. 
YOUTH  ACCESS  TO  CIGARETTES 

OFFICE  OF  INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
OFFICE OF EVALUATION  AND INSPECTIONS 
MAY  1990  YOUTH  ACCESS  TO  CIGARETTES 

Richard  P. Kusserow 
INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
OEI-02-90-02310 
MAY 1990 
 EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 
To assessthe enforcement of State laws prohibiting  the sale of cigarettes to minors. 
BACKGROUND 
As part of his initiative  on smoking, Secretary Sullivan asked the Office of Inspector General 
to survey States regarding their laws on the sale of cigarettes to minors.  He wanted to know 
the extent to which  the laws are enforced, the nature of enforcement  activities and the most 
- effective practices. 
Research has documented that millions  of youth smoke, despite the existence of laws in 44 
States and the District  of Columbia  prohibiting  the sale of cigarettes to minors.  Yet, a Journal 
of the American  Medical  Association  article estimates that more than 3 million  American 
children  under age 18 consume 947 million  packs of cigarettes yearly. 
METHODOLOGY 
The study team interviewed  State health and law enforcement agencies to document any 
enforcement activity;  conducted in-depth  studies of 11 specific active State and local 
enforcement efforts; and completed  1200 interviews  in 18 States with  students, parents, 
vendors and other adults to assessthe publics  knowledge  and awareness of laws prohibiting 
the sale of cigarettes to minors. 
FINDINGS 
.  Youth  access laws are not being enforced. 
.  Children  can easily buy cigarettes. 
.  Areas of active enforcement are few; they rely on local leadership. 
.  Active  enforcement involves a variety of techniques, primarily  administrative  in nature. 
Among  the most common approaches arelicensing,  fines, stings, restrictions  on 
vending machines, and warning  signs.  TABLE  OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 
BACKGROUND  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

METHODOLOGY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 

FINDINGS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Youth  Access  Laws  Are  Not  Being  Enforced, 

and  Children  Can  Easily  Buy  Cigarettes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

Areas  of Active  Enforcement  Are  Few; 

They  Rely  on  Local  Leadership  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Active  Enforcement  Involves  a Variety  of 

Techniques,  Primarily  Administrative  in Nature  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

. - INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 
To assessthe enforcement of State laws prohibiting  the sale of cigarettes to minors. 
BACKGROUND 
As part of his initiative  on smoking, Secretary Sullivan  asked the Office of Inspector General 
_ 	 to survey States regarding  their laws on the sale of cigarettes to minors.  He specifically 
wanted to know  the extent to which  the laws are enforced, the nature of enforcement activities 
and the most effective practices.  Although  the Surgeon General reports that most States have 
youth access laws, there is little information  on their enforcement. 
Research has documented that children  smoke.  Each day more than 3,000 children  start 
smoking.  A Journal of the American  Medical  Association  article estimates that mom than 3 
million  American  children  under age 18 consume 947 million  packs of cigarettes yearly. 
Additionally,  75 percent of current adult smokers started smoking before their 18th birthday. 
The Annual  High  School Seniors Survey, conducted in 1987 by the University  of Michigan, 
reports that approximately  one out of every five high school seniors smoke daily, and that over 
half the seniors who smoked began smoking by the eighth grade. 
According  to a study by the Minnesota Tobacco-Free Youth Project, the earlier a child  starts 
using tobacco, the more likely  it is that he/she will  be unable to quit.  The samestudy found 
that more than one-half of high school seniors who smoke daily have tried to quit without success. 
States have responded to the fact that children  smoke by passing laws that prohibit  the sale of 
cigarettes to minors.  Currently,  44 States and the District  of Columbia  have such laws.  The 
age at which children  are no longer considered minors ranges from  15 to 19, with  18 being the 
most common.  These are not new laws; most were enacted between 1890 and 1920 as a result 
of pressure from activists who were trying  to prevent young boys from smoking.  As recently 
as 1964,48  States had laws prohibiting  the sale of cigarettes to minors, but some were 
repealed because they were considered unenforceable.  In at least 11 States vendors must post 
signs stating it is illegal  to sell cigarettes to minors. 
Penalties for violation  of these laws vary greatly -- from a $2 fine in Washington D.C., to a 
maximum of a $3,000 fine and/or a year in jail  in Minnesota.  In most States the penalty is a 
fine and/or jail.  Despite the fact that virtually  all States license the sale or distribution  of 
cigarettes, only four have license revocation  as a penalty for sehing to minors.  Most States 
leave enforcement to local law enforcement officials.  However,  in Florida  and New 
Hampshire, State taxation agencies have the responsibility;  in Massachusetts, it is the State 
Department of Public Health.  Indications  that enforcement may be weak came not only from the observable fact that teens 
are smoking, but also from a number of studies and from controlled  purchases or stings  that 
demonstrated children  can and do buy cigarettes.  Dozens of such local stings  have been run 
by researchers, local reporters, police, and health departments to test youth access laws. 
Generally, minors were able to purchase cigarettes illegally  about 80 percent of the time. 
Additionally,  in 1987, nearly 90 percent of a sample of Minnesota  10th graders who smoked 
regularly  reported that it was very easy to obtain cigarettes despite a State law.  In the 1987 
National  Adolescent Student Health Survey of 1100 students, 73 percent of the 8th and 10th 
graders said it was very easy to buy; 13 percent said its fairly  easy. Also in 1987.90  percent 
of a sample of New Jersey high school students who smoked said they could always or nearly 
always buy cigarettes. 
METHODOLOGY 
Data collection  was performed in three stages. Initially,  the study team interviewed  each State 
health and law enforcement agency where access laws exist to document enforcement activity. 
Interviews were conducted with a person designated in each State as the tobacco contact 
person in response to a request from the Association  of State and Territorial  Health Officials. 
This tobacco contact person described his/her awareness of enforcement activities as well  as   
perceived problems with enforcement.  The law enforcement official  contacted was the 
State-designated National  Crime Information  Center (NCIC)  contact, who was asked to 
provide statistics on the enforcement of these State statutes. 
In the second stage of the inspection the team studied specific State and local enforcement 
efforts.  An extensive literature review and contact with  State officials,  experts and academics 
in the youth smoking field indicated  10 local areas and one State, Florida,  where enforcement 
was actively occurring.  Individual  communities  actively enforcing  youth access laws are 
located in California,  Illinois,  Massachusetts, Michigan,  Minnesota,  New York, Pennsylvania, 
Utah and Washington.  In-person and telephone interviews,  using open-ended discussion 
guides, were utilized  to study these special enforcement efforts. 
In the third stage, OIG staff assessedthe publics  knowledge  and awareness of laws 
prohibiting  the sale of cigarettes to minors.  A questionnaire  was developed, and almost 1200 
interviews in urban and suburban settings were completed during  April.  The interviews  took 
place in over 300 communities  in eighteen States: California,  Connecticut,  Colorado, Georgia, 
Illinois,  Kansas, Maryland,  Massachusetts, Missouri,  New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia,  Washington and Wisconsin.  The subjects interviewed 
included 295 vendors, 322 students and 561 other adults.  These adults included  112 school 
officials,  95 law enforcement officials,  87 public  health officials  and 250 parents.  The number 
of respondents varies by each question.  FINDINGS 
0 
Youth  Access  Laws  Are  Not  Being  Enforced,  and  Children  Can  Easily  Buy 
Cigarettes. 
State officials  report  that laws are not being enforced. 
Two-thirds  of State health department officials  indicate that there is virtually  no enforcement 
of their State law; another fifth  say it is minimal. 
Nearly half of the State health officials  believe the law is not being enforced because it is not a 
-	 priority.  People dont  get excited about tobacco, explained one health official.  The general 
sentiment is captured in another officials  response that people feel [that] there are more 
important  issues that must be enforced.  Other State health officials  cite both a lack of 
funding  and difficulty  in enforcing  the law as reasons for nonenforcement. 
State-level police data also confirm  the minimal  level of enforcement.  The majority  of NCIC 
control  agencies contacted could not provide actual numbers on violations  and enforcement. 
Of the 44 States with laws prohibiting  the sale of cigarettes to minors, only five could provide 
any statistical information  on vendor violations: 
STATE  1989 VENDOR  VIOLATIONS 

