Evaluations of Compliance With California's First Tobacco Sales Bans and Tobacco Marketing in Restricted and Cross-Border Stores.

INTRODUCTION: Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach were the first California cities to end tobacco sales. Previous research assessed retailers' perceptions of the laws. This study is the first to evaluate compliance (Study 1), assess whether branded or unbranded tobacco cues remain, and examine cigarette prices/discounts in cross-border stores (Study 2). AIMS AND METHODS: Each of the four data collectors requested Marlboro or e-cigarettes (randomly assigned) in all restricted stores (n = 33) until four attempts were exhausted or a violation occurred. Follow-up visits recorded whether former tobacco retailers advertised tobacco or contained unbranded cues. In a random sample of 126 cross-border stores (half within 1 mile of no-sales cities and half 2-4 miles away), data collectors recorded price of Marlboro and presence of cigarette discounts. Mixed models (stores within tracts), tested for differences between near and far stores, adjusting for store type and median household income. RESULTS: Compliance was 87.5%: three stores sold Marlboro (US $8, $10, and $10) and one sold Puff Bar (US $16). Tobacco-branded items and unbranded tobacco cues remained in one store each. Mean Marlboro price was US $10.61 (SD = 1.92) at stores within 1 mile of no-sales cities, averaging US $0.73 more than at stores farther away (p < .05). However, odds of advertising cigarette discounts did not differ between stores nearby and farther from no-sales cities. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all retailers complied with tobacco sales bans within 6-12 months of implementation. In addition, retail tobacco marketing was nearly eliminated in the two cities. There was no evidence of price gouging for Marlboro cigarettes in cross-border stores. IMPLICATIONS: Evidence from two early adopters of tobacco sales bans suggests that such local laws can be implemented effectively in California, although results from these high-income cities in a state with a strong tobacco control record limits generalizability. Enforcement involving routine purchase attempts rather than visual inspection of tobacco products is recommended. Although Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach are each surrounded by communities where tobacco sales persist, there was no evidence of price gouging for cigarettes or greater presence of discounts in cross-border stores. Evaluations of the economic impacts and public health benefits of tobacco sales bans are much needed.

Rates of Age Verification for Cigarette and E-cigarette Purchases as a Function of State T21 Laws Before and After Implementation of the Federal T21 Law in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: In the US, having a 21 minimum legal sales age for tobacco (T21) at the state level may have impacted age verification of cigarette and e-cigarette purchases among U.S. young adults (ages 18-26), before and/or after federal T21 implementation. AIMS AND METHODS: This study examined this by analyzing data from cigarette and/or e-cigarette users (n = 618 and n = 864) in six metropolitan areas in six states. Participants reported frequency of being age verified ("almost always" vs. less frequently) for cigarette and/or e-cigarette purchases across 3 timepoints (ie, wave 1 [w1]: September-December 2018, w2: September-December 2019, and w3: September-December 2020). Multilevel modeling examined time-varying state T21 status and time (reflecting federal T21 implementation) in relation to age verification of cigarette and e-cigarette purchases, respectively. RESULTS: The proportions almost always age verified for cigarette purchases in states with T21 versus without were: W1: 38.5% versus 37.7%, w2: 33.0% versus 39.1%, and w3: 45.4% versus 30.6%. For e-cigarettes, the proportions were: W1: 30.6% versus 40.3%, w2: 42.3% versus 50.5%, and w3: 56.0% versus 58.3%. In multilevel modeling, state T21 status was associated with greater likelihood of age verification for e-cigarettes (aOR = 1.67, CI = 1.13 to 2.45), but not for cigarettes. Age verification increased over time for e-cigarettes-both accounting for and not accounting for state T21 status. There were no changes for cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: State T21 status and time correlated with age verification for e-cigarettes, but not cigarettes. These self-reported age verification data contribute to evidence from compliance checks, indicating that retailers require additional prompts and enforcement to enhance compliance with T21 laws. IMPLICATIONS: Current findings suggest that variations in regulations and gaps in enforcement may hinder the potential impact of increasing the minimum legal sales age, which ultimately may undermine the promise of such policies, specifically with regard to preventing tobacco use among the underage. Therefore, it is crucial to monitor retailer compliance with T21 laws and evaluate their efficacy to increase ID checks, minimize illegal sales, and curb underage use of tobacco. Relatedly, particular attention to enforcement efforts that may promote compliance is warranted.

