8.06.020 Findings and purpose | Sebastopol Municipal Code

8.06.020 Findings and purpose.

The City of Sebastopol (the City) hereby finds that:

A. Whereas, a local licensing system for tobacco retailers is appropriate to ensure that retailers comply with tobacco control laws and business standards of the City to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our residents;

B. Whereas, approximately 480,000 people die in the United States from smoking-related diseases and exposure to secondhand smoke every year, making tobacco use the nation’s leading cause of preventable death; ¹

C. Whereas, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that tobacco kills roughly six million people and causes over half a trillion dollars in economic damage each year; ²

D. Whereas, 5.6 million of today’s Americans who are younger than 18 are projected to die prematurely from a smoking-related illness; ³

E. Whereas, tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable death in California ⁴ and continues to be an urgent public health issue, as evidenced by the following:

1. Forty thousand California adults die from their own smoking annually; ⁵

2. More than 25 percent of all adult cancer deaths in California are attributable to smoking; ⁶

3. Smoking costs California $13.29 billion in annual health care expenses, $3.58 billion in Medicaid costs caused by smoking, and $10.35 billion in smoking-caused productivity losses; ⁷

4. Tobacco use can cause disease in nearly all of the organs of the body and is responsible for 87 percent of lung cancer deaths, 32 percent of coronary heart disease deaths, and 79 percent of all cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the United States; ⁸

F. Whereas, tobacco use among priority populations in California contributes to health disparities and creates significant barriers to health equity, as evidenced by the following:

1. African American (20.4 percent), Asian (11.4 percent), and Hispanic (15.2 percent) males all report a higher smoking prevalence than the Statewide average among all adults (11.0 percent); ⁹

2. American Indian/Alaska Native (36.2 percent) Californians have the highest smoking prevalence (19.1 percent) among all reported adult demographic populations;

3. Smoking is more prevalent among rural (14.9 percent) compared to urban (10.6 percent) Californians; ¹⁰

4. Californians with the highest levels of educational attainment and annual household income have the lowest smoking prevalence; ¹¹

5. Adults who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender report smoking at a higher rate (17.4 percent) than the Statewide average (11.0 percent); ¹²

6. Those who reported experiencing psychological distress over the past month smoke at rates (26.7 percent) higher than the Statewide average (11.0 percent); ¹³

G. Whereas, despite the State’s efforts to limit youth access to tobacco, youth are still able to access tobacco products, as evidenced by the following:

1. In California, research indicates over 67 percent of current and former adult smokers started by the age of 18 and almost 100 percent start by age 26; ¹⁴

2. In California, from 2013 to 2015, approximately 15 percent of ninth and eleventh grade 2017 to 2018, approximately 13 percent of high school students reported using tobacco; students report using electronic smoking devices; ¹⁵

3. Disparities in tobacco use exist among California high school students, with higher rates found among LGBTQ, American Indian, and Pacific Islander youth; ¹⁶

4. Unless smoking rates decline, an estimated 441,000 of all California youth who are alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related diseases; ¹⁷

5. In 2017, 22.8 percent of high school students in California had tried cigarette smoking; ¹⁸

6. Between 2014 and 2018, electronic smoking device use among California youth increased from 14.1 percent to 46.2 percent; ¹⁹

7. E-cigarettes (electronic smoking devices) have been the most commonly used tobacco product by youth in the United States since 2014; ²⁰

8. More than 80 percent of high school students who consume tobacco use a vaping device; ²¹

H. Whereas, the tobacco industry encourages youth and young adult tobacco initiation through predatory targeting, ²² as evidenced by the following:

1. Tobacco companies target young adults ages 18 to 24 to increase their frequency of tobacco use and encourage their transition to habitual users; ²³

2. Tobacco industry documents state that if “a man has never smoked by the age of 18, the odds are three-to-one he never will. By age 24, the odds are twenty-to-one”; ²⁴

3. The tobacco industry spends an estimated $620 million annually to market tobacco products to California residents; ²⁵

I. Whereas, California retailers continue to sell tobacco to underage consumers, evidenced by the following:

1. Nine and three-tenths percent of high school students in California reported buying their own electronic cigarette from a store; ²⁶

2. Nineteen and one-tenth percent of California tobacco retailers unlawfully sold tobacco products to underage persons in 2018; ²⁷

J. Whereas, requiring tobacco retailers to obtain a tobacco retailer license will not unduly burden legitimate business activities of retailers who sell tobacco products to adults but will, however, allow the City to regulate the operation of lawful businesses to discourage violations of Federal, State, and local tobacco control and youth tobacco access laws, as evidenced by the following:

