— 

Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF


INSPECTOR GENERAL


YOUTH ACCESS TO TOBACCO


DECE~ER 1992 OEI-02-91-00880 
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y


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 Secretary’s “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 OIG’S 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 w“th 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 

INTJ?ODU~ON . . . . . . . . . . 

1
 . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . 

mwDINGS 

. 5


State laws and enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . -“-””- . .. ----- ---”””””


. . . . . 8


. 11


. . . . 

Local laws and enfor=menl . . . . ..- .-.”””” ““ . . . . . . . . . ..”.... .. 

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 OIG’S 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 Secretary’s 

“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 Control’s Office on Smoking and Health is the focal point 

within the Federal government for tobacco-related efforts. The office’s activities 

include expanding the science base of tobacco control through implementation of 

1 
epidemiologic studies, surveillance activities and publications such as the Surgeon 

General’s Report on the Health Consequences of Smoking; coordinating national 

media information and education campaigns to educate the public on the health 

based tobacco control programs. 

hazards of tobacco use; and assisting States to build their capacity to sustain broadOther Federal activity includes the National Cancer Institute’s (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 COMMIT’s 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 industry’s 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 schoolbased 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. 

More Than a Pinch of Trouble/’ P-06-86-O058, published in 1986, concluded that 

4 An OIG inspection, “Youth Use of Smokeless Tobacco: 

“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 Sullivan’s 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. California’s 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, Florida’s law is criminal and Vermont’s 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. 

Utah’s 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, “There’s no one charged with 

enforcement, it’s 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 don’t 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 

A few States also mention the lack of 

concern by vendors as a problem. 

access...the police will respond to this pressure.” 

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 

However, the previously mentioned study by Drug Free 

Youthj conducted in 95 communities in 38 States, found that passage of an ordinance 

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 

smoking rates among youth.8 

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 vendor’s 

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 StudentsUnited 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


s 

T 

A 

T 

E 

A 

G 

E 

— 

s 

A 

L 

E 

— 

P 

o 

s 

s 

E 

s 

s 

I 

o 

— 

N

P L 

u I 

R c 

c E 

H N 

A s 

s E 

E s 

s 

1 

G 

N 

s 

VM G P 

E A REI 

NC A N 

D H DA I 

IIUL 

NN A T 

GET I 

s E E 

DS 

I 

I 

1 

F 

I I 

N 

E 

s 

— 

J 

A 

I 

L 

— 

R 

E 

v 

o 

c 

A 

T 

I 

o 

— 

N

E 

N 

F 

o 

R 

c 

E 

R 

— 

P 

R 

E 

E 

M 

P 

T 

I 

o 

— 

N

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 

STATE LAW PROVISIONS* 

— — � See Lemnd At End Of Matrix — — — — 

I T 

A -1

— — — — — — — — — — 

s , 

T 

A 

T 

E 

A 

G 

E 

— 

s 

A 

L 

E 

— 

P 

o 

s 

s 

E 

s 

s 

I 

o 

N 

P 

u 

R 

c 

H 

A 

s 

E 

L 

I 

c 

E 

N 

s 

E 

— 

s 

I 

G 

N 

s 

— 

V M 

E A 

N C 

D H 

II 

N N 

G E 

s 

— 

G P 

R E 

A N 

D A 

U L 

A T 

TI 

E E 

D S 

F 

I 

N 

E 

s 

J 

A 

I 

L 

— 

R 

E 

v 

o 

c 

A 

T 

I 

o 

— N

E 

N 

F 

o 

R 

c 

E 

R 

— 

P 

R 

E 

E 

M 

P 

T 

“1 

o 

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 vendor’s 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

at the cdy of Washington on F&iuY, the tfdrd day of Januury, 

one thouwxnd nina buired.cwui ninaey-two 

Begun and held 

Ta amand the 

909U 

PubIjc Hemi& Setica ACC ta rcstmdnra tha AldDl, Dmg Ahuta, 

autiori?iea of 8uch Adn&i.Ycrauon, 

tdiana tha dativeay ot aewxxs 

and Msnti Heaith Admj&mtin and the 

inciuding estabhhing sa~ce block grxnts to 

~~~ding miananca abuse ‘and mend haaI& and for othar p~ 

and Hause of Regvwentatives the United State8 ofAmg& in Congress assemb~ Be it enasied by the Senate of 

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~ QRAN1’9 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


year if the State euhmitii to theI Secretary 

an q’plication in accordmcs with section 1932 

Secretary shaU make a t to the State af the allotment made 

for the Skate *the 

-EC. lim. STAIZ 

‘m xNDIvmlJm umxBMllI OF la. 

la) ~v.p lAw--­ cxNmuL-Suhiect 

8 @MIt wader 8CXtiOlL 

LAW RSX3ARDSN(3 SAM OF TOBACCO PROI)UCX’9 

ta pangrqh (2), for tial year 

1994 and &&equeat 6cA yeara, the Socrttary may make 

OXdY if the Stata iIlVOk3d 

in affact � law pnrvi~ that it h @awful f(lr ULy mam2fhckin 

tumr, n&dOr, or 

dhtrikti my mxh pnxkt tQ 

d 38. 

tmatodlor 

any indM P d undar -

dilxnbutGr of tflhacfl) tha age 

1921 

n-mm APPK~ FOB CX8’IXN SrATZ9.-ba the 

use of a SMa whose kgialattxa does mt canvane a m 

imfia4yea,r 1993, and inthacaaaof8Stataw ‘%se

cnnvcne a r8gdar -inkd year 

‘(2) 

ofamc8ipt ofngnultll@rMct@ ibYklllyaar lg95dgu&qua@tix 

8e8aioa 

legiidatura +IS

lchaIla.ppiy only 

not 

I*}*~-~-~ m aa 8 Mndition 

. .. ---- . 
“(b) ENFoRiEMENT.­

“0) IN QBxERAL-For the fht applicable kai year and 

fix dwequent W yeara, 

law d~dxd in suixmction (a) in a xnanner that can reasonably 

a funding agresment fm a grant under Section 1921 ie that the Stab involved will enforce the 

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 ineP 

“ OnB 

to ensure compliance with the bw deaczibed in au section 

(a); end 

“(B) e.nmdy autxnit to the Secretary 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 

a report 

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 TXrZ—13efore P 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 

year invoived by an amount equal tu­

(a) ~d (b). a herein , the Secre@y determines that the SWa ie not in com@­

ance Wi & euch subsectio~, the Secretary ehalI reduca the amount 

~ after notice 

of the allotment under such section for ths Stats fbr the fiecal 

to the Stata and an opportunity for 

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 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 

sUch 

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 driver’s 

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