Rapid-response surveillance of the first US test market for VLN cigarettes.

INTRODUCTION: VLN King menthol and non-menthol are the first combustible cigarettes to receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorisation as modified risk tobacco products. Focusing on the first retail test market, this study characterised VLN advertising, product placement, discounts and price. METHODS: All Chicago-area Circle K stores (n=133) were telephoned to assess whether they sold VLN. Single-pack price of non-menthol was obtained in 57 of 100 stores that sold VLN. In fall 2022, trained data collectors visited those 57 stores to assess VLN product placement, advertising, discounts and prices. Paired t-tests compared observed VLN price with telephone price and to price of other cigarette brands. RESULTS: Nearly all stores (91.1%) displayed exterior advertisements for VLN, and 41.1% displayed interior advertising, with 8.9% of stores advertising VLN in the power wall but never in the header row. VLN cigarettes were displayed in the power wall exclusively and among high-nicotine cigarettes. Some VLN marketing claims were not FDA-authorised. VLN advertised a sweepstakes offer and rewards programme. Most stores (85.7%) offered VLN discounts. VLN was priced like a premium brand (mean=$10.90, SD=$1.53), and prices obtained by telephone did not differ from observed prices several months later. CONCLUSIONS: Retail marketing strategies for VLN mimic those for high-nicotine cigarettes. Deviations from FDA-authorised marketing claims were evident. Surveillance in future test markets is recommended to assess compliance with marketing claims and examine relative price and discount offers. Of interest is how premium-priced, low-nicotine cigarettes stand to compete in a market dominated by cheaper high-nicotine cigarettes.

Spatial Clustering of Hookah Lounges, Vape Shops, and All Tobacco Retailers Near Colleges.

INTRODUCTION: US college students smoke hookah and vape nicotine at higher rates than other young adults. Density and/or proximity of hookah lounges and vape shops near colleges has been described, but this study is the first to test whether tobacco retailers spatially cluster near college campuses. AIMS AND METHODS: We created and linked spatial shapefiles for community colleges and 4-year colleges in California with lists of hookah lounges, vape shops, and licensed tobacco retailers. We simulated 100 datasets, placing hookah lounges, vape shops, and tobacco retailers randomly in census tracts in proportion to population density. A modified version of Ripley's K-function was computed using the radius (r) from each retailer within retail category. RESULTS: In 2018-2019, 50.5% of hookah lounges (n = 479), 42.5% of vape shops (n = 2467), and 42.0% of all tobacco retailers (n = 31 100) were located within 3 miles of a community college. Spatial clustering was significant (p < .05) from at least 0.4 miles for hookah lounges, 0.1 mile for vape shops, and 0.3 miles for all tobacco retailers. For 4-year colleges, approximately 46.8% of hookah lounges, 31.3% of vape shops, and 31.6% of all tobacco retailers were located within 3 miles. Clustering was significant from 0.2 miles for hookah lounges and 1.3 miles for all tobacco retailers but was not significant for vape shops. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence that some types of tobacco retailers cluster near community colleges and 4-year colleges implies greater accessibility and exposure to advertising for students. It is also concerning because a higher probability of underage tobacco sales presumably exists near colleges. IMPLICATIONS: Prior studies infer that hookah lounges and vape shops cluster near colleges from the density and closer proximity to campuses. This study modified a traditional test of spatial clustering and considered community colleges separately from 4-year universities. Spatial clustering of hookah lounges and all licensed tobacco retailers was evident near both types of campuses, but vape shops clustered only near community colleges. Place-based strategies to limit tobacco retail density could expand state and local laws that prohibit tobacco sales near schools to include retailers near college campuses. In addition, college environments should be a target for reducing hookah smoking and nicotine vaping.

