08-20-18-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1400 I Street NW · Suite 1200 · Washington, DC 20005 Phone (202) 296-5469 · Fax (202) 296-5427 · www.tobaccofreekids.org Research shows that youth access laws successfully reduce youth tobacco use when they are well enforced and disrupt the sale of tobacco products to minors.1 Today, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws that restrict the sale of tobacco products to minors. But in addition to restricting the sale, 45 states and the District of Columbia have laws that also prohibit the purchase and/or underage possession (PUP) of tobacco products by minors. Penalties for youth who violate a PUP law typically include a fine but may also include other penalties like community service, attending mandatory smoking education or cessation programs, or the suspension of a driver’s license or permit.2 Only five states— Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York—do not have PUP laws.3 Some states passed PUP laws with the intention of reducing youth smoking by making kids more personally responsible for buying and using tobacco products. Penalizing children, however, has not been proven to be an effective strategy for reducing youth smoking; and some experts argue that PUP laws could actually detract from more effective enforcement measures and tobacco control efforts.4 PUP laws also unfairly punish and stigmatize children, many of whom became addicted at a young age as a result of the tobacco industry’s aggressive marketing to kids. In this way, PUP laws shift the blame from the industry’s irresponsible marketing to its victims. Penalties against youth become even more unreasonable when little is done to counter the tobacco industry’s targeted marketing to kids. Rather than treat children as the wrongdoers, youth access laws should focus on limiting access to tobacco products by conducting ongoing retailer compliance checks with strong penalties for sales to minors. Additional Concerns about PUP Laws  Penalizing youth can divert enforcement officials’ attention from stopping retailers from illegally selling tobacco to kids in the first place. PUP laws are more difficult to systematically enforce than sanctions against retailers, especially since PUP laws rarely provide additional enforcement resources. It is easier and more effective to conduct compliance checks for retailers, who are fewer in number compared to youth and whose locations are both known and constant.5  The ease of discretely possessing and using some tobacco products makes PUP laws more challenging to enforce than laws restricting sales to minors. Similarly, the perceived risk among youth of getting caught and punished is likely too low to have a meaningful impact on deterring tobacco use. In fact, there is little evidence showing that PUP laws have been enforced well enough to reduce youth smoking.6  Tobacco companies and their allies have a history of supporting PUP laws as alternatives to other laws that would produce greater declines in youth smoking, such as increasing the price of cigarettes. Tobacco companies have also promoted the passage of PUP laws in order to get additional provisions enacted that make implementing or enforcing additional tobacco control measures more difficult (e.g., preemption of strong local laws/ordinances).7  Despite the fact that many youth smokers are addicted, making it difficult for them to quit, few PUP laws include provisions ensuring that quit smoking resources are made available to them. Some research even suggests that penalizing youth could deter them from seeking support for cessation.8 Promoting interventions that provide cessation resources for youth interested in quitting could be a more beneficial alternative. Youth Access Laws Should Emphasize Restricting Sales to Minors Youth access laws that restrict sales to minors are better supported by research as a way to reduce youth smoking than laws that focus primarily on penalizing youth for purchase or possession of tobacco. While YOUTH ACCESS LAWS THAT PENALIZE KIDS FOR PURCHASE OR UNDERAGE POSSESSION ARE NOT PROVEN TO REDUCE TOBACCO USE