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 price/discounts in cross-border stores (Study 2). METHODS: Each of 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 ($8, $10, $10) and one sold Puff Bar ($16). Tobacco-branded items and unbranded tobacco cues remained in one store each. Mean Marlboro price was $10.61 (SD=1.92) at stores within 1 mile of no-sales cities, averaging y0.73 more than at stores farther away (p<0.05). However, odds of advertising cigarette discounts did not differ between stores nearby and farther from no-sales cities. CONCLUSION: Nearly all retailers complied with tobacco sales bans within 6 to 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 for 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.

Changes in the Point-of-Sale Among Vape Shops in Six U.S. Metropolitan Areas Over Time, 2018-2021.

INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette retail surveillance is needed during regulatory changes, like the U.S. increasing minimum legal sales age to 21 (T21) and flavor restrictions (2019 and 2020) and certain state/localities increasing related restrictions. AIMS AND METHODS: We examined regulatory compliance (eg, minimum-age signage), promotional strategies (eg, health claims), and products at 2 timepoints among vape shops across six U.S. metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs; Atlanta, Boston, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, San Diego, Seattle). In summer 2018, pairs of trained auditors assessed randomly selected shops (n = ~30/MSA). In fall 2021, audits were conducted among 2018 shops (if open and allowed) and additional randomly selected shops (n = ~20/MSA). Data from 179 shops in 2018 and 119 in 2021 (43 from the 2018 sample) were compared. RESULTS: There were decreases (p < .01) in the proportion of shops with (1) minimum-age signs (90.5% vs. 73.9%), (2) their own e-liquid brand (68.2% vs. 44.5%), onsite vaping (73.2% vs. 46.2%), counter seating (65.2% vs. 34.5%), and e-liquid sampling (90.0% vs. 33.6%), and (3) signs with product/price promotions (89.9% vs. 65.5%), health/cessation claims (29.1% vs. 12.6%), and cartoon imagery (27.4% vs. 11.8%). The proportions selling wet/dry vaporizers (26.4% vs. 39.5%), CBD products (23.3% vs. 71.4%), and pipes/glassware/papers (18.4% vs. 52.9%) increased. In 2021, many sold THC (12.6% e-liquids, 62.2% other products) and kratom (40.3%). CONCLUSIONS: With increasing restrictions (eg, on flavors, sampling, and T21), fewer shops sold their own e-liquid brands or accommodated onsite use/sampling, but fewer also posted minimum-age signage. Notably, more offered cannabis-related products. These changes underscore the need for comprehensive surveillance to assess regulatory impact. IMPLICATIONS: The past 6 years marked increasing e-cigarette sales restrictions in the United States, yet limited research has examined the implications for tobacco specialty shops selling e-cigarettes. This study found that, from 2018 to 2021, there were significant decreases in the proportion of vape shops with their own e-liquid, onsite vaping, e-liquid sampling, lounge/counter seating, and price promotions, as well as minimum-age signs. There were increases in the proportion selling cannabis-derived products and related paraphernalia. Tobacco control research and regulatory agencies must consider how tobacco specialty stores have evolved alongside legislative changes that impact them and consumers.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of Local Flavored Tobacco Sales Restrictions on Policy-Related Attitudes and Tobacco Product Access.

BACKGROUND: As of September 2020, more than 300 state and local jurisdictions restrict the sales of flavored tobacco, with some including menthol. AIMS: To evaluate the impact of local ordinances restricting the sale of flavored tobacco, we surveyed Californians regarding policy support and perceived access to flavored tobacco. METHODS: In 2019, we conducted an online survey of 3,075 California youth and young adults recruited via social media, about half of whom lived in a policy jurisdiction. Logistic regressions assessed differences on propensity score-weighted outcomes, policy support, and perceived access. RESULTS: Most respondents indicated agreement with almost all policy support statements. Although policy respondents were less likely than rest-of-California respondents to report perceived difficulty in buying flavored cigars, flavored vape users in policy jurisdictions were more likely than those in the rest of California to report perceived difficulty in buying flavored e-liquid. Regardless of jurisdiction, certain priority subgroups were significantly more likely to report perceived difficulty in accessing flavored cigars, flavored vaping products, flavored e-liquid, and menthol cigarettes. DISCUSSION: With some exceptions, these findings demonstrate that among vape users in policy jurisdictions and priority subgroups, there is a higher likelihood of reporting perceived difficulty to access flavored tobacco products. CONCLUSIONS: Findings might be an early indication of shifts in social norms about flavored tobacco products in California, which could gain traction as local sales restriction ordinances proliferate throughout the state and a statewide flavored-tobacco sales restriction goes into effect.