The changing retail landscape for tobacco: dollar stores and the availability of cheap cigarettes among tobacco-related priority populations.

INTRODUCTION: Dollar stores are rapidly altering the retail landscape for tobacco. Two of the three largest chains sell tobacco products in more than 24 000 stores across the USA. We sought to examine whether dollar stores are more likely to be located in disadvantaged neighbourhoods and whether dollar stores charge less for cigarettes than other tobacco retailers. METHODS: Data were collected from a statewide random sample of licensed tobacco retailers in California (n=7678) in 2019. Logistic regression modelled odds of a census tract containing at least one dollar store as a function of tract demographics. Linear mixed models compared price of the cheapest cigarette pack by store type, controlling for tract demographics. RESULTS: Census tracts with lower median household income, rural status and higher proportions of school-age youth were more likely to contain at least one dollar store. The cheapest cigarette pack cost less in dollar stores compared with all store types examined except tobacco shops. Estimated price differences ranged from $0.32 (95% CI: 0.14 to 0.51) more in liquor stores and $0.39 (95% CI: 0.22 to 0.57) more in convenience stores, to $0.82 (95% CI: 0.64 to 1.01) more in small markets and $1.86 (95% CI: 1.61 to 2.11) more in stores classified as 'other'. CONCLUSIONS: Dollar stores may exacerbate smoking-related inequities by contributing to the availability of cheaper cigarettes in neighbourhoods that are lower income, rural and have greater proportions of youth. Pro-equity retail policies, such as minimum price laws and density reduction policies, could mitigate the health consequences of dollar stores' rapid expansion.

Assurances of Voluntary Compliance: A Regulatory Mechanism to Reduce Youth Access to E-Cigarettes and Limit Retail Tobacco Marketing.

Objectives. To evaluate assurances of voluntary compliance (AVCs) between state attorneys general and retail chains by assessing e-cigarette sales to underage decoys and tobacco marketing violations in corporate-owned stores (that sign AVCs) and franchise stores (that do not sign AVCs).Methods. Decoys 18 to 19 years of age attempted to purchase e-cigarettes without presenting ID in California convenience stores (n = 540). Auditors characterized the presence and content of age-of-sale signage and advertising for tobacco products. Data were collected and analyzed in 2018.Results. Corporate-owned stores were less likely than were franchise stores to violate ID requests (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.12, 0.71) and to sell e-cigarettes illegally (AOR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.15, 0.88). Regardless of AVC category, advertising violations were common in stores (vaping products, 26.3%; other tobacco products, 74.3%).Conclusions. The differences in violation rates found in corporate and franchise stores imply that AVCs could reduce youth access to e-cigarettes. However, merchant education and routine enforcement are needed to better leverage restrictions on retail tobacco marketing in AVCs.Public Health Implications. Strengthening compliance with existing AVCs and establishing new agreements with retailers shown to be in violation through federal or state inspections could reduce youth access to e-cigarettes and exposure to tobacco marketing.

Retail Tobacco Marketing in Rural Versus Nonrural Counties: Product Availability, Discounts, and Prices.

