Birthdate-based commercial tobacco sales restrictions: will 'tobacco-free generation' policies advance or delay the endgame?

Endgame thinking means transitioning from merely trying to 'control' the tobacco epidemic to developing plans and measures to bring it to an end within a specific time, by changing the underlying dynamics that have created and perpetuated it for more than a century. Among the innovative policies characterised as 'endgame' policies are so-called 'tobacco-free generation' or 'smoke-free generation' policies, which prohibit sales of some or all tobacco products to individuals born on or after a particular date. Such birthdate-based sales restrictions (BSR) have intuitive appeal, largely because they do not appreciably disrupt the status quo of retail sales, which continue unchanged for all those born before the designated cut-off date. They also hold the potential for further denormalising tobacco use and sales by anticipating the long-term end of tobacco sales. In this Special Communication, we analyse BSR policies through an endgame lens and propose questions that should be discussed in jurisdictions considering them. We suggest that this policy has potential underexamined pitfalls, particularly related to equity, and that if enacted, it should include policy guardrails and be part of a package of endgame measures.

Should tobacco sales be restricted to state-run alcohol outlets? Perspectives from 10 US alcohol control states.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The ubiquity of tobacco retailers helps to sustain the tobacco epidemic. A tobacco retail reduction approach that has not been tried is transitioning tobacco sales to state-controlled alcohol stores (TTS), which are limited in number and operate under some restrictions, e.g. regarding opening hours or marketing materials. This study summarizes policy experts' and advocates' views of TTS, including (1) advantages and disadvantages; (2) feasibility; and (3) potential implementation obstacles. DESIGN: This study was a qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Ten US states with alcoholic beverage control systems were included. PARTICIPANTS: The participants comprised a total of 103 tobacco control advocates and professionals, public health officials, alcohol policy experts and alcohol control system representatives, including two tribal community representatives. MEASUREMENTS: Interviewees' perspectives on their state's alcoholic beverage control agency (ABC, the agency that oversees or operates a state alcohol monopoly) and on TTS were assessed. FINDINGS: Interviewees thought TTS offered potential advantages, including reduced access to tobacco products, less exposure to tobacco advertising and a greater likelihood of successful smoking cessation. Some saw potential long-term health benefits for communities of color, due to the smaller number of state alcohol stores in those communities. Interviewees also raised concerns regarding TTS, including ABCs' limited focus on public health and emphasis on revenue generation, which could conflict with tobacco use reduction efforts. Some interviewees thought TTS could enhance the power of the tobacco and alcohol industries, increase calls for alcohol system privatization or create difficulties for those in recovery. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, transitioning tobacco sales to state-controlled alcohol stores (TTS) could have a positive public health impact by reducing tobacco availability, marketing exposure and, ultimately, tobacco use. However, tensions exist between alcohol control system goals of providing revenue to the state and protecting public health. Should a state decide to pursue TTS, several guardrails should be established, including building into the legislation an explicit goal of reducing tobacco consumption.

Retailer experiences with tobacco sales bans: lessons from two early adopter jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND: Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach, California, are the first two US cities to prohibit the sale of tobacco products, passing ordinances that went into effect on 1 January 2021. We sought to learn about retailers' experiences with these laws 22 months after implementation. METHODS: Brief in-person interviews with owners or managers of businesses that formerly sold tobacco (n=22). RESULTS: Participant experiences varied by type of retailer. Managers at large chain stores reported no problems adapting to the law and little effect on overall sales. Many were largely indifferent to the sales bans. By contrast, most managers or owners of small, independent retailers reported losses of both revenue and customers, and expressed dissatisfaction with the laws. Small retailers in Beverly Hills objected particularly to exemptions that city made allowing hotels and cigar lounges to continue their sales, which they saw as undermining the health rationale for the law. The small geographical area covered by the policies was also a source of frustration, and retailers reported that they had lost business to retailers in nearby cities. The most common advice small retailers had for other retailers was to organise to oppose any similar attempts in their cities. A few retailers were pleased with the law or its perceived effects, including a reduction in litter. CONCLUSION: Planning for tobacco sales ban or retailer reduction policies should include considering impacts on small retailers. Adopting such policies in as wide a geographical area as possible, as well as allowing no exemptions, may help reduce opposition.

Relapse to problem drinking or trading up to spirits? Using U.S. national cross-sectional survey data to highlight possible negative impacts of potential tobacco retail changes.

BACKGROUND: According to the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association, twelve states in the United States (U.S.) have government retail monopolies on spirits/liquor sales. With a new federal minimum legal sales age for tobacco (raised from 18 to 21, the minimum legal sales age for alcohol), we examine possible unintended consequences of a hypothetical policy change restricting retail tobacco sales to state-run spirits/liquor stores in alcohol control states, which has been proposed as a tobacco endgame strategy. METHODS: We used cross-sectional survey data from 14,821 randomly-selected adults ages 21 and older who responded to the 2015 or 2020 U.S. National Alcohol Survey (51.8% female; 65.8% identified as non-Hispanic White, 12.4% as Black or African American, 14.2% as Hispanic or Latinx; 34.0% had a low level of education), including 2,274 respondents (18.9%) residing in one of the alcohol control states (representing 42.2 million (M) adults ages 21+). We estimated associations between tobacco measures (lifetime smoking status, lifetime daily smoking, past-year daily smoking) and alcohol measures (drinking status, beverage choices, lifetime alcohol use disorder (AUD) status, recovery status) overall and for specific subgroups. RESULTS: In control states, 55.1% of people who smoked daily in the past year also reported lifetime AUD, including an estimated 3.56 M adults ages 21 + who reported prior (but not current) AUD. The association of daily smoking with lifetime AUD was stronger among those with low education compared to those with higher education. Further, 58.8% of people in recovery from an alcohol and/or drug problem (1.49 M adults ages 21+) smoked daily, and this was more marked among women than men in control states. CONCLUSION: There could be negative consequences of an endgame strategy to restructure tobacco retail sales, including increased risk for relapse to drinking among people who smoke daily, especially among women and people with low levels of education. Strategies to mitigate unintended harms would be needed if such a policy were implemented.

Prohibition no, abolition yes! Rethinking how we talk about ending the cigarette epidemic.

As public health advocates struggle over how best to end the cigarette epidemic, one persistent obstacle to developing appropriate policies has been the lingering spectre of 'prohibition'. A misunderstanding of the USA's experience with the national ban on sales of alcohol more than a century ago has led even public health advocates to claim that we cannot end the sale of cigarettes because 'prohibition does not work': a ban on sales, we hear, would lead to crime and to black markets, among many other negatives. In this Special Communication, we show how the tobacco industry has carefully constructed and reinforced this imagined impossibility, creating a false analogy between cigarettes and alcohol. This improper analogy, with its multiple negative associations, continues to block intelligent thinking about how to end cigarette sales. Instead of prohibition, we propose abolition as a term that better captures what ending sales of the single most deadly consumer product in history will actually do: enhance human health and freedom.