1. Tobacco products are the number one seller in U.S. convenience stores, and in 2018, they generated an average of $595,870 in sales per store; ²⁸

2. Systematic scientific reviews indicate that merchant compliance with youth tobacco sales laws reduces the rate of tobacco use among adolescents; ²⁹ ³⁰

3. Studies found increased retailer compliance and reduced tobacco sales to youth following implementation and active enforcement of youth tobacco sales laws paired with penalties for violations; ³¹ ³²

4. A review of 41 California communities with strong tobacco retailer licensing ordinances found that youth sales rates declined in 40 of these communities after the ordinances were enacted, with an average 69 percent decrease in the youth sales rate; ³³

K. Whereas, the Federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act), enacted in 2009, prohibited candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes, ³⁴ largely because these flavored products are marketed to youth and young adults, ³⁵ ³⁶ and younger smokers were more likely than older smokers to have tried these products; ³⁷

L. Whereas, neither Federal nor California State laws restrict the sale of menthol cigarettes or flavored noncigarette tobacco products, such as cigars, cigarillos, smokeless tobacco, hookah tobacco, electronic smoking devices, and the solutions used in these devices;

M. Whereas, in 2018, more than 86 percent of tobacco retailers in California sold flavored noncigarette tobacco products, over 91 percent of tobacco retailers sold menthol cigarettes, ³⁸ and as of 2016, eight out of 10 tobacco retailers near schools sold flavored noncigarette tobacco products; ³⁹

N. Whereas, flavored tobacco products are used by the majority of youth and young adult tobacco users (86.4 percent and 57.7 percent, respectively) in California; ⁴⁰

O. Whereas, mentholated and flavored products have been shown to be “starter” products for youth who begin using tobacco, ⁴¹ ⁴² and that these products help establish tobacco habits that can lead to long-term addiction; ⁴³ ⁴⁴

P. Whereas, between 2004 and 2014, use of nonmenthol cigarettes decreased among all populations, but overall use of menthol cigarettes increased among young adults (ages 18 to 25) and adults (ages 26 and up); ⁴⁵

Q. Whereas, flavored tobacco has significant public health implications for youth and people of color as a result of targeted industry marketing strategies and product manipulation; ⁴⁶ ⁴⁷

R. Whereas, in 2018, the Surgeon General issued an “Advisory on E-cigarette Use Among Youth” emphasizing the importance of protecting our children from a lifetime of nicotine addiction and associated health risks by immediately addressing the epidemic of youth e-cigarette (electronic smoking device) use; ⁴⁸

S. Whereas, the FDA declared the use of e-cigarettes (electronic smoking device) among children to be an epidemic on December 4, 2019; ⁴⁹

T. Whereas, a review of advertising, promotions, and pack prices near California high schools found that “for each 10 percentage point increase in the proportion of black students, the proportion of menthol advertising increased by 5.9 percent … the odds of a Newport [a leading brand of mentholated cigarettes] promotion were 50 percent higher … and the cost of Newport was 12 cents lower.” There was no such association found for nonmentholated cigarettes; ⁵⁰

U. Whereas, scientific reviews by the FDA and the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) found marketing of menthol cigarettes likely increases the prevalence of smoking among the entire population, but especially among youth, African Americans, ⁵¹ and possibly Hispanic and Latino individuals ⁵² and that menthol cigarettes are associated with increased initiation and progression to regular cigarette smoking, increased dependence on cigarettes, and reduced success in smoking cessation, especially among African American menthol smokers; ⁵³

V. Whereas, research indicates that the FDA ban on all flavored cigarette products (except menthol) led to a six percent decrease in youth tobacco use and a 17 percent decrease in the likelihood of a youth becoming a cigarette smoker; tobacco use by youth decreased by six percent and the likelihood of a youth becoming a cigarette smoker; ⁵⁴

W. Whereas, studies indicate that laws prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products lead to decreases in youth tobacco use, as evidenced by the following:

1. An evaluation of New York City’s law, which prohibits the sale of all flavored tobacco, excluding menthol, indicated that as a result of the law, youth had 37 percent lower odds of ever trying flavored tobacco products and 28 percent lower odds of ever using any type of tobacco; ⁵⁵

2. An evaluation of a law in Providence, Rhode Island, which prohibits the sale of all flavored tobacco, excluding menthol, indicated that as a result of the law, current use of any tobacco product among high school youth declined from 22 percent to 12 percent and e-cigarette use declined from 13.3 percent to 6.6 percent, even as Statewide e-cigarette use among high school increased to more than 20 percent; ⁵⁶