Objectives. To assess tobacco product availability, advertised discounts, and prices in rural and nonrural stores, comparing results for two definitions of rural. Method. This geospatial study linked data from marketing surveillance in a representative sample of licensed tobacco retailers in California (n = 1,276) and categorized rural/nonrural stores at the county and tract levels. Data were collected from January to March, 2017, and mixed-models analyses tested for differences by location (rural vs. nonrural). Results. Compared to nonrural stores, rural-county stores were 2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI; 1.2, 3.6]) times more likely to sell chewing tobacco and 2.5 (95% CI [1.4, 4.2]) times more likely to sell roll-your-own. Rural-county stores sold larger packs of cigarillos for less than $1 (coefficient = 0.22, 95% CI [0.05, 0.39]) and charged less for the cheapest cigarette pack regardless of brand (estimated mean difference = $-0.21, 95% CI [-0.39, -0.03]). Contrary to expectation, a popular brand of chewing tobacco cost more in rural-county stores. A tract-level definition of rural reclassified only 1 in 10 stores, and did not substantially alter the results. Overall, 32.9% of stores advertised discounts on chewing tobacco, but this was more common in rural than nonrural census tracts (adjusted odds ratio = 1.81, 95% CI [1.14, 2.88]). Discussion. Evidence that $1 buys more cigarillos in rural-county stores than elsewhere adds to health equity concerns that the prevalence of cheap, flavored tobacco is not limited to neighborhoods characterized by socioeconomic disadvantage, higher proportions of African Americans, and higher proportions of school-age youth. Policies that focus on the retail environment for tobacco are needed to make tobacco less attractive and more costly everywhere, including rural areas.

The Price of Natural American Spirit Relative to Other Cigarette Brands.

INTRODUCTION: American Spirit cigarettes feature American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) imagery in the branding and are marketed as environmentally friendly, without additives, and four varieties contain organic tobacco. This study is the first to examine retail price of American Spirit relative to other cigarette brands and to assess how its price varies by neighborhood demography. METHODS: In a random sample of licensed tobacco retailers (n = 1277), trained data collectors recorded availability and price of American Spirit, Pall Mall, Newport, Marlboro, and the cheapest cigarettes regardless of brand. Data were collected in January-March 2017 in California, the state with the largest AI/AN population. Paired t tests assessed prices (before sales tax) of American Spirit relative to others. Ordinary least squares regressions modeled prices as a function of neighborhood demography, adjusting for store type. RESULTS: American Spirit was sold in 77% of stores at an average price of $7.03 (SD = 0.66), which was $0.75-$1.78 (12.0%-34.4%) higher than Pall Mall, Newport, and Marlboro in the same stores. American Spirit costs significantly less in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of school-age residents; however, this pattern was not unique to that brand. Contrary to expectation, American Spirit did not cost less in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of AI/ANs. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to document lower prices for American Spirit in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of school-age youth. Future research should consider whether the ultra-premium price of American Spirit contributes to misperceptions that the brand is organic and less harmful than other cigarettes. IMPLICATIONS: In a large random sample of licensed tobacco retailers in California, American Spirit costs significantly more than other brands, 12.0%-34.4% more than Pall Mall, Newport, and Marlboro in the same stores. After controlling for store type, American Spirit price was significantly lower in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of school-age residents. Research about how an ultra-premium price contributes to misperceptions that all American Spirit varieties are organic and the brand is less harmful and less addictive than other cigarette brands would be informative for ongoing litigation and product regulation.

Marijuana as a 'concept' flavour for cigar products: availability and price near California schools.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the retail availability of cigar products that refer to marijuana and the largest package size of cigarillos available for ≤$1. METHODS: Trained data collectors conducted marketing surveillance in a random sample of licensed tobacco retailers that sold little cigars/cigarillos (LCCs) (n=530) near a statewide sample of middle and high schools (n=132) in California. Multilevel models examined the presence of marijuana co-marketing and cigarillo pack size as a function of school/neighbourhood characteristics and adjusted for store type. RESULTS: Of stores that sold LCCs, approximately 62% contained at least one form of marijuana co-marketing: 53.2% sold cigar wraps marketed as blunt wraps, 27.2% sold cigarillos marketed as blunts and 26.0% sold at least one LCC with a marijuana-related 'concept' flavour. Controlling for store type, marijuana co-marketing was more prevalent in school neighbourhoods with a higher proportion of young residents (ages 5-17 years) and with lower median household income. Nearly all stores that sold LCCs (87.9%) offered the products for ≤$1. However, significantly larger packs at similarly low prices were available near schools in lower-income neighbourhoods and with a lower percentage of Hispanic students. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how the tobacco industry manipulates cigar products and marketing to capitalise on the appeal of marijuana to youth and other priority populations is important to inform regulation, particularly for flavoured tobacco products. In addition, the retail availability of five and six packs of LCCs for ≤$1 near California schools underscores policy recommendations to establish minimum prices for multipacks.

