1 / 16

Jamie F. Chriqui, Ph.D., M.H.S. Claudette Gentry, J.D. Regina el Arculli, M.A.

Youth access to tobacco: How have the state legislatures responded in the wake of the Supreme Court decision?. Jamie F. Chriqui, Ph.D., M.H.S. Claudette Gentry, J.D. Regina el Arculli, M.A. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association Philadelphia, PA

plato-diaz
Download Presentation

Jamie F. Chriqui, Ph.D., M.H.S. Claudette Gentry, J.D. Regina el Arculli, M.A.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Youth access to tobacco: How have the state legislatures responded in the wake of the Supreme Court decision? Jamie F. Chriqui, Ph.D., M.H.S. Claudette Gentry, J.D. Regina el Arculli, M.A. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association Philadelphia, PA November 13, 2002

  2. Key dates • August 28, 1995: U.S. FDA publishes final rule to, among other things, restrict minors’ access to tobacco products • March 21, 2000: U.S. Supreme Court rules that the FDA did not have statutory authority to regulate the nicotine in tobacco as a drug. • Today: No Federal rule/law restricting minors’ access to tobacco products. • Note: Synar regulations aim to prohibit sales to minors (minimum age) and require enforcement of sales to minors provisions

  3. Presentation purpose • To examine how state laws designed to restrict minors’ access to tobacco products have changed since the promulgation of the FDA rule. • To identify which state legislatures have enacted the provisions contained in the FDA rule.

  4. FDA provisions • Retailers must verify by photo ID that purchasers are 18 or over • Photo ID must contain birth date and photo • Verification not required if person is >26 • Requires direct, face-to-face sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco w/o the assistance of any electronic or mechanical device • Excludes vending machine sales and self-service display sales in locations where minors are not permitted (at any time)

  5. FDA provisions (cont.) • Prohibits retailers from opening packages, selling or distributing individual or unpackaged cigarettes in quantities smaller than the minimum package size • Minimum pack size=20 cigarettes • Prohibits sale/distribution of packages w/o labeling that complies with Federal law • Original manufacturer packaging • Prohibits retailers/distributors from distributing free samples of cigarettes/smokeless tobacco

  6. Data source • National Cancer Institute’s State Cancer Legislative Database (SCLD)

  7. Methods • Keyword search of SCLD abstracts • Analyzed the current status of each law at four points in time: • Pre-FDA (as of 12/31/95) • Post-FDA (as of 12/31/97) • Pre-Supreme Court (as of 12/31/99) • Post-Supreme Court (as of 6/30/02)

  8. Relevant state legislative activity Supreme Court decision (3/21/00) FDA rule 8/28/96 Note: Data are not mutually exclusive.

  9. Photo ID requirements Number of enacted provisions that meet FDA vs. enacted provisions that do not meet FDA by year # of provisions Note: “Do not meet FDA” data are cumulative beginning with laws enacted in 1995

  10. Out-of-package sale/minimum pack sizeNumber of enacted provisions that meet FDA vs. enacted provisions that do not meet FDA by year # of provisions Note: “Do not meet FDA” data are cumulative beginning with laws enacted in 1995

  11. Vending machine location restrictionsNumber of enacted provisions that meet FDA vs. enacted provisions that do not meet FDA by year # of provisions Note: “Do not meet FDA” data are cumulative beginning with provisions enacted in 1995

  12. Self-Service DisplaysNumber of enacted provisions that meet FDA vs. enacted provisions that do not meet FDA by year # of provisions Note: “Do not meet FDA” data are cumulative beginning with laws enacted in 1995

  13. Free DistributionNumber of enacted provisions that meet FDA vs. enacted provisions that do not meet FDA by year # of provisions Note: “Do not meet FDA” data are cumulative beginning with laws enacted in 1995

  14. So what does this mean? • States were actively legislating on the youth access issue between the time that the FDA rule was promulgated and the Supreme Court decision. • The laws that were enacted were far from meeting the stringency of the FDA rule. • Post-Supreme Court decision, there has been very little state legislative activity in the youth access area.

  15. Recent youth access legislative innovations • Use of transaction scan device when checking photo ID • 1999: New York • 2000: Ohio • 2001: Connecticut • Restrictions on Internet delivery/sale • 2000: Rhode Island • 2001: Missouri, Nevada

  16. For more information Visit the SCLD Program at: http://www.scld-nci.net

More Related