X. Whereas, the health effects of noncigarette tobacco products such as cigars, cigarillos, smokeless tobacco, and shisha are substantial as demonstrated by research that shows that noncigarette tobacco products have addictive levels of nicotine, harmful toxins, and dangerous carcinogens; ⁵⁷ ⁵⁸

Y. Whereas, unlike cigarette use that has steadily declined among youth, the prevalence of the use of noncigarette tobacco products has increased among California youth; ⁵⁹

Z. Whereas, the availability of inexpensive tobacco products leads to increased tobacco use as evidenced by more than 100 academic studies that conclusively show that when tobacco products are made more expensive, fewer people use tobacco, fewer initiate tobacco use, and more people quit tobacco use; ⁶⁰ ⁶¹

AA. Whereas, research has also consistently shown that increases in cigarettes prices will result in less smoking across various sociodemographic populations; ⁶²

BB. Whereas, a systematic review by the U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force found that a 20 percent price increase would reduce demand for cigarettes by approximately 10.4 percent, the prevalence of adult tobacco use by 3.6 percent, and initiation of tobacco use by young people by 8.6 percent; ⁶³

CC. Whereas, unequal price increases across different types of tobacco products lead to substitution from one product to another; ⁶⁴ ⁶⁵

DD. Whereas, youth are particularly responsive to changes in tobacco prices, ⁶⁶ ⁶⁷ and evidence suggests that tobacco companies deliberately target youth with price reductions; ⁶⁸ ⁶⁹

EE. Whereas, evidence also suggests that cigarettes are cheaper in neighborhoods with lower household incomes, ⁷⁰ ⁷¹ Newport menthol cigarettes cost less in areas with higher proportions of African Americans ⁷² and underserved communities are targeted with price discounts and coupons; ⁷³ ⁷⁴

FF. Whereas, tobacco companies spend considerably to decrease the price of their products in order to counter State and local tobacco control efforts, appeal to price-sensitive consumers, and increase demand for tobacco products. For example, tobacco companies spent the majority of their marketing budgets on price discounts, accounting for nearly $6.2 billion of $8.6 billion advertising and promotional expenditures in 2018; ⁷⁵ ⁷⁶

GG. Whereas, price-discounted sales account for a substantial proportion of overall tobacco product sales; ⁷⁷

HH. Whereas, although Federal and State law ban the sale of individual cigarettes, ⁷⁸ ⁷⁹ neither Federal nor California State laws restrict the sale of individual little cigars and cigars;

II. Whereas, many retailers sell little cigars and cigars individually, making them more affordable and appealing to youth. ⁸⁰ For example:

1. Seventy-eight and three-tenths percent of California tobacco retailers sell a popular brand of youth-friendly cigars for less than $1.00; ⁸¹

2. Between 2012 and 2106, annual sales of cigarillos increased by 78 percent, and by 155 percent for “concept-flavored” (e.g., Jazz) cigarillos; ⁸²

JJ. Whereas, a 10 percent increase in cigar prices has been associated with decreased cigar sales, ⁸³ ⁸⁴ and may significantly reduce cigar use among youth; ⁸⁵

KK. Whereas, neither Federal nor California State laws set a minimum price for tobacco products;

LL. Whereas, minimum price markups and related laws in other states have been shown to be effective at increasing the price of cigarettes but may remain vulnerable to price manipulation by the tobacco industry without attention to coupons and discounts; ⁸⁶

MM. Whereas, studies have estimated that if price discounts were prohibited across the United States, the number of people who smoke would decrease by more than 13 percent; ⁸⁷ the impact of a $10.00 Federal minimum floor price for cigarettes could reduce the number of packs sold in the United States by 5.7 billion per year and prompt more than 10 million smokers to quit; ⁸⁸ and that a State-level minimum floor price law designed to raise the average price of cigarette packs by just under $2.00 could decrease the prevalence of cigarette use and consumption by more than four percent and reduce income-based smoking disparities in California; ⁸⁹

NN. Whereas, by selling tobacco products, pharmacies reinforce positive social perceptions of smoking, convey tacit approval of tobacco use, and send a message that it is not so dangerous to smoke; ⁹⁰ ⁹¹

OO. Whereas, pharmacies sell cigarettes cheaper than other stores ⁹² and advertise tobacco product discounts more than other stores in California; ⁹³

PP. Whereas, tobacco-free pharmacy sales policies decrease the availability of tobacco products by reducing tobacco retailer density by up to three times compared with communities that do not have such policies, ⁹⁴ and immediately after the nationwide CVS policy change to not sell tobacco products, cigarette purchases declined and smokers who had previously purchased their cigarettes exclusively at CVS were up to twice as likely to stop buying cigarettes entirely; ⁹⁵