Disparities in tobacco marketing and product availability at the point of sale: Results of a national study.

OBJECTIVE: Neighborhood socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities exist in the amount and type of tobacco marketing at retail, but most studies are limited to a single city or state, and few have examined flavored little cigars. Our purpose is to describe tobacco product availability, marketing, and promotions in a national sample of retail stores and to examine associations with neighborhood characteristics. METHODS: At a national sample of 2230 tobacco retailers in the contiguous US, we collected in-person store audit data on: Availability of products (e.g., flavored cigars), quantity of interior and exterior tobacco marketing, presence of price promotions, and marketing with youth appeal. Observational data were matched to census tract demographics. RESULTS: Over 95% of stores displayed tobacco marketing; the average store featured 29.5 marketing materials. 75.1% of stores displayed at least one tobacco product price promotion, including 87.2% of gas/convenience stores and 85.5% of pharmacies. 16.8% of stores featured marketing below three feet, and 81.3% of stores sold flavored cigars, both of which appeal to youth. Stores in neighborhoods with the highest (vs. lowest) concentration of African-American residents had more than two times greater odds of displaying a price promotion (OR=2.1) and selling flavored cigars (OR=2.6). Price promotions were also more common in stores located in neighborhoods with more residents under age 18. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Tobacco companies use retail marketing extensively to promote their products to current customers and youth, with disproportionate targeting of African Americans. Local, state, and federal policies are needed to counteract this unhealthy retail environment.

Neighborhood Variation in the Price of Cheap Tobacco Products in California: Results From Healthy Stores for a Healthy Community.

BACKGROUND: Retail marketing surveillance research highlights concerns about lower priced cigarettes in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of racial/ethnic minorities but focuses almost exclusively on premium brands. To remedy this gap in the literature, the current study examines neighborhood variation in prices for the cheapest cigarettes and a popular brand of cigarillos in a large statewide sample of licensed tobacco retailers in a low-tax state. METHODS: All 61 local health departments in California trained data collectors to conduct observations in a census of eligible licensed tobacco retailers in randomly selected zip codes (n = 7393 stores, completion rate=91%). Data were collected in 2013, when California had a low and stagnant tobacco tax. Two prices were requested: the cheapest cigarette pack regardless of brand and a single, flavored Swisher Sweets cigarillo. Multilevel models (stores clustered in tracts) examined prices (before sales tax) as a function of neighborhood race/ethnicity and proportion of school-age youth (aged 5-17). Models adjusted for store type and median household income. RESULTS: Approximately 84% of stores sold cigarettes for less than $5 and a Swisher Sweets cigarillo was available for less than $1 in 74% of stores that sold the brand. The cheapest cigarettes cost even less in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of school-age residents and Asian/Pacific Islanders. CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood disparities in the price of the cheapest combustible tobacco products are a public health threat. Policy changes that make all tobacco products, especially combustible products, less available and more costly may reduce disparities in their use and protect public health. IMPLICATIONS: Much of what is known about neighborhood variation in the price of combustible tobacco products focuses on premium brand cigarettes. The current study extends this literature in two ways, by studying prices for the cheapest cigarette pack regardless of brand and a popular brand of flavored cigarillos and by reporting data from the largest statewide sample of licensed tobacco retailers. Significantly lower prices in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of youth and of racial/ethnic groups with higher smoking prevalence are a cause of concern. The study results underscore the need for policies that reduce availability and increase price of combustible tobacco products, particularly in states with low, stagnant tobacco taxes.

