. 

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 public’s 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 are’licensing, 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 public’s 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. 
0 FINDINGS 

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 don’t get excited about tobacco,” explained one health official. The general 

sentiment is captured in another official’s 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 don’t acknowledge it 

as a problem,” one respondent explained. As one local official noted, ‘Local cops have more 

than they can handle. They don’t 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. After’some 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 State’s 

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 State’s 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 

vendor’s 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 vendor’s 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 store’s 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, 

you’ll 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 owner’s 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 there’s 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 Utah’s 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