QQ. Whereas, the density and proximity of tobacco retailers increase smoking behaviors, including number of cigarettes smoked per day, ⁹⁶ particularly in neighborhoods experiencing poverty; ⁹⁷ ⁹⁸

RR. Whereas, the density of tobacco retailers near adolescents’ homes has been associated with increased youth smoking rates ⁹⁹ smoking and initiation of noncigarette tobacco use; ¹⁰⁰

SS. Whereas, adults who smoke are likely to have a harder time quitting when residential proximity to tobacco retailers is closer ¹⁰¹ and density is higher; ¹⁰² ¹⁰³

TT. Whereas, tobacco retailers are more prevalent in underserved communities, especially in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of African American or Hispanic residents; ¹⁰⁴ ¹⁰⁵

UU. Whereas, tobacco retailer density is higher in urban compared to rural areas, except for low-income communities, which have higher tobacco retailer densities regardless of geography, and Hispanic communities, which are associated with variable retailer densities across geography; ¹⁰⁶ ¹⁰⁷

VV. Whereas, policies to reduce tobacco retailer density have been shown to be effective, ¹⁰⁸ ¹⁰⁹ and may reduce or eliminate inequities in the location and distribution of tobacco retailers;

WW. Whereas, strict enforcement of policies prohibiting retail sales of cigarettes to youth, sales of cigarettes via vending machines, and other means through which youth gain access to tobacco in the commercial settings can limit their opportunities to obtain these products; ¹¹⁰ ¹¹¹

XX. Whereas, strong policy enforcement and monitoring of retailer compliance with tobacco control policies (e.g., requiring identification checks) is necessary to achieve reductions in youth tobacco sales; ¹¹² ¹¹³

YY. Whereas, the Institute of Medicine recognizes that retailers are not likely to comply with youth tobacco access laws unless such laws are actively enforced through retailer compliance check paired with meaningful penalties on business owners for violations; ¹¹⁴

ZZ. Whereas, State law California Health and Safety Code Section 11364 prohibits possession of and California Health and Safety Code Section 11014.5 prohibits sales of “drug paraphernalia”;

AAA. Whereas, many retailers nevertheless sell items that are commonly known to be “drug paraphernalia,” including bongs and pipes used to smoke methamphetamine and other illicit drugs, claiming that such items are intended for tobacco use;

BBB. Whereas, several California cities require compliance with State drug paraphernalia laws as a condition of obtaining and maintaining a local tobacco retailer license; ¹¹⁵

CCC. Whereas, State law explicitly permits cities and counties to enact local tobacco retail licensing ordinances and allows for the suspension or revocation of a local license for a violation of any State tobacco control law (California Business and Professions Code Section 22971.3);

DDD. Whereas, California courts have affirmed the power of the City Council to regulate business activity to discourage violations of law. See, e.g., Cohen v. Board of Supervisors, 40 Cal. 3d 277 (1985); Bravo Vending v. City of Rancho Mirage, 16 Cal. App. 4th 383 (1993); Prime Gas, Inc. v. City of Sacramento, 184 Cal. App. 4th 697 (2010);

EEE. Whereas, over 180 cities and counties in California have passed tobacco retailer licensing ordinances as of 2018 in an effort to stop youth from using tobacco; ¹¹⁶

FFF. Whereas, the City has a substantial interest in protecting youth and underserved populations from the harms of tobacco use;

GGG. Whereas, the City finds that a local licensing system for tobacco retailers is appropriate to ensure that retailers comply with tobacco control laws and business standards of the City in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our residents; and

HHH. Now, therefore, it is the intent of the City, in enacting the ordinance codified in this chapter, to ensure compliance with the business standards and practices of the City and to encourage responsible tobacco retailing and to discourage violations of tobacco-related laws, especially those which prohibit or discourage the sale or distribution of tobacco and nicotine products to youth, but not to expand or reduce the degree to which the acts regulated by Federal or State law are criminally proscribed or to alter the penalties provided therein.

1U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014. Printed with corrections, January 2014, 11. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK179276.pdf.

2World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2013: Enforcing Bans on Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship, 2013, Executive Summary, 1. Available at: http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2013/en/.

3U.S. HHS. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress, 4.

4California Department of Public Health. California Tobacco Control Program, “The #1 Preventable Cause of Death – Tobacco Free CA,” as of March 2, 2020. Available at: https://tobaccofreeca.com/health/tobacco-is-the-number-one-preventable-cause-of-death/#:~:text=Tobacco%20products%20continue%20to%20be,year%20from%20tobacco%2Drelated%20diseases.

5Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs – 2014. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 2014, 82. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/best_practices/pdfs/2014/comprehensive.pdf.

6Lortet-Tieulent J, Goding Sauer A, Siegel RL, et al. State-Level Cancer Mortality Attributable to Cigarette Smoking in the United States. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(12):1792-1798. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6530.

7Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The Toll of Tobacco in California. https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/problem/toll-us/california. Accessed July 19, 2020.

8U.S. HHS. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress, 7.

9California Department of Public Health. California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health. 2019. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigures/2016FactsFiguresWeb.pdf.

10Ibid.

11Ibid.

12Ibid.

13Ibid.

14California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2016. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health. 2016, 20. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigures/2016FactsFiguresWeb.pdf.

15CDPH. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019.

16Ibid.

17U.S. HHS. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress, table 12.2.1, 693.

18Kann L, McManus T, Harris WA, et al. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance – United States, 2017, MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018;67(8):1-114 and Supplementary Tables 52 – 93. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm.

19Lin C, Baiocchi M, Halpern-Felsher B. Longitudinal trends in e-cigarette devices used by Californian youth, 2014 – 2018. Addict Behav. 2020; 108:106459. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106459.

20U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, created through a partnership between the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health. Get the Facts on E-cigarettes/Know the Risks, 2020. Available at: https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/getthefacts.html#:~:text=E%20cigarettes%20have%20been%20the,(ages%2018%2D24).

21Office of Governor Newsom. E-cigarette executive order, September 16, 2019. Available at: https://tobaccofreeca.com/e-cigarettes/governor-gavin-newsom-signs-executive-order-to-confront-youth-vaping-epidemic/.

22California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Public Health, 2019. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigures/CATobaccoFactsandFigures2019.pdf.

23Ling PM, Glantz SA. Why and How the Tobacco Industry Sells Cigarettes to Young Adults: Evidence From Industry Documents. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(6):908-916. doi: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447481/.

24Burrows, D.S. “Estimated Change in Industry Trend Following Federal Excise Tax Increase.” UCSF Library Truth Tobacco Industry Documents. Date Mod. Industry, Apr. 17, 2012, 2: https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/nnnw0084. Accessed July 20, 2020.

25Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. The Toll of Tobacco in California. Accessed July 20, 2020.

26Kann L, McManus T, Harris WA, et al. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance – United States, 2017. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018;67(8):1-114 and Supplementary Tables 52-93. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/.

27California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019.

28National Association of Convenience Stores. Convenience Stores and Their Communities, 2019. Available at: https://www.convenience.org/Topics/CommunityToolkit/Convenience-Stores-and-Their-Communities.

29U.S. HHS. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2012. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99237/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK99237.pdf.

30DiFranza JR. Which interventions against the sale of tobacco to minors can be expected to reduce smoking? Tob Control. 2012;21:436-442. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050145.

31McLaughlin I. License to Kill?: Tobacco Retailer Licensing as an Effective Enforcement Tool. Tobacco Control Legal Consortium, 2010. Available at: http://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-syn-retailer-2010.pdf.

32Institute of Medicine. Public Health Implications of Raising the Minimum Age of Legal Access to Tobacco Products. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2015. Available at: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18997/public-health-implications-of-raising-the-minimum-age-of-legal-access-to-tobacco-products.

33The American Lung Association in California Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing. Tobacco Retailer Licensing is Effective, 2018. Available at: https://center4tobaccopolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Tobacco-Retailer-Licensing-is-Effective-September-2018.pdf.

3421 U.S.C. § 387g(a)(1)(A).

35U.S. HHS. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2012.

36Institute of Medicine. Public Health Implications of Raising the Minimum Age of Legal Access to Tobacco Products, 2015.

37U.S. HHS. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2012.

38Schleicher NC, Johnson T, Vishwakarma M, et al. California Tobacco Retail Surveillance Study, 2018. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/Reports/CaliforniaTobaccoRetailSurveillanceStudyReport-2018.pdf.

39California Department of Public Health. California Tobacco Control Program, 2016. Healthy Stores for a Healthy Community Survey Results – all counties, 2016. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/ CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/Reports/HSHCTechnicalReport2016.pdf. Received the following from CTCP: https://3rz43f180d43qd3m43tl5x17-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/HSHC-Retail-Survey-Results-All-Counties.xlsx.

40California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019.