Prices for Tobacco and Nontobacco Products in Pharmacies Versus Other Stores: Results From Retail Marketing Surveillance in California and in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To examine disparities in the price of tobacco and nontobacco products in pharmacies compared with other types of stores. METHODS: We recorded the prices of Marlboro, Newport, the cheapest cigarettes, and bottled water in a random sample of licensed tobacco retailers (n = 579) in California in 2014. We collected comparable data from retailers (n = 2603) in school enrollment zones for representative samples of US 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in 2012. Ordinary least squares regressions modeled pretax prices as a function of store type and neighborhood demographics. RESULTS: In both studies, the cheapest cigarettes cost significantly less in pharmacies than other stores; the average estimated difference was $0.47 to $1.19 less in California. We observed similar patterns for premium-brand cigarettes. Conversely, bottled water cost significantly more in pharmacies than elsewhere. Newport cost less in areas with higher proportions of African Americans; other cigarette prices were related to neighborhood income and age. Neighborhood demographics were not related to water prices. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other stores, pharmacies charged customers less for cigarettes and more for bottled water. State and local policies to promote tobacco-free pharmacies would eliminate an important source of discounted cigarettes.

Tobacco outlet density near home and school: Associations with smoking and norms among US teens.

This study examined whether living or going to school in neighborhoods with higher tobacco outlet density is associated with higher odds of cigarette smoking among teens, and with perceptions of greater smoking prevalence and peer approval. Using an Internet panel that is representative of US households, we matched data from teen-parent pairs (n=2771, surveyed June 2011-December 2012) with environmental data about home and school neighborhoods. Density was measured as the number of tobacco outlets per square mile for a ½-mile roadway service area around each participant's home and school. Logistic regressions tested relationships between tobacco outlet density near home and schools with ever smoking. Linear regressions tested relationships between density, perceived prevalence and peer approval. Models were adjusted for teen, parent/household and neighborhood characteristics. In total, 41.0% of US teens (ages 13-16) lived within ½ mile of a tobacco outlet, and 44.4% attended school within 1000ft of a tobacco outlet. Higher tobacco outlet density near home was associated with higher odds of ever smoking, although the relationship was small, OR=1.01, 95% CI (1.00, 1.02). Higher tobacco outlet density near home was also associated with perceptions that more adults smoked, coef.=0.09, 95% CI (0.01, 0.17). Higher tobacco outlet density near schools was not associated with any outcomes. Living in neighborhoods with higher tobacco outlet density may contribute to teen smoking by increasing access to tobacco products and by cultivating perceptions that smoking is more prevalent. Policy interventions to restrict tobacco outlet density should not be limited to school environments.

Racial differences in cigarette brand recognition and impact on youth smoking.

BACKGROUND: African Americans are disproportionately exposed to cigarette advertisements, particularly for menthol brands. Tobacco industry documents outline strategic efforts to promote menthol cigarettes to African Americans at the point of sale, and studies have observed more outdoor and retail menthol advertisements in neighborhoods with more African-American residents. Little research has been conducted to examine the effect of this target marketing on adolescents' recognition of cigarette brand advertising and on smoking uptake. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine racial differences in brand recognition and to assess the prospective relationship between brand recognition and smoking uptake. METHODS: School-based surveys assessing tobacco use and environmental and social influences to smoke were administered to 6th through 9th graders (ages 11 to 15) in an urban and racially diverse California school district. The primary outcome for the cross-sectional analysis (n = 2,589) was brand recognition, measured by students' identification of masked tobacco advertisements from the point of sale. The primary outcome for the longitudinal analysis (n = 1,179) was progression from never to ever smoking within 12 months. RESULTS: At baseline, 52% of students recognized the Camel brand, 36% Marlboro, and 32% Newport. African-American students were three times more likely than others to recognize Newport (OR = 3.03, CI = 2.45, 3.74, p < 0.01) and less likely than others to recognize Marlboro (OR = 0.60, CI = 0.48, 0.73, p < 0.01). At follow-up, 17% of never smokers reported trying smoking. In this racially diverse sample, brand recognition of Camel and Marlboro did not predict smoking initiation. Regardless of race, students who recognized the Newport brand at baseline were more likely to initiate smoking at follow-up (OR = 1.49, CI = 1.04, 2.15, p < 0.05) after adjusting for shopping frequency and other risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings illustrate that African-American youth are better able to recognize Newport cigarette advertisements, even after adjustment for exposure to smoking by parents and peers. In addition, recognition of Newport cigarette advertising predicted smoking initiation, regardless of race. This longitudinal study contributes to a growing body of evidence that supports a ban on menthol flavored cigarettes in the US as well as stronger regulation of tobacco advertising at the point of sale.

