STATE AND LOCAL ENFORCEMENT OFPOSSESSION, USE, AND PURCHASE LAWS

AMONG U.S. STATES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIESCindy Tworek1, Gary A. Giovino1, Pamela I. Clark2, Dianne C. Barker3,

Barbara Sasso3, Elizabeth Molnar4, Erin Ruel4, Sandy Slater4

1 Department of Cancer Prevention, Epidemiology, and Biostatistics; Roswell ParkCancer Institute; Buffalo, NY2 Battelle; Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation; Baltimore, MD3 Public Health Institute; Los Angeles, CA4 Health Research and Policy Centers, University of Illinois at Chicago; Chicago, IL

American Society of Preventive Oncology26th Annual Meeting

Bethesda, MDMarch 11, 2002

Background:

8 Tobacco control youth access policies maypromote reductions in tobacco use

8 Possession, use, and purchase (PUP) laws,penalize minors, themselves, for possessing,using, and/or purchasing tobacco products

8 Recent trends indicate a sharp increase in thenumber of state PUP laws:ü 1988: 17 states enacted at least one PUP law

ü 2001: 44 states enacted at least one PUP law

Possession, Use, and Purchase Laws per State* --United States, 1988-2001, includes the District of Columbia

*Source: “State Legislated Actions On Tobacco Issues”, 1988-2001, CDC’s STATE system, Roswell ParkCancer Institute.

6 7 813 14 14

17 19 2025

2831 31 32

05

101520253035404550

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

# of

Sta

tes

Possession

6 7 811 11 11 13 15 15 17 17 18 18 19

0

10

20

30

40

50

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

# of

Sta

tes

Use10

14 1418

2124 26 27 29

32 3336 36 37

0

10

20

30

40

50

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Year

# of

Sta

tes

Purchase

PUP Laws have been controversial:

Arguments in Favor of PUP Laws:

ü Promote youth accountability and personalresponsibility

ü Add a cost to youth for tobacco use

ü Law enforcement uses PUP laws to inspectsuspicious youth: potentially reducing crime andother illegal substance use

ü Reinforce illegal use of tobacco by minors(adults ‘mean what they say’)

ü Alcohol experience – raising the minimum legaldrinking age to 21 years has resulted in

reductions in alcohol use and saved lives

PUP Laws have been controversial:Arguments Against PUP Laws:

ü Youth are enticed to smoke by marketing, then punished for wanting the promoted product

ü Industry youth focus diverts attention from othereffective tobacco control efforts and facilitates

preemption

ü Enforcement costs and difficulty: need local support and enforcement; may reduce enforcement of sales to minors’ laws

ü May be used by law enforcement to ‘profile’ youth

ü No proven substantial decrease in youth smokingbehavior

ü Alcohol BAC Laws reduced drinking and driving only

Previous analyses have not suggested a relationshipbetween the presence of state PUP laws andadolescent smoking behavior:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 5 10 15 20 25 30PUP Legislation Rating

Per

cen

t P

ast

Mo

nth

Sm

oke

rs

(Ad

ole

scen

ts)

Cigarette Smoking Among Youth by the Historical PUP Legislation Ratingin 50 States and the District of Columbia, 1999*

r2 < 0.001

ß = 0.008

P = 0.898

N = 51

*Source: Giovino et al. Cigarette Smoking Among Adolescents and Adults in US States and the District ofColumbia in 1997 and 1999 – What Explains the Relationship? American Society of Preventive OncologyMeeting; poster presented: March 12, 2001.Note: Past Month Smoking = smoked on > 1 day during the previous 30 days; Historical PPU LegislationRating = Sum of PPU laws for previous 1991-1999; (0 = no law; 1 = law present, from 0 to 3 laws)Sources: 1999 NHSDA (12-17 year olds); ALA’s SLATI, CDC’s STATE system, and the Roswell ParkCancer Institute