4121 U.S.C. § 387g(a)(1)(A).

42Wackowski O, Delnevo CD. Menthol cigarettes and indicators of tobacco dependence among adolescents. Addict Behav. 2007;32(9):1964-1969. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.12.023.

43U.S. HHS. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2012.

44Villanti AC, Johnson AL, Glasser AM, et al. Association of Flavored Tobacco Use With Tobacco Initiation and Subsequent Use Among US Youth and Adults, 2013 – 2015. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10):e1913804. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13804.

45Villanti AC, Mowery PD, Delnevo CD, Niaura RS, Abrams DB, Giovino GA. Changes in the prevalence and correlates of menthol cigarette use in the USA, 2004 – 2014. Tob Control. 2016;25(Suppl 2):ii14-ii20. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053329.

46United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2006), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009), and order clarified, 778 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2011).

47Kreslake JM, Wayne GF, Alpert HR, Koh HK, Connolly GN. Tobacco industry control of menthol in cigarettes and targeting of adolescents and young adults. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(9):1685-1692. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.125542.

48U.S. HHS. Surgeon General’s Advisory on E-cigarette Use Among Youth, 2018. Available at: https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documents/surgeon-generals-advisory-on-e-cigarette-use-among-youth-2018.pdf.

49U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Federal Response to the Epidemic of E-Cigarette Use, Especially Among Children, And the Food and Drug Administration’s Compliance Policy, December 4, 2019. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/congressional-testimony/federal-response-epidemic-e-cigarette-use-especially-among-children-and-food-and-drug.

50Henriksen L, Schleicher NC, Dauphinee AL, Fortmann SP. Targeted advertising, promotion, and price for menthol cigarettes in California high school neighborhoods. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012;14(1):116-121. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr122.

51U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Preliminary Scientific Evaluation of the Possible Public Health Effects of Menthol Versus Nonmenthol Cigarettes, 2013. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/86497/download http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/PeerReviewofScientificInformationandAssessments/UCM361598.pdf.

52Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee. Menthol Cigarettes and Public Health: Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations, 2011. Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170405201731/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/TobaccoProductsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/UCM269697.pdf.

53U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Preliminary Scientific Evaluation of the Possible Public Health Effects of Menthol Versus Nonmenthol Cigarettes, 2013.

54Courtemanche CJ, Palmer MK, Pesko MF. Influence of the Flavored Cigarette Ban on Adolescent Tobacco Use. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(5):e139-e146. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.019.

55Farley SM, Johns M. New York City flavoured tobacco product sales ban evaluation. Tob Control. 2017;26(1):78-84. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052418.

56Pearlman DN, Arnold JA, Guardino GA, Boles Welsh E. Advancing Tobacco Control Through Point of Sale Policies, Providence, Rhode Island. Prev Chronic Dis. 2019;16:E129. doi: 10.5888/pcd16.180614.

57Hoffmann D, Hoffmann I. Chapter 3: Chemistry and Toxicology. In: Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 9: Cigars: Health Effects and Trends. National Cancer Institute, 1998.

58Pickworth WB, Rosenberry ZR, Yi D, et al. Cigarillo and Little Cigar Mainstream Smoke Constituents from Replicated Human Smoking. Chem Res Toxicol. 2018;31(4):251-258. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.7b00312.

59California Tobacco Control Program. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019.

60U.S. HHS. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress, price 706, 707+.

61Jawad M, Lee JT, Glantz S, Millett C. Price elasticity of demand of non-cigarette tobacco products: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Control, 2018. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054056.

62Yao T, Ong MK, Max W, et al. Responsiveness to cigarette prices by different racial/ethnic groups of US adults. Tob Control. 2018;27(3):301-309. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053434.

63Community Preventive Services Task Force. Reducing Tobacco Use and Secondhand Smoke Exposure: Interventions to Increase the Unit Price for Tobacco Products, 2012. Available at: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/tobacco-use-and-secondhand-smoke-exposure-interventions-increase-unit-price-tobacco.

64Huang J, Gwarnicki C. A comprehensive examination of own- and cross-price elasticities of tobacco.

65Jawad M, Lee JT, Glantz S, Millett C, Price elasticity of demand of non-cigarette tobacco products, 2018.

66U.S. HHS. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2012.

67Levy DT, Tam J, Kuo C, Fong GT, Chaloupka F. The Impact of Implementing Tobacco Control Policies: The 2017 Tobacco Control Policy Scorecard. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018;24(5)448-457. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000780.

68U.S. HHS. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2012.

69Tessman GK, Caraballo RS, Corey CG, Xu X, Chang CM. Exposure to tobacco coupons among U.S. middle and high school students. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(2 Suppl 1):S61-68. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.001.