Are California's Local Flavored Tobacco Sales Restrictions Effective in Reducing the Retail Availability of Flavored Tobacco Products? A Multicomponent Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Flavored tobacco appeals to new users. This paper describes evaluation results of California's early ordinances restricting flavored tobacco sales. METHODS: A multicomponent evaluation of proximal policy outcomes involved the following: (a) tracking the reach of local ordinances; (b) a retail observation survey; and (c) a statewide opinion poll of tobacco retailers. Change in the population covered by local ordinances was computed. Retail observations compared availability of flavored tobacco at retailers in jurisdictions with and without an ordinance. Mixed models compared ordinance and matched no-ordinance jurisdictions and adjusted for store type. An opinion poll assessed retailers' awareness and ease of compliance with local ordinances, comparing respondents in ordinance jurisdictions with the rest of California. RESULTS: The proportion of Californians living in a jurisdiction with an ordinance increased from 0.6% in April 2015 to 5.82% by January 1, 2019. Flavored tobacco availability was significantly lower in ordinance jurisdictions than in matched jurisdictions: menthol cigarettes (40.6% vs. 95.0%), cigarillos/cigar wraps with explicit flavor descriptors (56.4% vs. 85.0%), and vaping products with explicit flavor descriptors (6.1% vs. 56.9%). Over half of retailers felt compliance was easy; however, retailers in ordinance jurisdictions expressed lower support for flavor sales restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of California's population covered by a flavor ordinance increased nine-fold between April 2015 and January 2019. Fewer retailers in ordinance jurisdictions had flavored tobacco products available compared to matched jurisdictions without an ordinance, but many still advertised flavored products they could not sell. Comprehensive ordinances and retailer outreach may facilitate sales-restriction support and compliance.

Implementation of a comprehensive flavoured tobacco product sales restriction and retail tobacco sales.

OBJECTIVE: San Francisco's comprehensive restriction on flavoured tobacco sales applies to all flavours (including menthol), all products and all retailers (without exemptions). This study evaluates associations of policy implementation with changes in tobacco sales in San Francisco and in two California cities without any sales restriction. METHODS: Using weekly retail sales data (July 2015 through December 2019), we computed sales volume in equivalent units within product categories and the proportion of flavoured tobacco. An interrupted time series analysis estimated within-city changes associated with the policy's effective and enforcement dates, separately by product category for San Francisco and comparison cities, San Jose and San Diego. RESULTS: Predicted average weekly flavoured tobacco sales decreased by 96% from before the policy to after enforcement (p<0.05), and to very low levels across all products, including cigars with concept-flavour names (eg, Jazz). Average weekly flavoured tobacco sales did not change in San Jose and decreased by 10% in San Diego (p<0.05). Total tobacco sales decreased by 25% in San Francisco, 8% in San Jose and 17% in San Diego (each, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: San Francisco's comprehensive restriction virtually eliminated flavoured tobacco sales and decreased total tobacco sales in mainstream retailers. Unlike other US flavoured tobacco policy evaluations, there was no evidence of substitution to concept-flavour named products. Results may be attributed to San Francisco Department of Health's self-education and rigorous retailer education, as well as the law's rebuttable presumption of a product as flavoured based on manufacturer communication.

Turning over a new leaf: Vape shop closings, openings and transitions in six U.S. Metropolitan statistical areas.