Underage sales signage in vape shops: Comparison of stores near and far from California colleges.

Objective: Two-thirds of U.S. colleges are near vape shops, where higher rates of underage sales exist. This study examined vape shop compliance with state-mandated age-of-sale signs, the presence of age-of-entry signs and the tobacco industry's "We Card" sign. Participants: Random sample of 614 California vape shops, stratified by distance to community colleges or 4-year universities/colleges; visited June-August, 2019. Methods: Logistic regressions examined whether signage varied by distance to colleges and whether stores sold other tobacco products (OTP). Results: Compliance with the state-mandated age-of-sale sign was 69.4%; vape-only stores were less compliant than vape + OTP (AOR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.22,0.70). Age-of-entry signs were more common in vape-only (AOR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.07,3.28) than vape + OTP stores. However, this difference was greater for vape-only stores near community colleges and attenuated for vape-only stores near 4-year universities/colleges. Conclusion: Improved enforcement and retailer education regarding age-of-sale signage are needed, particularly near colleges where greater potential for underage sales presumably exists.

Kratom availability in California vape shops.

Kratom products are derived from trees native to Southeast Asia and have dose-dependent stimulant and opioid-like effects. Despite being on the Drug Enforcement Administration "Drugs and Chemicals of Concern List," kratom is legal for sale in most US states. However, there are scarce data on its availability. The goal of this study was to examine kratom availability in vape shops across the state of California and assess shop compliance with a local kratom sales ban (enacted in 2016) in San Diego City. As part of a larger study about retail tobacco marketing near colleges, availability of kratom was assessed in summer 2019 in a random sample of 614 vape shops that was stratified to compare stores near (≤ 3 miles) and distant (>3 miles) from colleges. Logistic regression examined kratom availability as a function of store type (stores that sold vape products only vs. stores selling other tobacco), nearness to college, and tract-level demographics. Kratom was available in 62.4% of observed stores and more often in vape-and-smoke (81.1%) than vape-only shops (11.5%, AOR = 40.4, 95% CI = 23.3-74.1). Kratom availability did not differ by nearness to colleges. In San Diego City, 46.2% of observed stores (95% CI = 28.8-64.5) sold kratom products. Findings indicate that kratom was available in the majority of vape shops and most commonly in vape-and-smoke shops. Widespread availability in tobacco specialty shops suggests the need for research on dual use with tobacco, kratom advertising and cross-product promotion, and the potential of state and local tobacco retail licensing to prohibit sales.

Targeted advertising, promotion, and price for menthol cigarettes in California high school neighborhoods.

