The Impact of Modest Price Increases and Single Cigar Restrictions on Youth Cigar Use.

INTRODUCTION: In 2011, Boston restricted cigar sales to packages of at least 4 cigars unless sold at a minimum of $2.50 per cigar. Nearly 200 localities in Massachusetts have since adopted policies establishing minimum pack quantities of 2-5 or minimum prices of $2.50-5.00 per cigar. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of these policies on youth cigar use. METHODS: Biennial data from 1999 to 2019 were obtained from the Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey and analyzed in 2023. Final analytic samples included 15,674 youth for the Boston analyses and 35,674 youth for the statewide analyses. For Boston, change in use was examined from prepolicy (1999-2011) to postpolicy (2012-2019). For statewide analyses, the percentage of the state covered by a policy was estimated. Multivariable logistic regressions examined the impact of cigar policies on cigar and cigarette use. Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and stratified by sex and race. RESULTS: Policy enactment was associated with significant decreases in the odds of cigar use in Boston (AOR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.17-0.47) and statewide (AOR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.98-0.99), with similar findings for cigarette use. Results were consistent among males and females statewide but only among males in Boston. By race statewide and in Boston, odds of cigar use decreased significantly among White, Black, and Hispanic youth, but not youth of other races. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate small increases in the quantity and price of cigar packs could discourage young people from purchasing and using cigars, providing significant benefits for local tobacco control efforts.

Longitudinal analysis of cigar use patterns among US youth and adults, 2013-2019.

BACKGROUND: Cigars are available in a range of pack quantities, which contrasts regulations requiring cigarettes to be sold in packs of 20 or greater. Smaller packages may be associated with increases in initiation while larger packs may lead consumers to smoke more. The purpose of this study was to inform pack quantity regulations by examining whether usual cigar pack quantity purchased was associated with use, initiation, and discontinuation among youth and adults for four cigar types: premium cigars, large cigars, cigarillos, and filtered cigars. METHODS: We analyzed waves 1-5 (2013-2019) of the adult and waves 2-5 (2014-2019) of the youth Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Samples included those responding to the item on pack quantity and providing data at all waves (adults: premium cigars [N = 536], large cigars [N = 1,272], cigarillos [N = 3,504], filtered cigars [N = 1,281]; youth: premium cigars [N = 55], large cigars [N = 217], cigarillos [N = 1514], filtered cigars [N = 266]). Generalized estimating equation models examined the population-averaged effects of pack quantity on cigar use, initiation, and discontinuation. RESULTS: Adult pack quantity was positively associated with the days used per month for premium cigars (b: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.34), large cigars (b: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.25), cigarillos (b: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.003, 0.24), and filtered cigars (b: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.10), and positively associated with amount smoked per day for all cigar types. Youth pack quantity was positively associated with days used per month for premium cigars (b: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.33, 1.43), large cigars (b: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.43, 1.15), and cigarillos (b: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.34). Adult initiation was associated with pack quantity for filtered cigars (b: -2.22, 95% CI: -4.29, -0.13), as those who initiated purchased smaller pack quantities compared to those who did not initiate that wave. Pack quantity was not associated with discontinuation for adults or youth. CONCLUSIONS: Cigar use increased as usual pack quantity purchased increased across cigar types for youth and adults. Small increases in pack quantity (e.g., one additional cigar) are likely to result in consuming less than one additional day per month, though larger increases (e.g., 10 additional cigars per pack) may result in greater use.

The impact of cigar pack size and pricing policies on youth and adult cigar use in the US.

BACKGROUND: Over 250 US localities have adopted cigar pack quantity and price policies. No empirical studies exist on their impact on tobacco use. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was used to assess the impact of cigar policies on cigar and cigarette use among (1) Minnesota youth (n=569,528, triennially 2007-2019); (2) New York youth (n=111,236, annually 2000-2020), (3) New York adults (n=62,295, annually 2003-2019), and (4) District of Columbia (DC) adults (n=5027, annually 2015-2019). We estimated the county-level policy coverage for 15 local policies in Minnesota. Differences-in-differences approach was used to compare the policy in NYC with the rest of the state (no policy). We examined changes in DC use before and after policy implementation. Analyses adjust for sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: In Minnesota, youth in counties with a greater proportion of the population covered by a policy had lower odds of cigar use (AOR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.38-0.69). Similarly, adult cigar use in DC declined following policy enactment (AOR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.93). Cigarette use also decreased in both Minnesota and DC following policy enactment. However, in New York, the NYC policy did not have a significant impact on cigar use among youth (AOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.47-1.93) or adults (AOR: 1.98; 95% CI: 0.85-1.37) in NYC compared to the rest of the state. The only significant effect in NYC was reduced odds for adult cigarette use (AOR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest regulating cigar packaging could decrease cigar consumption without increasing cigarette consumption, but effects may differ across jurisdictions.

Loopholes for Underage Access in E-Cigarette Delivery Sales Laws, United States, 2022.

Objectives. To comprehensively catalog and review state e-cigarette delivery sales laws as well as capture their scope and dimensions. Methods. We conducted an in-depth review to determine whether states had at least 1 form of e-cigarette delivery sales law. We coded laws for 5 key policy domains: (1) delivery terminology used in laws, (2) age verification requirements, (3) packaging label requirements, (4) permit or registration requirements, and (5) fines and penalties for violations. Results. Overall, 34 states had e-cigarette delivery sales laws with varying scopes and dimensions. In 27 states, these laws required at least 1 form of age verification requirements. We identified mandatory packaging labels in 12 states, and 7 states where permits were required. There were considerable differences among states on the scale of fines and penalties for violations. Conclusions. Our findings reveal extensive heterogeneity in e-cigarette delivery sales laws among states, particularly regarding the scope and dimensions of these laws. Public Health Implications. The mapping of e-cigarette delivery sales policies showed several potential loopholes that may diminish their effectiveness. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(5):568-576. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307228).

E-cigarette preemption laws: Limiting local communities from protecting youth.

E-cigarette use is prevalent among youth in the United States. Historically, local communities have been a catalyst for adopting evidence-based tobacco control policies. However, some states have ceiling preemption laws that prevent more stringent statutes from being enacted at the city or county level and inhibit tobacco control efforts. The current study documents state preemption laws regarding e-cigarette advertising, licensure, indoor clean air, and youth access. We conducted a systematic synthesis of state statutes to identify states with e-cigarette preemption laws. Data were collected on four policy categories being preempted: advertising, licensure, clean indoor air, and youth access. Laws were compiled, and the content was verified using the Westlaw legal database. In the US, 25 states preempt stricter local e-cigarette regulations in 55 laws. Of these states, 19 preempt advertising regulations, 11 preempt licensure requirements, four preempt ordinances for indoor clean air, and 21 preempt youth access. A broad range of terms was employed to describe preemption, yet few states explicitly used the term "preempt." E-cigarette ceiling preemption laws inhibit public health progress and prevent local authorities from addressing the popularity of e-cigarettes among adolescents.States without preemption laws should be encouraged to adopt language that expressly saves local authority.