Alaska  8 

Connecticut  0 

Florida  16 

New York  8 

Vermont  0 

A notable area of statistical accomplishment  is Utah which  in 1989 issued 4476 violations  to 
minors for purchasing and/or possessing tobacco. 
Law enforcement officials  in the remaining  States report that municipalities  are either not 
required to report such minor offenses, or that all such offenses are lumped together in a 
miscellaneous category and cannot be accessed separately. 
Discussions with  local law enforcement officials  further confirm  the impression that little  is 
being done.  More than three-quarters interviewed  from 78 communities  around the country 
do not think youth access laws are being enforced in their communities.  In fact, 76 of 89 
(85%) report that they do not know  of anyone ever being caught breaking this law. 
Local public  health officials  agree. More than two-thirds  interviewed  believe the law is not 
being enforced in their local area; 64 of 73 respondents (88%) do not know  of anyone ever 
being caught under this law.  Community  respondents also note lack of enforcement. 
More than three-quarters of respondents in the community  also say youth access laws are not 
being enforced.  This includes 246 of 320 student respondents (77%) and 429 of 559 adults 
(77%) including  law enforcement officials.  Half of the vendors surveyed agree. 
Respondents in the community  also do not know  anyone who has ever been caught selling 
cigarettes to minors; 206 of 255 student respondents (81%) and 421 of 488 adult respondents 
(86%) do not know  anyone who has ever been caught.  The majority  of vendors, 227 of 268 
(85%), arc likewise  unaware of anyone ever being caught. 
Respondents also say children can easily buy cigarettes in their community.  The majority  of 
adult and student respondents, 477 of 560 adults (84%) and 269 of 3 19 students (84%), 
consider it easy. Of 159 children  who say they have smoked, 139 (87%) claim that it is easy 
to buy cigarettes.  About  two-thirds  of the vendors agree. 
Despite easy access and lack of enforcement, most respondents are, nevertheless, awam of the 
youth access law in their State. Three-quarters of students know  of these laws.  Similarly,  479 
of 552 responding adults (86%). including  90 of 94 law enforcement officials  (96%), are 
aware of them  Most store clerks, managers and owners, 266 of 292 (91%), know  it is illegal 
to sell cigarettes to minors.  When asked how they became aware of these laws, vendors most 
often mentioned that it is common knowledge,  while others report that their employer 
informed  them. 
Lack  of enforcement  is due to apathy. 
Overall, both adults and vendors suggest apathy as the major reason why  these laws are not 
being enforced,  Of the 429 adult respondents who believe the law is not enforced, 97 (23%) 
believe that the law is not a priority  with  the police or limited  resources for enforcement exist. 
Ninety-five  (22%) say the law is not a community  priority  and no one really cares about it. 
Ninety-three  (22%) blame vendors for not caring who they sell to and just wanting  the profits 
from sales. Only  17 adult respondents (4%) blame a lack of awareness of the law. 
Vendors generally agree with  adult respondents.  Of the 145 vendor respondents who believe 
the law is not enforced, 30 (2 1%) say that vendors in general do not care who they sell to and 
find it inconvenient  to check identification.  Thirty  (21%) believe that the police are too busy 
to enforce the law and 28 (19%) suggest public  apathy. 
Other respondents in the community  attribute nonenforcement  to, as one respondent noted, a 
lack of political  pressure to have police or anyone else enforce it.  Others believe that teens 
would  get cigarettes anyway, especially from vending machines, and that the law is too 
difficult  to enforce. 
4 
 The majority  of experts in the youth smoking field and officials  in the communities  taking 
local initiative  believe these laws are a low police priority.  The police dont  acknowledge  it 
as a problem,  one respondent explained.  As one local official  noted, Local  cops have more 
than they can handle.  They dont  have time for this law.  One expert commented that 
enforcement  is not occurring  because the community  is not making a fuss about it.  Others 
cite a lack of leadership and the absence of an identifiable  person or agency responsible for 
enforcement. 
The majority  of the law enforcement officials  confirm  that it is not a priority  and say they 
have more imponant  issues to address. As one officer  notes, The  law is not important 
enough to have officers  using their time to enforce it.  Local law enforcement agencies also 
.  mention reluctance to take these cases into the congested court systems, noting that 
_  prosecution of criminal  laws is not only time consuming  but costly. 
Areas  of Active  Enforcement  Are  Few;  They  Rely  on  Local  Leadership. 
Local  leadership  exists in nearly  all active enforcement  areas. 
Eleven active enforcement initiatives  were identified  and contacted; all but one (Florida)  were 
local initiatives  supported by the community.  These areas include: 
Solano County, CA  Woodridge,  IL 
Brookline,  MA  Leominster,  MA 
Marquette  County, MI  Minneapolis,  MN 
White Bear Lake, MN  Allentown,  PA 
Layton,  UT  King  County, WA 
In eight of these areas, local laws have been established and arc being enforced, while  in the 
remaining  three the State law is being enforced. 
In some States, these active communities  have served as examples for other municipalities 