This study characterizes vape shop closings, openings, and changes in product mix in six U.S. metropolitan statistical areas with different tobacco and marijuana policies. With concern for higher rates of marijuana use among those who vape nicotine, the presence of marijuana-related terms in store names was also assessed. A census of stores that were classified online as vape shops/stores or vaporizer stores were telephoned in April-May 2018 (n = 739) and July-September 2019 (n = 919) to verify whether vape products and other tobacco products (OTP) were sold. We computed the percent of stores that closed, opened, and started/stopped selling OTP. Multilevel models tested whether these events varied by store type and by neighborhood demographics. Within 16 months, 11.5% of 739 stores had closed and 29.8% of 919 stores at follow-up had opened. Closings were more likely among vape-only than vape + OTP stores (AOR = 2.51, 95% CI = 1.47,4.29); vape-only stores were less likely to open (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.34,0.62). Regardless of store type, the odds of a store opening increased as the proportion of non-Hispanic/Latino White residents in the census tract increased (AOR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.18,1.85). Overall, 2.0% of stores (vape-only and vape + OTP) had marijuana-related names at baseline and 3.5% at follow-up. The observed change (1.6% to 5.8%) was greatest in Oklahoma City, where the state legalized medical marijuana between baseline and follow-up. More stores were opening than closing in six U.S. metropolitan statistical areas before statewide sales restrictions on flavored tobacco and COVID-19. Uniform licensing is recommended to define vape shops and track their location and sales practices.

Association between density and proximity of tobacco retail outlets with smoking: A systematic review of youth studies.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the retail availability of tobacco has been proposed as a component of tobacco endgame, yet it is not known whether retail availability has a direct impact on smoking behaviours. A narrative review and a meta-analysis have been undertaken to examine the density and proximity of tobacco retail outlets, but were limited in scope, exposure and outcome variables. The aim of this current study was to undertake a systematic review of the international literature on the density and proximity of tobacco retail outlets to homes, schools and communities and their association with smoking behaviours among youth. METHODS: We reviewed and critically appraised the evidence documenting the association between density or proximity of tobacco retail outlets and smoking behaviours among school-age youth (18 and under), between 1 January 1990 and 21 October 2019. We reviewed original quantitative research that examined the associations of tobacco retail outlet density and proximity with individual smoking status or population-level smoking prevalence; initiation of smoking; frequency of tobacco use; sales to minors; purchasing by minors; susceptibility to smoking among non-smokers; perceived prevalence of smoking, and quitting behaviours. FINDINGS: Thirty-five peer-reviewed papers met the inclusion criteria. This review provided evidence of a relationship between density of tobacco retail outlets and smoking behaviours, particularly for the density near youths' home. A study using activity spaces also found a significant positive association between exposure to tobacco retail outlets and daily tobacco use. The review did not provide evidence of an association between the proximity of tobacco retail outlets to homes or schools and smoking behaviours among youth. CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence supports a positive association between tobacco retail outlet density and smoking behaviours among youth, particularly for the density near youths' home. This review provides evidence for the development and implementation of policies to reduce the density of tobacco retail outlets to reduce smoking prevalence among youth.

Vape shop and consumer activity during COVID-19 non-essential business closures in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: Vaping and vape shops pose risk for COVID-19 and its transmission. OBJECTIVES: We examined vape shop non-compliance with state-ordered business closures during COVID-19, changes in their marketing and experiences among consumers. METHODS: As part of a longitudinal study of vape retail in six metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs; Atlanta, Boston, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, San Diego and Seattle), we conducted: (1) legal research to determine whether statewide COVID-19 orders required vape shops to close; (2) phone-based and web-based surveillance to assess vape shop activity in March-June 2020 during shelter-in-place periods; and (3) a concurrent online survey of e-cigarette users about their experiences with vape retail. RESULTS: Non-essential business closure varied in timing/duration across states and applied to vape shops in California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma (for a brief period) and Washington (Georgia's orders were ambiguous). Surveillance analysis focused on the five MSAs in these states. Of 156 vape shops, 53.2% were open as usual, 11.5% permanently closed and 3.8% temporarily closed; 31.4% offered pick-up/delivery services. Among survey respondents (n=354, M age =23.9±4.6; 46.9% male, 71.8% white, 13.0% Hispanic), 27.4% worried their vape shop would close/go out of business during COVID-19; 7.3% said their vape shop did so. Few noticed increases in vape product delivery options (7.3%), discounts/price promotions (9.9%) and/or prices (9.3%). While 20.3% stockpiled vape products, 20.3% tried to reduce use and 15.8% tried to quit. CONCLUSIONS: Many vape shops were non-compliant with state COVID-19 orders. E-cigarette users were as likely to stockpile vape products as to attempt to reduce or quit using e-cigarettes.