8 Additional analyses to assess the effect ofPUP laws on adolescent smoking behavior, interms of adolescent age and risk status, havesuggested:ü PUP laws were generally associated with lowersmoking rates among the youngest adolescents at lowor medium risk (i.e those who were least likely to smoke tobegin with).*

8 These preliminary analyses suggest that additional studies to assess the effects of PUP

laws on adolescent smoking behavior shouldinclude:

ü Measures of State PUP Enforcement

ü Measures of Local PUP Enforcement

* Source: Giovino et al. Study of Youth Smoking and State LawsProhibiting the Purchase, Possession, and/or Use of Cigarettes byMinors – United States, 1991-1998. Society for PreventionResearch Meeting; paper presented: June 2, 2001.

Objectives:8 To descriptively present State PUP enforcement data for a sample of states with PUP laws

8 To descriptively present Local PUP enforcement data for a sample of communities with tobacco Possession ordinances

8 To discuss state and local PUP enforcement activities, including formative andfuture research concerning PUPenforcement at both state and local levels

Business Practices & Minors’ Access To TobaccoState and Community Tobacco Control Initiative of the Tobacco Control ResearchBranch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Science National Cancer InstituteGrant # RO1 CA 86232Pamela I. Clark, Principal InvestigatorThe contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarilyrepresent the official view of the National Cancer Institute

State PUP enforcement data presented are based onpreliminary data from a sample of 15 statesparticipating in the following grant-funded project:

ü Telephone interviews were conducted in September-October2001, to collect recent data on state enforcement activities andpractices related to youth access possession, purchase, and uselaws, as part of a minors’ access tobacco project

ü These state PUP data were collected by a trained interviewer,who contacted enforcement officials in each participating state

States with Possession, Use, and/or Purchase (PUP) lawsindicate that they enforce these laws.

ü However, a majority of PUP enforcement activity occurs atthe local level

The pattern of PUP enforcement suggests that possession/use laws can be more effectively enforced than purchaselaws.

ü Possession/use laws were generally enforced when:“any person who looks underage and is seen smoking is

intercepted, age is checked, and action is taken.”

ü Purchase laws were generally enforced only when:“a law enforcement officer witnesses a purchase

during the normal course of other duties.”

STATE ENFORCEMENT

States indicate that typical actions taken when a minor iscaught possessing, using, or purchasing tobacco are:

ü Notification of parents

ü Issuing of citations

ü Appearance in juvenile or family court

States indicate that typical penalties imposed when a minoris caught possessing, using, or purchasing tobacco are:

ü Participation in optional or mandatory tobacco educationprograms

ü Community service

ü Fines

ü Driver license suspension

STATE ENFORCEMENT

Local PUP enforcement data presented are preliminarydata from key informant interviews for the TobaccoPossession Ordinance Feedback Module: ProjectImpacTeen 1999 and 2000 Community data

ü ImpacTeen is a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation fundedmulti-substance (tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs) projectcoordinated at The University of Illinois at Chicago

ü Its purpose is to evaluate the impact of policies, programs,and practices at the state, community, school, and individuallevels on adolescent use of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs

ü These key informant community interview data includeTobacco Possession Ordinance Feedback Module responsesfrom 153 sites in 1999 and 94 sites in 2000

ü Respondents from these participating sites were policechiefs and police officers in local communities

54.4

33.3

15.0

63.5

30.6

3.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000

Enforced among anyyouth smokerEnforced only inresponse to complaintEnforced rarely

Pattern of PossessionOrdinance Enforcement:

Year

Per

cent

of p

olic

e ch

iefs

/off

icer

s

LOCAL ENFORCEMENT

86.2

13.8

81.8

18.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000

YesNo

Parents Routinely Notified if Youth is Citedfor Tobacco Possession:

Year

Per

cent

of p

olic

e ch

iefs

/off

icer

s

LOCAL ENFORCEMENT

8.1

50.0

35.1

6.8 9.1

28.6

46.8

15.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999 2000

Very EffectiveSomewhat EffectiveNot Very EffectiveNo Help at All

Opinion of Effectiveness of Possession Ordinancein reducing tobacco use by minors:

Year

Per

cent

of p

olic

e ch

iefs

/off

icer

s

LOCAL ENFORCEMENT

56.8

10.8

32.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1999

Expect Police toEnforce

Enforcement may notbe a very good use ofpolice time/resourcesNo reaction

Community Reaction to TobaccoPossession Ordinance

Year

Per

cent

of p

olic

e ch

iefs

/off

icer

s

89.4

10.6

0102030405060708090

100

1999

YesNo

Encourage Other Communities to EnactTobacco Possession Laws

Year

Per

cent

of p

olic

e ch

iefs

/off

icer

s

LOCALENFORCEMENT:

1999

77.5

22.5

0102030405060708090

100

2000

YesNo

Tobacco Possession OrdinanceEnforced in Your Community

Year

Per

cent

of p

olic

e ch

iefs

/off

icer

s

64.2

35.8

010203040506070

8090

100

2000

AdequateNot Enough

Resources Adequate to Effectively EnforceTobacco Possession Ordinance

Year

Per

cent

of p

olic

e ch

iefs

/off

icer

s

LOCALENFORCEMENT:

2000

2.9

19.1

50.0

19.18.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000

Very LowLowModerateHighVery High

Community Priority of TobaccoPossession Ordinance Enforcement

Year

Per

cent

of p

olic

e ch

iefs

/off

icer

s

24.1

54.4

13.9

7.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000

Very EffectiveSomewhat EffectiveNot Very EffectiveNo Help at All

Effectiveness of Possession Ordinancein Giving Police a Tool to InterceptYouth for Other Issues or Concerns

Year

Per

cent

of p

olic

e ch

iefs

/off

icer

s

LOCALENFORCEMENT:

2000

Police chiefs and officers from local communities indicatethat the following are typical actions taken when a minoris caught possessing tobacco:

ü Citation issued

ü Notification of parents

ü Warning issued

ü Appearance in peer or teen court

Police chiefs and officers from local communities indicatethat the following are typical penalties imposed when aminor is caught possessing tobacco:

ü Fines

ü Community service

ü Participation in Tobacco Cessation Program

ü Counseling

LOCAL ENFORCEMENT

Discussion:A majority of PUP enforcement activitiesand practices occur at the local level:

8 Almost 80% of respondents indicated that local possession ordinances are enforced in their community8 The pattern of local enforcement indicated that tobacco possession laws are frequently enforced among young smokers who appear to be underage8 Parents are frequently notified if youth are cited for tobacco possession in local communities8 A majority of respondents indicated that their communities expect police to enforce the tobaccopossession ordinance

In 1999, half of respondents (50%) considered the local tobaccopossession ordinance to be only ‘somewhat effective’ in reducingtobacco use by minors

8 However, close to 90% of respondents would encourage other communities to enact tobacco possession laws

In 2000, a majority of respondents (62.4%) considered the localtobacco possession ordinance to be ‘not very effective’ or ‘no helpat all’ in reducing tobacco use by minors

8 However, almost 80% of respondents considered the local tobaccopossession ordinance to be ‘very effective’ or ‘somewhat effective’in giving police a tool to intercept youth for other issues or

concernsAlmost 70% of respondents indicated that tobacco possessionenforcement in their community was a ‘moderate’ or ‘high’priority

8 However, more than 1/3rd of respondents reported that their local communities do not have enough resources toadequately enforce the tobacco possession ordinance

Effectiveness of PUP laws and enforcementactivities remains questionable:

Future Research:

Enforcement of state and local PUP lawsneeds further study:

8 Future work will assess state enforcement in all 44states with one or more PUP laws

8 State and local enforcement measures will be developed, along with indices to better assess PUP enforcement at both levels

Effects of state and local PUP lawenforcement on adolescent smokingbehavior need further study:

8 Future work will assess the separate and combined effects of state and local PUP enforcement on adolescent smoking behavior and attitudes