which have now also adopted similar enforcement policies.  There may be more than one 
. 
 active town in each area; however, interviews  were held only with  those who first became 
active. 
Generally, these enforcement  initiatives  have resulted from community  concern and local 
leadership.  In Woodridge,  a local junior  high school principal  became concerned when a 
young student was seen purchasing cigarettes in a nearby store, and asked the youth officer 
from the local police department if it was illegal.  Aftersome  research, the officer discovered 
it was, in fact, illegal.  The officer  then helped write a town ordinance prohibiting  sale to 
minors and possession by minors.  In the last year, three vendors licenses have been 
suspended and over 30 minors have been ticketed.  Many  surrounding  towns followed  his lead 
and adopted similar local ordinances.  In Massachusetts, in response to an apparent lack of enforcement of the youth access law, the 
State Health Department asked local health departments to take on the responsibility.  So far, 
two have accepted and are issuing tickets to violators.  Both towns have adopted the State law 
as a local public  health law, thus allowing  enforcement by local health inspectors. 
Information  obtained at a smoking conference showing  that nine percent of seventh graders 
smoke motivated the Allentown  Health Department to look into enforcement of the States 
law.  In its frost test of the law, it found that all 15 of its 15 test stores sold cigarettes to minors. 
In Solano County California,  the Cancer Control  Program, concerned about the public  health 
effect of teens smoking, encouraged three local police departments to enforce the States law. 
These effons resulted in 3 1 arrests. 
Active  Enforcement  Involves  a Variety  of Techniques,  Primarily  Administrative 
in  Nature. 
Among  the most commonly  used techniques are licensing, fines, stings, restrictions  on 
vending machines, and warning  signs. 
Licensing  appears to be an effective tool in enforcing  youth  access laws. 
Of the eleven active programs contacted, eight provide for revocation or suspension of the 
vendors license following  a prescribed number of violations.  While  all States license the 
production,  distribution  or sale of tobacco, only 3 1 license vendors; the remaining  States 
license the wholesaler or the distributor.  The source of these licenses varies; some ax  issued 
locally  and others are issued by the State. Suspending a vendors right to sell cigarettes for a 
period of time has greater impact than a fine, according to active enforcers.  Since sales can 
account for hundreds of dollars of a stores daily intake, a minor monetary fine, in contrast, is 
relatively  painless to pay.  Also, a vendor who is forced to turn customers away may lose 
customers.  Officials  in these communities  agree that a license revocation penalty causes 
vendors to obey the law.  They point to the virtually  self-enforcing  alcohol laws as models. 
Three types of license revocation  were identified  in the active communities.  In Florida,  the 
law prohibiting  the sale of tobacco to minors is enforced by the Division  of Alcoholic 
Beverages and Tobacco.  Vendors who violate cigarette access laws can and do have their 
license to sell alcohol suspended. This occurred  16 times last year.  In Brookline  and 
Leominster,  where the law is enforced by the local health department, vendors lose their food 
licenses.  The first license was suspended recently.  Iti the remaining  sites, tobacco licenses 
issued locally  to vendors are revoked when misused.  In all three cases, suspensions are for a 
period of days for the first offense and longer for each added offense.  One active enforcer 
stressed the importance of making these punishments reasonable.  If you make it too severe, 
youll  lose that crucial community  support.  License fees vary greatly and can be used in many ways.  Fees charged for these vendor 
licenses range from $5 for 3 years in Marquette County, MI  to $210 for 3 years in King 
County, WA.  In some areas (Ring County and Florida)  fees are earmarked to pay for 
enforcement, while  in others (Bmokline)  they fund tobacco and health education programs. 
Civilfines  work  better than criminal  penalties. 
While criminal  offenses must work  their way through the criminal  justice system, civil 
offenses are generally  handled administratively.  Seen as a viable alternative in the 
enforcement of youth access laws, they are used in six of the eleven active communities. 
Civil  penalties expedite enforcement through the use of non-traditional  enforcement officials 
(i.e., health inspectors, licensing inspectors, etc.), and avoid needlessly clogging  the criminal 
justice system.  In Minnesota,  the penalty for selling to a minor  is a gross misdemeanor, which 
if enforced, could mean jail  for the clerks who sell.  However,  when three clerks in Ramsey 
were arrested for selling to minors, there was a public  outcry for more lenient penalties. 
Minneapolis  thus chose to punish violators civilly,  going after the owners  license rather than 
the clerk. 
In Florida,  the access laws are criminal  and violators must appear in court.  Criminal  court 
judges, however, feel strongly  that these violators should not be burdened with  a criminal 
record for such a common offense.  The judges issue fines, but the violators  are not 
adjudicated as guilty  and, therefore, avoid criminal  records.  In some California  criminal 
courts, judges have suspended sentences and have only issued fines.  They also believe that 
criminal  penalties do not fit this crime. 
