Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Tobacco industry and public health responses to state and local efforts to end tobacco sales from 1969-2020

  • Patricia A. McDaniel ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Patricia.McDaniel@ucsf.edu

    Affiliation Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America

  • Ruth E. Malone

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America

Tobacco industry and public health responses to state and local efforts to end tobacco sales from 1969-2020

  • Patricia A. McDaniel, 
  • Ruth E. Malone
PLOS
x

Abstract

Background

In June 2019, Beverly Hills, California, became the first American city in the 21st century to pass an ordinance ending the sale of most tobacco products, including cigarettes, and it is unlikely to be the last. Knowledge of previous efforts to ban tobacco sales in the US, both successful and unsuccessful, may help inform tobacco control advocates' approach to future efforts.

Methods

We retrieved and analyzed archival tobacco industry documents. We confirmed and supplemented information from the documents with news media coverage and publicly available state and local government materials, such as meeting minutes and staff reports, related to proposed bans.

Results

We found 22 proposals to end the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products from 1969–2020 in the US. Proposals came from five states, twelve cities or towns, and one county. Most came from elected officials or boards of health, and were justified on public health grounds. In opposing tobacco sales bans, the tobacco industry employed no tactics or arguments that it did not also employ in campaigns against other tobacco control measures. Public health groups typically opposed sales ban proposals on the grounds that they were not evidence-based. This changed with Beverly Hills’ 2019 proposal, with public health organizations supporting this and other California city proposals because of their likely positive health impacts. This support did not always translate into passage of local ordinances, as some city council members expressed reservations about the impact on small businesses.

Conclusion

Tobacco control advocates are likely to encounter familiar tobacco industry tactics and arguments against tobacco sales ban proposals, and can rely on past experience and the results of a growing body of retail-related research to counter them. Considering how to overcome concerns about harming retailers will likely be vital if other jurisdictions are to succeed in ending tobacco sales.

Introduction

In June 2019, Beverly Hills, California, became the first American city in the 21st century to pass an ordinance ending the sale of most tobacco products, including cigarettes, with sales scheduled to end in 2021 [1]. Manhattan Beach, California passed a similar ordinance in February 2020, with the same implementation date [2], and at least one other California city is exploring the idea [3]. Although public health groups have traditionally been wary of embracing any policy that might be framed as “prohibition,” several supported these efforts [4, 5].

This was not the first time a US jurisdiction had ended the sale of cigarettes, the single most deadly consumer product in history. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, spurred by concerns about youth smoking, the disease effects of cigarettes, and moral decline, 16 states banned cigarette sales, and 17 states considered doing so [6]. By 1927, however, under tobacco industry and public and media pressure, these laws were repealed [6, 7], and their history forgotten.

In the US, the current tobacco control movement began in earnest with the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report [8]. More than fifty years later, smoking prevalence has declined dramatically, clean indoor air is widely accepted as the norm in public places and many private ones, and smoking has become denormalized [9]. The 2014 US Surgeon General’s report called for an end to the tobacco epidemic, identifying several specific initiatives as particularly promising. Among them was the option for state or local jurisdictions to ban sales of whole classes of tobacco products [10, p. 856], as permitted by the 2009 US Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act [11].

Ending tobacco sales could help smokers trying to quit, by removing environmental cues associated with smoking and decreasing cigarette availability [1218]. It would send a strong message to the public that local government leaders were finally acting to protect public health by making policy that was consistent with messaging about the dangers of cigarette use [19]. Ending sales could also reduce youth tobacco uptake, which has been linked to tobacco outlet density near adolescents’ homes [20], and tobacco use disparities, which have been linked to the greater concentration of tobacco outlets in economically deprived neighborhoods and in areas with greater proportions of African Americans and Hispanics [2130]. Moreover, ending cigarette sales could further denormalize the tobacco industry, spurring additional reductions in cigarette uptake and use [31].

Any tobacco control policy innovation likely to be effective draws tobacco industry mobilization and opposition. A systematic review of strategies employed by the tobacco industry to influence tobacco taxes and marketing restrictions groups them into five broad categories: coalition management; information management; direct involvement and influence in policy; litigation; and illicit trade [32]. Each category encompasses more specific tobacco industry tactics, including using front groups to hide industry involvement, creating media or publicity campaigns to generate public support for the industry’s position, commissioning research to support tobacco industry arguments, directly lobbying policymakers, working collaboratively (in the US, often through the now-defunct Tobacco Institute, a tobacco industry lobbying organization), and initiating legal challenges [33, 34].