70Henriksen L, Schleicher NC, Barker DC, Liu Y, Chaloupka FJ. Prices for Tobacco and Nontobacco Products in Pharmacies Versus Other Stores: Results From Retail Marketing Surveillance in California and in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(10):1858-1864. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303306.

71Mills SD, Golden SD, Henrisksen L. Neighbourhood disparities in the price of the cheapest cigarettes in the USA. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(9):894-896. doi: 10.1136/jech-2018-210998.

72Henriksen L, Schleicher NC, Barker DC, Liu Y, Chaloupka FJ. Prices for Tobacco.

73Counter Tobacco. Disparities in Point-of-Sale Advertising and Retailer Density. https://countertobacco.org/resources-tools/evidence-summaries/disparities-in-point-of-sale-advertising-and-retailer-density/. Accessed May 18, 2020.

74Henriksen L, Schleicher NC, Johnson TO, Roeseler A, Zhu SH. Retail Tobacco Marketing in Rural Versus Nonrural Counties: Product Availability, Discounts, and Prices. Health Promot Pract. 2020;21(1_suppl):27S-36S. doi: 10.1177/1524839919888652.

75CDC. State Cigarette Minimum Price Laws – United States, 2009.

76NCI. Monograph 2: Smokeless Tobacco or Health 1992.

77Wang TW, Falvey K, Gammon DG, et al. Sales Trends in Price-Discounted Cigarettes, Large Cigars, Little Cigars, and Cigarillos-United States, 2011 – 2016. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;20(11):1401-1406. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntx249.

7821 C.F.R. § 1140.16(b).

79Cal. Penal Code § 308.3(a).

80Schleicher NC, Johnson T, Rigdon J, et al. California Tobacco Retail Surveillance Study, 2017. Available at: https://www. cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/SurveyInstrumentsTrainingManualsAndProtocols/CaliforniaTobaccoRetailSurveillanceStudt2017-CTRSS%206-4.pdf. https://tobaccoeval.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk5301/files/inline-files/CaliforniaTobaccoRetailSurveillanceStudt2017-CTRSS%206-4.pdf.

81Ibid.

82Gammon DG, Rogers T, Coats EM, et al. National and State patterns of concept-flavoured cigar sales, USA, 2012 – 2016. Tob Control. 2019;28(4):394-400. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054348.

83Gammon DG, Loomis BR, Dench DL, King BA, Fulmer EB, Rogers T. Effect of price changes in little cigars and cigarettes on little cigar sales: USA, Q4 2011-Q4 2013. Tob Control. 2016;25(5):538-544. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052343.

84Jawad M, Lee JT, Glantz S, Millett C. Price elasticity of demand of non-cigarette tobacco products, 2018.

85Ringel JS, Wasserman J, Andreyeva T. Effects of public policy on adolescents’ cigar use: evidence from the National Youth Tobacco Survey. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(6):995-998. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.030411.178 Katz MH. Banning tobacco sales in pharmacies: the right prescription. JAMA. 2008;300(12):1451-1453. doi: 10.1001/ jama.300.12.1451.

86Huang J, Chriqui JF, DeLong H, Mirza M, Diaz MC, Chaloupka FJ. Do State minimum markup/price laws work? Evidence from retail scanner data and TUS-CPS. Tob Control. 2016;25(Suppl 1):i52-i59. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053093.

87Slater SJ, Chaloupka FJ, Wakefield M, Johnston LD, O’Malley PM. The impact of retail cigarette marketing practices on youth smoking uptake. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(5):440-445. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.161.5.440.

88Doogan NJ, Wewers ME, Berman M. The Impact of a Federal Cigarette Minimum Pack Price Policy on Cigarette Use in the USA. Tob Control. 2018;27(2):203-208. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053457.

89Golden SD, Kim K, Kong A, et al. Simulating the Impact of a Cigarette Minimum Floor Price Law on Adult Smoking Prevalence in California. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;ntaa046. doi: 10.1093/ ntr/ntaa046.

90Katz MH. Banning tobacco sales in pharmacies: the right prescription. JAMA. 2008;300(12):1451-1453. doi: 178.

91Hudmon KS, et al. Tobacco sales in pharmacies: time to quit. Tob Control. 2006;15(1):35-38. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.012278.

92Henriksen L, Schleicher et alNC, Barker DC, Liu Y, Chaloupka FJ. Prices for Tobacco and Nontobacco Products in Pharmacies.