Popularity of natural American Spirit cigarettes is greater in U.S. cities with lower smoking prevalence.

BACKGROUND: Often perceived as a safer smoke, Natural American Spirit (NAS) may find particular appeal in communities with strong non-smoking norms. We hypothesized NAS would be more popular in cities with lower smoking prevalence, with the pattern unique to NAS. We tested household income, cigarette taxes, and young adult population as alternative correlates and examined brand specificity, relative to Marlboro and Pall Mall. METHODS: Using proprietary, city-specific sales estimates obtained from Nielsen for 30 U.S. cities over one year (9/7/18-9/9/19), we computed cigarette sales volume as standard pack units per 10,000 adult smokers for NAS and Marlboro and Pall Mall. Linear regression models examined associations between city-level sales volume and adult smoking prevalence, median household income, the sum of state/local cigarette excise taxes, and young adult population. RESULTS: NAS sales volume averaged 44,785 packs per 10,000 adult smokers (SD = 47,676). Across 30 cities, adult smoking prevalence averaged 18.0% (SD = 4.5%), median household income averaged $53,677 (SD = $14,825), cigarette excise tax averaged $2.55 (SD = $1.63), and young adult population averaged 10.6% (SD = 2.2%). NAS sales volume was greater in cities with lower adult smoking prevalence (ß = -0.39, 95% CI[-0.74, -0.03], p = 0.034), a pattern that was not observed for Marlboro or Pall Mall (ps > 0.356). Marlboro (ß = -0.40, 95% CI[-0.76, -0.05], p = 0.027) and Pall Mall (ß = -0.48, 95% CI[-0.82, -0.14], p = 0.008) sales volumes were higher in cities where cigarette excise taxes were lower, a pattern not observed for NAS (p = 0.224). CONCLUSION: NAS appears to be more popular in cities with lower smoking prevalence and may deter efforts to further decrease prevalence.

Vape shop identification, density and place characteristics in six metropolitan areas across the US.

Vaping is increasingly prevalent and controversial. Vape shops and convenience stores are common but distinct sources of vaping products, and where they locate may reflect likely target markets. This study examined the density and neighborhood demographics of vape shops and convenience stores in six metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs): Atlanta, Boston, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, San Diego, Seattle. We identified 459 vape shops using Yelp and Google application programming interfaces and 10,777 convenience stores using ReferenceUSA and Dun & Bradstreet. Retailers were geocoded to census tracts (n = 4,442), and logistic regressions were conducted using as predictors percent non-White, percent youth (5-17 years or 5-20 years), and median household income from the American Community Survey, 2013-2017. Per 10,000 young adults, vape shop density ranged from 0.6 (Boston, San Diego) to 1.7 (Oklahoma City), and convenience store density ranged from 12.6 (San Diego) to 26.3 (Oklahoma City). Logistic regressions indicated that vape shops more likely resided in tracts with lower percentages of youth in Boston, but higher percentages of youth in Atlanta, as well as with lower incomes in Boston and Seattle. Convenience stores more likely resided in tracts with lower percentages of non-Whites in Atlanta and Boston; lower incomes in Atlanta, Boston, San Diego, and Seattle; and higher percentages of youth in Atlanta, Boston, and Minneapolis. These common retail sources of vaping products differentially locate in relation to neighborhood sociodemographics across MSAs. Findings suggest that, in some MSAs, vape shops and convenience stores may target youth and lower income populations.

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.

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.

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.

