Tobacco possession, use, and purchase laws and penalties in Minnesota: Enforcement, tobacco diversion programs, and youth awareness
Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA. Nicotine & Tobacco Research
(Impact Factor: 3.3).
02/2007; 9 Suppl 1(1):S57-64. DOI: 10.1080/14622200601083475
State youth access laws often include restrictions for minor possession, use, or purchase of tobacco (PUP). The Minnesota PUP law allows cited youth to attend a tobacco diversion program in lieu of fines. We surveyed county attorneys in all counties (N = 87), tobacco diversion program coordinators (N = 47), and adolescents (N = 3,377) to assess PUP enforcement level, tobacco diversion program quality, and youth awareness of and experience with PUP laws and penalties. Although almost all county attorneys reported enforcement of the law, mean citation rates were low (9.3/1,000 youth) but somewhat higher in counties with tobacco diversion programs than in counties without such programs. Program coordinators also reported low attendance (Mdn = 30 adolescents per year per program). Almost 70% of classes were 2 h or less, and just 21.3% included multiple sessions; little variation in program approach or materials was observed, nor did programs meet criteria recommended for effective smoking cessation programs in this population. Overall, 59% of adolescents (79% among smokers) reported having heard of adolescents being caught by police or at school for smoking. Smoking prevalence was lower in counties with tobacco diversion programs than in counties without such programs (11.6% vs. 14.6%; adjusted OR = 0.8, 95% CI = 0.6-1.1). Receipt of a citation and attendance in a special class were more commonly reported among past-month smokers who lived in counties with tobacco diversion programs; the association for class attendance reached statistical significance. Our adolescent data provide some support for PUP laws as a potential tobacco control strategy, yet low citation rates and attendance in diversion programs of limited scope reduce the likelihood of detecting any benefit associated with this approach.
Available from: Leonard A Jason
- "While this result is modest, the public health implications are still potentially important. The current study contributes to a growing body of evidence supporting the potential effectiveness of PUP laws for reducing youth smoking (Jason et al., 2003; Jason, Pokorny, et al., 2007; Lazovich et al., 2001; Lazovich, Forster, Widome, & VanCoevering, 2007; Langer & Warheit, 2000). There are several possible explanations for what might account for the observed lower levels of smoking in towns with PUP law enforcement. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Tobacco Purchase-Use-Possession laws (PUP) are being implemented throughout the US, but it is still unclear whether they are effective in reducing smoking prevalence among the youth targeted by these public health policies. In the present study, 24 towns in Northern Illinois were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. One condition involved reducing commercial sources of youth access to tobacco (Control), whereas the second involved both reducing commercial sources of youth access to tobacco as well as fining minors for possessing or using tobacco (Experimental). Students in 24 towns in Northern Illinois in the United States completed a 74 item self-report survey in 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. At the start of the study, students were in grades 7-10. During each time period, students were classified as current smokers or nonsmokers (i.e., completely abstinent for the 30 consecutive days prior to assessment). The analyses included 25,404 different students and 50,725 assessments over the four time periods. A hierarchical linear modeling analytical approach was selected due to the multilevel data (i.e., town-level variables and individual-level variables), and nested design of sampling of youth within towns. Findings indicated that the rates of current smoking were not significantly different between the two conditions at baseline, but over time, rates increased significantly less quickly for adolescents in Experimental than those in Control towns. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Social Science & Medicine 11/2008; 67(11):1700-7. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.028 · 2.89 Impact Factor
Available from: cdc.gov
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Introduction Twenty-eight US states have passed legislation for indoor tanning facilities. To our knowledge, whether these state laws are actually enforced has not been evaluated previously in all 28 states. Therefore, we interviewed key informants in these states to assess enforcement practices.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Tobacco-policy interventions are designed to change the environment with the ultimate goal of preventing young people from beginning to smoke or reducing the likelihood that they will accelerate and solidify their smoking patterns. Several studies show that smoking bans in the home, at school, at work, and in the community are associated with less progression to smoking, less consolidation of experimental into regular smoking, and more quitting among adolescents and young adults. Randomized community trials and cohort studies support an association between enforcement of youth access laws against businesses and lower adolescent smoking rates. Several decades of studies provide evidence that increasing cigarette price through excise taxes reduces smoking among adolescents and young adults, who are particularly price-sensitive. Ongoing surveillance of tobacco-use behaviors in adolescents and young adults is essential for monitoring smoking patterns and evaluating tobacco policies.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine 01/2008; 33(6 Suppl):S335-9. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.014 · 4.53 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.