Research has also identified the arguments employed by the tobacco industry or its allies to influence tobacco control policies [3335]. Many are used irrespective of the tobacco control measure in question, including the well-known and well-worn tobacco industry argument that adults should have the “freedom to choose” to smoke [36, 37], and the claims that tobacco control measures will hurt businesses and harm workers, spur illicit trade in tobacco products (thereby reducing government tax revenue and/or increasing consumption), or prove ineffective [38]. An examination of tobacco industry responses to novel tobacco control measures (e.g., a ban on tobacco additives, plain packaging) identified additional tobacco industry arguments, including those focused on the absence of and need for scientific evidence to support such measures [35]. Ulucanlar and colleagues have identified broad tobacco industry “discursive strategies” that encompass these and other tobacco industry arguments: exaggerating costs to the economy and society, public health, and the tobacco industry; exaggerating benefits to undeserving groups; and downplaying potential public health benefits [32]. Together, these strategies have the aim of creating “a dystopian narrative” that exaggerates the costs and denies or dismisses the benefits of proposed policies [32].

Tobacco company tactics and arguments in relation to tobacco sales bans have not been assessed. Given that such policies pose more of an existential threat to their business than other tobacco control policies such as tobacco taxes, tobacco companies might be expected to use new measures to oppose them. Anticipating any new tactics and/or arguments that tobacco companies may deploy may help tobacco control advocates counter them in future tobacco sales ban efforts. Alternatively, if tobacco companies are shown to rely on the same tactics and arguments when opposing sales bans as used when opposing other tobacco control measures, this knowledge could reassure advocates that they can build on their previous experience in countering tobacco industry opposition to tobacco control measures, rather than inventing a new approach.

The extent of efforts to enact sales bans prior to 2019 is also unknown. Before Beverly Hills’ ordinance passed, we were aware from national news media reports of just two previous recent attempts to end tobacco sales in the US–one in Westminster, Massachusetts in 2014 [39], and one in the state of Hawaii in 2019 [40]–that both ended in failure. Other jurisdictions may have made similar efforts but attracted scant media attention. Knowledge of these efforts–including the tactics and arguments advanced by the tobacco industry or its allies and by public health organizations—may help shed light on how to account for, and replicate the success of the more recent ordinances. Understanding the prevalence of proposals to end sales may also help situate such proposals within a broader historical context.

This paper addresses the following research questions: 1) how many tobacco sales ban attempts have been made in the US since the 1930s, in which jurisdictions, when, and what was their scope?; 2) who initiated these efforts and why?; 3) what tactics did the tobacco industry employ to oppose these efforts, and were they the same or different from tactics previously identified in the literature?; 4) what arguments did the tobacco industry employ to oppose tobacco sales bans and were they the same or different from arguments previously identified in the literature?; 5) how did public health groups respond to efforts to end tobacco sales?; 6) what was the outcome of sales ban attempts?; and 7) are there any characteristics that distinguish successful from failed US efforts to end tobacco sales?

Methods

For evidence of tobacco company tactics and arguments deployed in relation to tobacco sales ban proposals, we searched the Truth Tobacco Industry documents archive [41]. We relied on standard tobacco industry document search strategies [4244], which include starting with broad search terms and using retrieved documents to identify more specific terms, a process termed “snowball sampling.” We used the initial search terms “sales ban,” “ban sales of tobacco,” and “ban tobacco sales.” Retrieved documents allowed us to narrow our searches using the name of a particular state or locality, the name of persons or organizations involved in a particular sales ban proposal (e.g., Iroquois County Medical Society), the number assigned to a particular bill (e.g., Arkansas House Bill [HB] 467), and the year the proposal was introduced. We excluded items focused solely on military sales bans, vending machine sales bans, or youth access laws (sometimes discussed in the documents as bans on tobacco sales to youth). We identified 110 relevant documents dated from 1969–2000. We coded them for evidence of tactics and arguments used in relation to sales ban proposals by tobacco companies, tobacco industry allies, and public health organizations.

To confirm and supplement information retrieved from tobacco industry documents, we searched for news media coverage of any state or local proposal to ban cigarette or tobacco sales from 1969-March 2020. We used the online database Access World News, which indexes 1,607 US national and local news sources, including broadcast television news, talk radio, national public radio, newspapers and magazines, and web-only news sources. To locate news items concerning sales ban proposals identified in the tobacco industry documents database, we searched by year, name of city or state, any pertinent identifying information (such as the name of a legislator or organization proposing a sales ban), and the phrase “cigarette OR tobacco” AND “sales” AND “ban.” To locate news items concerning any sales ban proposals not included in the tobacco industry documents database, we searched using the phrase “cigarette OR tobacco” AND “sales” AND “ban” during the period 1969-March 2020. We retrieved 109 news items, the majority concerning efforts to ban cigarette sales in 2014 and 2019. We also called government offices and searched government websites for publicly available material (e.g., bill language, staff reports or memos, committee or council agendas, minutes, video tapes of meetings, and written public comments) related to proposed bans in towns or cities in Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, and California, and in the states of Arkansas, North Dakota, and Hawaii. We obtained material from the following towns, cities and states: Gray, Maine; North Adams, Salem, Worcester, and Westminster, Massachusetts; Elk Grove Village, Illinois; Beverly Hills, Carson, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach, California; and Arkansas, North Dakota, and Hawaii.