Mind the Gap: Changes in Cigarette Prices After California's Tax Increase.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether California's 2017 cigarette tax increase was passed onto smokers equally. METHODS: Auditors recorded 4 cigarette prices in the same random sample of licensed tobacco retailers (N = 1049) before the tax increase (January-March 2017) and after (April-September 2018): Natural American Spirit (ultra-premium), Newport menthol (premium), and Pall Mall (value) all from the same manufacturer, and Marlboro (premium). Ordinary least squares regressions examined how the gap in prices (increase greater or less than $2.00 tax) varied by market segment and neighborhood demographics, controlling for store type and months since implementation. Paired t-tests assessed whether industry/retail revenue (price in excess of state and federal excise taxes) increased. RESULTS: Over-shifting (increase greater than tax) was evident for all 4 brands and was significantly greater for ultra-premium (Mean = $0.40, SD = 0.75) than premium (Mean = $0.25, SD = 0.78) and greater for premium than value brand (Mean = $0.16, SD = 0.67). However, under-shifting (increase less than tax) was evident for Newport in African-American neighborhoods and Pall Mall in Hispanic neighborhoods. After the tax increase, prices were significantly more likely to be discounted and significantly more stores advertised a discount on cigarettes. CONCLUSION: California's tax increase was not passed onto consumers equally. Non-tax mechanisms to increase price could support intended effects of tobacco taxes.

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.

Negative affect, message reactance and perceived risk: how do pictorial cigarette pack warnings change quit intentions?

OBJECTIVE: Pictorial warnings on cigarette packs increase motivation to quit smoking. We sought to examine the potential mediating role of negative affect, message reactance (ie, an oppositional reaction to a message) and perceived risk in shaping quit intentions. METHODS: In 2014 and 2015, we randomly assigned 2149 adult US smokers to receive either pictorial warnings or text-only warnings applied to their cigarette packs for 4 weeks. Analyses used structural equation modelling with bootstrapped SEs to test our theorised mediational model. FINDINGS: Pictorial warnings increased negative affect, message reactance and quit intentions (all P<0.001), but not perceived risk (ie, perceived likelihood and severity of harms of smoking). Negative affect mediated the impact of pictorial warnings on quit intentions (mediated effect=0.16, P<0.001). Message reactance weakened the impact of pictorial warnings on quit intentions, although the effect was small (mediated effect=-0.04, P<0.001). Although pictorial warnings did not directly influence perceived risk, the model showed additional small mediation effects on quit intentions through negative affect and its positive association with perceived risk (mediated effect=0.02, P<0.001), as well as reactance and its negative association with perceived risk (mediated effect=-0.01, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pictorial cigarette pack warnings increased quit intentions by increasing negative affect. Message reactance partially attenuated this increase in intentions. The opposing associations of negative affect and reactance on perceived risk may explain why pictorial warnings did not lead to observable changes in perceived risk.

ENDS retailers and marketing near university campuses with and without tobacco-free policies.

INTRODUCTION: This study characterizes the retail environment for Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) near public universities in California, assesses marketing in the first random sample of ENDS retailers, and compares ENDS retailer density and retail marketing near campuses with and without tobacco-free policies. METHODS: Two data sources were used to construct a sampling frame of possible ENDS retailers, which were mapped within 1 to 4 miles of the 33 University of California and California State University campuses. To assess retailer density, a telephone survey of possible ENDS retailers (n=1186) determined which sold e-cigarettes or e-liquids (completion rate=72.9%). To assess retail marketing, trained data collectors completed observations in a random sample (n=438, M=13.3 stores per campus, SD=11.2) in fall 2015. RESULTS: In a telephone survey, 59.1% of retailers reported selling e-cigarettes or e-liquids. Half of the campuses had 10 or more ENDS retailers nearby. Most ENDS retailers were convenience stores (42.5%), and more were head shops (8.4%) than smoke shops (6.8%) or vape shops (6.2%). Nearly half (43.6%) of ENDS retailers sold products marketed as zero-nicotine and 13.9% sold NRT. ENDS advertising was visible in 72.1% and on the exterior of 28.1% of retailers. However, the presence of exterior advertising for ENDS was significantly lower near campuses with established tobacco-free policies than campuses with recent or no tobacco-free policies (OR=0.45, 95% CI=0.22, 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: The large number of tobacco retailers that sell ENDS near colleges suggests a need for better monitoring and regulations of ENDS availability and marketing. The widespread availability of zero-nicotine products suggests a need to examine whether nicotine-free products are as advertised and safe to use. Longitudinal research is needed to understand how retail marketing for ENDS responds to change in tobacco-free policies at nearby campuses.