Jump to comment:

• Additional barriers and solutions to enforcement of youth access laws
  Rick Kropp
  Published on: 15 August 1999

• Published on: 15 August 1999

  Additional barriers and solutions to enforcement of youth access laws

  • Rick Kropp, Executive Director

  Dear Editor:

  In their article, “Impediments to the enforcement of youth access laws” in your Summer 1999 issue of Tobacco Control, Drs. Joseph DiFranza and Nancy Rigotti identified and explored some of the major barriers to active enforcement of minimum age- of-sale tobacco laws. Through their work, Drs. DiFranza and Rigotti have made substantial contribution to the limited research on why tobacco sales laws are...

  Show More

  Dear Editor:

  In their article, “Impediments to the enforcement of youth access laws” in your Summer 1999 issue of Tobacco Control, Drs. Joseph DiFranza and Nancy Rigotti identified and explored some of the major barriers to active enforcement of minimum age- of-sale tobacco laws. Through their work, Drs. DiFranza and Rigotti have made substantial contribution to the limited research on why tobacco sales laws are not enforced.

  In its activities in northern California from 1988 through 1996, the Stop Tobacco Access for Minors Project (STAMP) also discovered a range of obstacles to getting local governments and local law enforcement agencies to actively enforce the state minimum age-of-sale tobacco law and local youth access ordinances prohibiting self-service displays and self-service sales of tobacco products in retail stores.

  STAMP first found that the state minimum age-of-sale tobacco law lacked an adequate local enforcement mechanism. STAMP also found strong evidence that some or many communities were initially unwilling to enforce state and local youth access laws.

  Most often, local government and law enforcement officials cited the following reasons for not enforcing these laws: 1) a lack of resources and manpower; 2) other, more pressing enforcement priorities; 3) philosophical opposition to decoy sting operations using minors; 4) no support from local elected officials and government administrators, and business and community leaders; 5) county district attorneys or city attorneys would not prosecute violators; 6) enforcement should be a public health department responsibility, not a law enforcement responsibility; and 7) other limitations and constraints as reasons why they could not (or would not) enforce the laws. For these reasons, STAMP found youth access laws were usually unenforced.

  STAMP’s research and experience also revealed that violators of tobacco sales laws were often not disciplined, fined, or sentenced. Judges said they are reluctant to impose the legal consequences because they view the crimes as minor and do not want the merchants to have criminal records. This is especially true in small cities. STAMP found that the police were reluctant to enforce the law if they see that judges are throwing out the cases

  In their article, Drs. DiFranza and Rigotti provided some excellent suggestions to overcome impediments to enforcement. STAMP also developed and implemented strategies and methods to remove these barriers.

  For example, in meeting with local government and law enforcement officials, STAMP staff learned to effectively respond to the reasons why the tobacco sales laws could not be enforced by explaining the compelling rationale that active enforcement makes it in the retailer's economic self -interest not to sell tobacco to minors, thereby giving retailers a major incentive to take the necessary measures in their stores to prevent or eliminate illegal tobacco sales. STAMP staff explained that active enforcement with penalties for violators creates financial disincentives and imposes economic consequences on merchants who violate the law.

  STAMP staff further explained that enforcement also produces a real or perceived perception of risk among retailers that they will be detected, prosecuted and fined for selling tobacco to minors. This perception of risk creates a deterrent effect that will change the illegal tobacco selling behavior and practices of store owners and clerks.

  In its report, “Enforcement of minimum age-of-sale tobacco laws”, (North Bay Health Resources Center, Petaluma, California, July 5, 1996), STAMP explains its strategies and methods to remove these obstacles to enforcement, including a step by step process to overcome local resistance to enforcement of youth access laws.

  This report also details how to lay the groundwork for enforcement, elements of a strong tobacco sales enforcement program, ways the tobacco and retail industries try to limit tobacco sales enforcement, an effective civil approach to enforcement, and how to ensure that tobacco licensing results in active enforcement.

  This report can be obtained through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Smoking and Health Database at CDC’s Tobacco Information and Prevention Source web site www.cdc.gov/tobacco, or through the Tobacco Education Clearinghouse of California, PO Box 1830, Santa Cruz, California 95061-1830, (831) 438-4822, extension 230.

  Rick Kropp (Former STAMP Director) 145 Hampshire Drive Chico, California 95928 (530) 899-2803

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top