The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA

Abstract #56110

Cindy A. Tworek, MPH, MS¹, Gary A. Giovino, PhD¹, K. Michael Cummings, PhD, MPH¹, Andrew Hyland, PhD¹, Dianne C. Barker, MHS², Barbara Sasso², and Sandy Slater, MS³. (1) Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm & Carlton Streets, Buffalo, NY 14263, 716-845-4407, cindy.tworek@roswellpark.org, (2) Barker Bi-Coastal Health Consultants, 3556 Elm Dr., Calabasas, CA 91302, (3) Health Research and Policy Centers, University of Illinois at Chicago, 850 W Jackson Blvd., Suite 400, Chicago, IL 60607

Despite recent increases in state-based legislation restricting minors’ possession, use, and purchase (PUP) of tobacco products, evaluation of PUP enforcement efforts at both state and local levels has been minimal. In 1988, only 17 states had enacted at least one PUP law; however, by January 2003, 45 states had passed PUP legislation. This study collected and descriptively analyzed state and local PUP enforcement data. State enforcement data were collected via structured interviews with key informants and tobacco control officials in all 45 states with at least 1 PUP law. Local enforcement data were provided by ImpacTeen researchers, and obtained from community-level key informant surveys in 336 communities. State enforcement data show that a majority (57.8%) of PUP enforcement occurs at the local level only, and 88.5% of states with only local PUP enforcement do not provide assistance to localities in terms of money and/or resources. Enforcement patterns vary largely by local area, but suggest that possession/use laws are more frequently and effectively enforced than purchase laws. When a PUP violation is observed, a citation is typically issued, parents are notified, and a fine is given to the minor (often in combination with community service and/or tobacco cessation classes). States with more severe penalties, dictated by law, often indicated less PUP enforcement activity. These descriptive data will be used to construct enforcement indices, and will subsequently be applied to study the effects of PUP enforcement on adolescent smoking behavior and attitudes.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation provided funding for these analyses.

Learning Objectives:

At the conclusion of the session, the participant (learner) in this session will be able to:
• Describe typical state enforcement efforts of tobacco possession, use, and purchase laws.
• Describe typical local enforcement efforts of tobacco possession, use, and purchase laws.
• Discuss state and local enforcement of tobacco possession, use, and purchase laws within the context of youth access and tobacco control efforts.

Keywords: Tobacco Policy, Tobacco Control

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.