93Schleicher NC, Johnson T, Vishwakarma M, et al. California Tobacco Retail Surveillance Study 2018. Available at: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/Reports/CaliforniaTobaccoRetailSurveillanceStudyReport-2018.pdf.

94Jin Y, Lu B, Klein EG, Berman M, Foraker RE, Ferketich AK. Tobacco-Free Pharmacy Laws and Trends in Tobacco Retailer Density in California and Massachusetts. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(4):679-685. doi: 10.2105/ AJPH.2015.303040.

95Polinski JM, Howell B, Gagnon MA, Kymes SM, Brennan TA, Shrank WH. Impact of CVS Pharmacy’s Discontinuance of Tobacco Sales on Cigarette Purchasing (2012 – 2014). Am J Public Health. 2017;107(4):556-562. doi: 10.2105/ AJPH.2016.303612.

96Chuang YC, Cubbin C, Ahn D, Winkleby MA. Effects of neighbourhood socioeconomic status and convenience store concentration on individual level smoking. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(7):568-573. doi: 10.1136/ jech.2004.029041.

97Ibid.

98Huang J, Chriqui JF, DeLong H, Mirza M, Diaz MC, Chaloupka FJ. Do State minimum markup/price laws work? Evidence from retail scanner data and TUS-CPS. Tob Control. 2016;25(Suppl 1):i52-i59. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053093.

99Finan LJ, Lipperman-Kreda S, Abadi M, et al. Tobacco Outlet Density and Adolescents’ Cigarette Smoking: A Meta-Analysis. Tob Control. 2019;28(1):27-33. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054065.

100Abdel Magid HS, Halpern-Felsher B, Ling PM, et al. Tobacco Retail Density and Initiation of Alternative Tobacco Product Use Among Teens. J Adolesc Health. 2020;66(4):423-430. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.09.004.

101Reitzel LR, Cromley EK, Li Y, et al. The effect of tobacco outlet density and proximity on smoking cessation. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(2):315-320. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.191676.

102Cantrell J, Anesetti-Rothermel A, Pearson JL, Xiao H, Vallone D, Kirchner TR. The impact of the tobacco retail outlet environment on adult cessation and differences by neighborhood poverty. Addiction. 2015;110(1):152-161. doi: 10.1111/ add.12718.

103Shareck M, Datta GD, Vallee J, Kestens Y, Frohlick KL. Is Smoking Cessation in Young Adults Associated With Tobacco Retailer Availability in Their Activity Space? Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(4):512-521. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty242.

104Siahpush M, Jones PR, Singh GK, Timsina LR, Martin J. Association of availability of tobacco products with socio-economic and racial/ethnic characteristics of neighbourhoods. Public Health. 2010;124(9):525-529. doi: 10.1016/j. puhe.2010.04.010.

105Fakunle DO, Curriero FC, Leaf PJ, Furr-Holden DM, Thorpe RJ. Black, White, or Green? The Effects of Racial Composition and Socioeconomic Status on Neighborhood-Level Tobacco Outlet Density. Ethn Health. 2019;1-16. doi: 10.1080/13557858.2019.1620178.

106Rodriguez D. Predictors of tobacco outlet density nationwide, 2011.

107Rodriguez D, Carlos HA, Adachi-Mejia AM, Berke EM, Sargent J. Retail tobacco exposure: using geographic analysis to identify areas with excessively high retail density. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16(2):155-165. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntt126.

108Ribisl KM, Luke DA, Bohannon DL, Sorg AA, Moreland-Russell S. Reducing Disparities in Tobacco Retailer Density by Banning Tobacco Product Sales Near Schools. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017;19(2):239-244. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw185.

109Luke DA, Hammond RA, Combs T, et al. Tobacco Town: Computational Modeling of Policy Options to Reduce Tobacco Retailer Density. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(5):740-746. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303685.

110U.S. HHS. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2012.

111DiFranza JR. Which interventions against the sale of tobacco to minors can be expected to reduce smoking? Tob Control. 2012;21:436-442. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050145.

112DiFranza JR. Best Practices for Enforcing State Laws Prohibiting the Sale of Tobacco to Minors. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2005;11(6):559-565. doi: 10.1097/00124784-200511000-00014.

113Macinko J, Silver D. Impact of New York City’s 2014 Increased Minimum Legal Purchase Age on Youth Tobacco Use. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(5):669-675. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304340.

114Institute of Medicine. Public Health Implications of Raising the Minimum Age of Legal Access to Tobacco Products. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2015.

115Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act § 3(1), Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776-1858 (2009).

116California Department of Public Health. California Tobacco Facts and Figures 2019, 22.

(Ord. 1131, 2020)