OBJECTIVES: To describe advertising, promotions, and pack prices for the leading brands of menthol and nonmenthol cigarettes near California high schools and to examine their associations with school and neighborhood demographics. METHODS: In stores (n = 407) within walking distance (0.8 km [1/2 mile]) of California high schools (n = 91), trained observers counted ads for menthol and nonmenthol cigarettes and collected data about promotions and prices for Newport and Marlboro, the leading brand in each category. Multilevel modeling examined the proportion of all cigarette advertising for any menthol brand, the proportion of stores with sales promotions, and the lowest advertised pack price in relation to store types and school/neighborhood demographics. RESULTS: For each 10 percentage point increase in the proportion of Black students, the proportion of menthol advertising increased by 5.9 percentage points (e.g., from an average of 25.7%-31.6%), the odds of a Newport promotion were 50% higher (95% CI = 1.01, 2.22), and the cost of Newport was 12 cents lower (95% CI = -0.18, -0.06). By comparison, the odds of a promotion and the price for Marlboro, the leading brand of nonmenthol cigarettes, were unrelated to any school or neighborhood demographics. CONCLUSIONS: In high school neighborhoods, targeted advertising exposes Blacks to more promotions and lower prices for the leading brand of menthol cigarettes. This evidence contradicts the manufacturer's claims that the availability of its promotions is not based on race/ethnicity. It also highlights the need for tobacco control policies that would limit disparities in exposure to retail marketing for cigarettes.

State T21, Restrictions on Flavored E-Cigarette Products, and Non-Medical Cannabis Sales Legalization in Relation to Young Adult Reports of Vape Shop Age Verification and Product Offerings: A Multilevel Analysis.

Vape shop practices related to age verification and product offerings (e.g., other tobacco, cannabis), which may affect young-adult tobacco/substance use, are likely impacted by state-level policies (i.e., Tobacco 21 [T21], flavored e-cigarette restrictions, non-medical cannabis legalization). Using data from young adults (18-34 years) in 6 US states representing variability in whether/when they implemented the aforementioned policies, this study focused on past 6-month e-cigarette users who visited vape shops (Wave 1 [W1]: September-December 2018, n = 1127; W2: September-December 2019, n = 702; W3: September-December 2020, n = 549). Multilevel modeling examined T21 in relation to participants' reports of age verification at last vape shop visit (among those < 27), and flavor restrictions and cannabis legalization in relation to noticing other tobacco or cannabis products at last visit. At W1-W3, 69.7%, 78.7%, and 75.8% of participants < 27 reported age verification, and participants increasingly noticed other tobacco (W2: 36.9%; W3: 48.6%) and cannabis products (W1: 25.8%; W2: 41.3%; W3: 58.3%). State T21 was unrelated to age verification (aOR = 1.19, 95%CI = 0.80-1.79); flavored e-cigarette restrictions correlated with noticing other tobacco products (aOR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.10-3.51); flavored e-cigarette restrictions (aOR = 2.26, 95%CI = 1.57-3.24) and cannabis legalization (aOR = 2.84, 95%CI = 1.78-4.51) correlated with noticing cannabis products. Regulatory efforts must be informed by ongoing surveillance of such policies and their impact.

The Impact of Recent Tobacco Regulations and COVID-19 Restrictions and Implications for Future E-Cigarette Retail: Perspectives from Vape and Vape-and-Smoke Shop Merchants.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco regulations and COVID-19 state orders have substantially impacted vape retail. This study assessed vape retailers' perspectives regarding regulations and future retail activities. METHODS: In March-June 2021, 60 owners or managers of vape or vape-and-smoke shops (n = 34 vs. n = 26) in six US metropolitan areas completed an online survey assessing: (1) current and future promotional strategies and product offerings; and (2) experiences with federal minimum legal sales age (T21) policies, the federal flavored e-cigarette ban, and COVID-19-related orders. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively; qualitative responses to open-ended questions were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Most participants had websites (65.0%), used social media for promotion (71.7%), offered curbside pickup (51.7%), and sold CBD (e.g., 73.3% vape products, 80.0% other); many also sold other tobacco products. Knowledge varied regarding state/local policies in effect before federal policies. Participants perceived tobacco regulations and COVID-19 orders as somewhat easy to understand/implement and perceived noncompliance consequences as somewhat severe. Qualitative themes indicated concerns regarding regulations' negative impacts (e.g., sales/customer loss, customers switching to combustibles), insufficient evidence base, challenges explaining regulations to customers, and concerns about future regulatory actions. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance of tobacco retail, consumer behavior, and regulatory compliance is warranted as policies regarding nicotine and cannabis continue evolving.