananca  abuse
 and mend haaI& and for othar p~ 
Be it enasied by the  Senate  and Hause of Regvwentatives of 
the United State8 ofAmg& in Congress assemb~ 
SECTION 1. 8HORT-~Tw OF CO~ 
(a) SHORT TITLE.-IMs Act may be cited aa tbe A13&fI%4 
Reorganization AcY. 
  4 4 
Subptwt IMWck Grads for I%wention  and 
Trestment of Suh4tance Abuse 
%3EC. 1221. RYJ~ QRAN19 TO !3t!ATE% 
(a) IN GENExAL.-Z13r the  e deecribed in subsection (b),
the  Secretary,  a-through  for Substance Abuse Treat. 
me@,  M maka  an  aLlam3ut  each  fkcai
 ar for  each  Stata
lrlanamount de~inatica WizBedim 1933. The

Secretary shaU make a  t to the State af the allotment made 
for the Skate *the  year if the State euhmitii to theI Secretary 
an qplication in accordmcs with section 1932 
-EC. lim. STAIZ  LAW RSX3ARDSN(3 SAM OF  TOBACCO  PROI)UCX9 
m xNDIvmlJm  umxBMllI OF la. 
~v.p 
la)  lAw--
cxNmuL-Suhiect  ta pangrqh (2), for tial year 
1994 and &&equeat 6cA yeara, the Socrttary may make 
8 @MIt wader 8CXtiOlL  1921  OXdY  if  the  Stata iIlVOk3d  kin 
in affact  law pnrvi~  that  it h @awful f(lr ULy mam2fhc-
tumr, n&dOr,  or  dilxnbutGr of tflhacfl)  tmatodlor 
dhtrikti my mxh p-nxkt tQ  any  indM Pd u ndar tha  age 
d 38. 
(2)  n-mm APPK~ FOB  CX8IXN SrATZ9.-ba  the 
use  of  a  SMa whose kgialattxa   does  mt canvane a m 
8e8aioa  imfia4yea,r  1993,  and  inthacaaaof8Stataw% se
legiidatura +IS not  cnnvcne a r8gdar -inkd year 
m aa 8 Mndition 
I*} *~-~-~ 
ofamc8ipt  ofngnultll@rMct@ lchaIla.ppiy only 
ibYklllyaar lg95dgu&qua@tix 
. .. ---- .  (b) ENFoRiEMENT.
0) IN  QBxERAL-For the fht applicable kai year and 
fix dwequent W yeara,  a  funding  agresment fm a grant
Stab 
under Section 1921 ie that the  involved will enforce the 
law d~dxd in suixmction (a) in a xnanner that can reasonably 
be qected ta reduce the axt8nt to which tobacca  products 
aza:;p to individuaia under the age of 18. 
CrnmIE9 AND REmms REGARDING mmw2wErrr.-For 
the first appihble fiacai year and for aubeequmt HP-, 
a tiding  agreement  fbr a grant under  w&an 1921 ie  that 
the state invobmd wi31 
(A) annually cenduct random, unamxm.ncad ine  OnB 
to ensure compliance with the bw deaczibed in au Psecti on 
(a); end 
(B)  e.nmdy autxnit to  the  Secretary a report 
describing 
(i] the activities carried out by the State to enforce 
such law  duriig the fiecai year preceding the !lacal 
year for which the State b seeking the gran~
(ii) the extent of success the State ha achieved 
in reducing the availability of tabacco produti to 
individuals under the age of 1S; and 
[iii) the a&alq@e to be utilized by the State far 
enforcing such law dkg the fiscai year for which 
thegrantiaeou  ~ 
[c}  No~comum ~ OF TPXrZ13efore  making  a  grant  under
section  1921 to a State for the iiret appiicalh fical year or any 
subsequent fiecai year, the Secretary ehail make a debmnination 
of whether the State has mhtained compl,iarlcs with subsections 
(a) ~d (b). ~  after  notice  to the Stata and an opportunity for 
a herein , the Secre@y determines that the SWa ie not in com@
ance Wi & euch subsectio~, the Secretary ehalI reduca the amount 
of the allotment under such section for ths Stats fbr the fiecal 
year invoived by an amount equal tu
71) in the caae of the first applicable fiaeal year, 10 percent
of the amount determined under section 1993 for the State 
for the fiscal yeaq
(2)  in the case of the tit kal  year  following sUch 
applicable  tical year, zo permnt of b  amount  determined 
under mctiau x933 for the Skte fm the fiscal aq
%3) in the caae of the second euch fia 2year, 30 percent
of the amount detied under sedan 1993 fbr the State 
for the 6s4 yeaq and 
74) in the case of the third such ikal year or any mbaequemt
fiscal year, 40 p~t of the amount de@mined under section 
1933 fm the Stab for the Ikal year.
(d)  ~~QN.FOr purpos~ of U d- & brm %t 
applicable 5A pxkr meana
(I) ficai year 1!395, in the case of any Stab deaerhed 
in aubeecfioxl (aK2); and 
72) 584 year 1994, in the case of 8ny other State. 
.-
-- APPENDIX  C

Summam of the Model Law 
The model law has several key features. They are summarized below. 
o Create a licensing system, similar to that which is used to control the sale of 
alcoholic beverages, under which a store may sell tobacco to adults only if it avoids 
making sales to minors.  Signs stating that sales to minors are illegal would be 
required at all points of sale. 
o Set forth a graduated schedule of penalties--monetary fines and license suspensions
-for illegal sales so that owners and employees face punishment proportionate to their 
violation of the law. Penalties would be fixed and credible. 
o Provide separate penalties for failure to post a sign, and higher penalties for sales 
without a license. 
o Place primary responsibility for investigation and enforcement in a designated State 
agency, and exclusive authority for license suspension and revocation in that agency. 
However, allow local law enforcement and public health officials to investigate 
compliance and present evidence to the State agency or file complaints in local courts. 
o Rely primarily on State-administered civil penalties to avoid the time delays and 
costs of the court system, but allow use of local courts to assess fines, similar to traffic 
enforcement. This would provide flexibility to both State and local authorities to 
target enforcement resources. (An illegal sale could not result in two fines, but a local 
conviction would be reported to the State and count towards possible license 
suspension). 
o Set the age of legal purchase at 19. This is higher than under many existing State 
tobacco statutes, but lower than the age for alcohol. States may consider age 21. 
0 Ban the use of vending machines to dispense cigarettes, parallel to alcohol practice 
and reflecting the difficulty of preventing illegal sales from these machines. (This is 
another area where States should examine options carefully; allowing sales in places 
not legally open to minors or use of store-controlled electronic enabling devices may 
be acceptable alternatives.  States could also consider phasing in the ban to minimize 
disruption). 
o Contain a number of features to minimize burdens on retail outlets: requiring 
identification only for those who are not clearly above the ate of 19, allowing a drivers 
license as proof of age; setting a nominal penalty for the first violation; disregarding 
one accidental violation if effective controls are in place; having the State provide 
required signs; and setting license fees lower for outlets with small sales volume. 
c -1