In Leominster  and Brookline,  sanitarians and public  health officials  issue tickets on which  the 
fines are outlined.  Cases are handled entirely  by the health department; the police are not 
involved. 
Overall, civil  penalties are well received by active communities.  When asked why other State 
youth access laws are generally not enforced, a majority  of active community  respondents 
believe it is because it is not a police priority;  some blame public  apathy.  They feel that 
people, while  not wanting  children  to purchase cigarettes, believe that police should be 
concentrating  on more important  issues, like illegal  drugs and rape.  . 
PoIice involved  in actively  enforcing  these laws believe that the laws should be civil  as 
opposed to criminal  and would  be more appropriately.enforced  by health departments and 
licensing officials.  One of the more successful police enforcers stated, The police department 
should not enforce this law.  Citizens would  argue theres not enough manpower.  The health 
department is a more appropriate arm because it is not an offensive crime.  It is a health issue -
an administrative  issue.   Limited  placement allows for vending machines in places that do not normally  allow  children 
anyway  (i.e., bars, offices or factories).  Currently,  only 6 percent of State health departments 
interviewed  report that their youth access laws limit  the placement of vending machines, but 
half suggest limiting  placement. 
Locking  devices require the instalIation  of a relatively  inexpensive device that inactivates the 
machine until a clerk triggers the power, thus allowing  the clerk to check the age of the 
purchaser.  Utah experimented  with  locking  devices recently  with  limited  success. 
Reportedly, clerks would  simply activate the machine without  checking  the age of the 
purchaser.  Since locking  devices require employee participation,  they are often not as 
effective in busy places, such as bars or restaurants, where employees are more likely  to 
simply activate the machine. 
Sixteen municipalities  in Minnesota  recently banned cigarette vending machines entirely. 
These bans have generally been well received and are expected to lead to stricter enforcement 
of over-the-counter  sales. The remaining  42 percent of State health department officials  say 
that total bans are the only way to prevent teens from using vending machines. 
Warning  signs remind  both clerks and customersthat sale to minors  is illegal. 
Currently,  seven of the eleven active communities  require vendors to post signs at the point of 
sale stating that it is illegal  to sell to minors.  Similarly,  55 percent of State health departments 
say vendors in their States are required  to post warning  signs.  In Massachusetts, vendors must. 
place these signs in such a way that they face the clerk as a constant reminder.  In Utah, 
innovative  designs and neon colors have been used to make signs distributed  by local health 
departments more noticeable.  In addition  to signs, Woodridge  clerks wear buttons reminding 
customers of the new ordinance.  While enforcement experts stress that signs alone are not 
enough to stop illegal  sales, they are a constant reminder to both children  and employees. 
Experts  believe that making  tobacco laws similar to alcohol laws would be an effective 
enforcement  mechanism. 
Enforcement  in Florida,  conducted by the Division  of Alcoholic  Beverages and Tobacco, is 
the same for alcohol and tobacco sales to minors, although  ages differ  (21 and 18, 
respectively).  Three other States with  similar alcohol/tobacco  control  agencies are not 
actively enforcing  tobacco access laws, although they have the authority.  At least two alcohol 
control  agencies (ME, WA) report that their State legislatures arc considering  authorizing 
them to enforce existing tobacco access laws.  Sixty percent of State health department 
respondents believe that the alcohol enforcement model would  work  for tobacco, and point to 
the license revocation provision  in particular.  Those who feel that the alcohol enforcement 
model would  not work  for cigarettes cite the extremely  high number of tobacco vendors, 
which far exceeds the number of alcohol  vendors.  Those proposing  new youth  access legislation  are cautioned  not to preempt any already 
existing local activity. 
Officials  in charge of active enforcement initiatives  based on locally  enacted ordinances 
caution that State laws should not preempt stronger local legislation.  As a case in point, 
California  recently passed a State law which  precludes municipalities  from enacting tobacco 
control  laws. 
Opinions  vary as to whether or not to make it illegal for  minors  to possess cigarettes. 
In five of the eleven sites contacted, it is illegal for a child to possess cigarettes.  Enforcement 
experts believe this makes enforcement easier, serves as an additional  deterrent and gives the 
vendor leverage when refusing to sell to minors.  Penalties for youth violators range from 5 
hours of community  service to a $50 fine.  In two areas enforcement is directed at the minor as 
opposed to the vendor:  ticketing  teens and suspending them from school and extra-curricular 
activities for possessing cigarettes is central to Utahs approach; White Bear Lake, MN  brings 
them to the police station when caught in possession of cigarettes.  California  notes that 
caution must be used when performing  stings in communities  where possession or purchase is 
illegal.  These minors must either be police agents or have special police permission. 
10