To develop this account, the first author reviewed all documents. Documents with an unclear provenance (e.g., those that were likely authored by a tobacco company, but lacking identifying information) or distribution (e.g., a Tobacco Institute press release that may never have been sent) were reviewed by both authors to solicit ideas for sources of corroborating evidence (n = 3). After reviewing material iteratively, we constructed a timeline of events, and organized and analyzed our findings in relation to our research questions.

Results

Our tobacco industry documents and media searches located 22 proposals to end the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products from 1969–2020 (Table 1). These proposals came from five states (Arkansas, Massachusetts, Hawaii, North Dakota, and Utah), twelve cities or towns (the majority in Massachusetts and California) and one county (in Illinois) (Table 1). Most took the form of legislation introduced at the state level, ordinances proposed by city council members, or regulations considered by local boards of health (Massachusetts only); sales ban proposals originating from more “grassroots” sources, such as an individual (Worcester, Massachusetts 1998), or a tobacco control advocacy organization (North Dakota, 1990), were less common (Table 1). Proposals to ban all tobacco products, rather than cigarettes alone, were more common (n = 17), and the most recent proposals (2019 and 2020) included both e-cigarettes and traditional tobacco products (Table 1). Proposed cigarette-only bans occurred primarily between 1970 and 1994, with the 2019 Hawaii proposal the lone exception (Table 1). Only one proposal (North Dakota HB 1174, 2003) prohibited both sales and use of tobacco products; the remainder were focused solely on sales (Table 1).

thumbnail
Table 1. Proposals to ban the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products, by year (1969–2020).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233417.t001

Individuals or organizations proposing sales bans typically justified them in the name of public health, citing the health harms associated with tobacco product use, and/or the likelihood of a ban facilitating smoking cessation or reducing youth smoking. Alleviating the economic burden of tobacco use was also occasionally mentioned as a justification. Rationales for these proposals were typically dispassionate, with the exception of Hawaii’s SB 2209 (1990) which was framed as “prevent[ing] the next generation of tobacco addicts from being seduced by the murderous tobacco industry” (Table 1). Between 1998 and 2018, several sales ban proposals emerged as spontaneous responses to other tobacco policy proposals, such as banning the sale of tobacco in pharmacies, or raising the legal age of sale from 18 to 21, with the sales ban proposal offered as an alternative that was more fair to retailers (Westminster, MA 2014), more comprehensive (Utah 1998), more effective in protecting public health (Elk Grove Village, IL 2006), or, in one case, inevitable, giving the city the opportunity to take the lead on this issue (Saratoga, CA 2018).

It was only recently that any of these proposals garnered enough policymaker support to be adopted, with two Southern California cities (Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach) passing tobacco sales ban ordinances in 2019 and 2020 (Table 1). Some proposals failed almost immediately, providing little opportunity for the tobacco industry or public health organizations to respond (Table 1). For example, a formal proposal to ban the sale of tobacco products in Utah in 1998—a “spur of the moment” response to a discussion of a self-service tobacco display ban that initially garnered support from lawmakers–was ultimately defeated several hours after its introduction (Table 1). Other proposals were considered and debated by policymakers and the public over the course of weeks or months, giving the tobacco industry and public health organizations more time to act. In several cases, it appeared that opposition from (or concerns about) retailers and the local community played a significant role in policymakers’ decision not to ban tobacco sales (e.g., North Adams, Winthrop and Westminster, MA; Hermosa Beach, CA) (Table 1).

The Tobacco Institute took the lead on monitoring and coordinating tobacco industry responses to early attempts to ban tobacco sales. It was somewhat dismissive of these attempts, describing them internally as “absurd” (Arkansas 1969) [47], “strange” (Massachusetts 1970) [123] and “outlandish” (Hawaii 1990) [124], with only a “remote” chance of succeeding (Massachusetts 1983) [125]. Nonetheless, the Institute vowed not to take such efforts “lightly” [125]. This approach was evident even in cases where the proposal to ban cigarette sales appeared not to be serious. For example, in 1994, in Salem, Massachusetts, the Board of Health discussed over several months how best to regulate vending machine cigarette sales [62]. In one early meeting on the topic, a Board Member suggested exploring an outright ban on cigarette sales in Salem. Although this idea was not raised in subsequent meetings, the Tobacco Institute was aware of the proposal, mentioning it in its regular newsletter on state tobacco control activities [126]; the Institute may also have been responsible for preparing a document (with no assigned author) entitled “In Opposition to a Cigarette Sales Ban” outlining, over 6 pages, why Salem’s “ill-founded” proposal should be rejected [127].

The Tobacco Institute and individual tobacco companies relied on few tactics to oppose proposals to ban sales– 4 of over 20 tactics identified in the literature on tobacco industry efforts to influence tobacco taxes and marketing restrictions [33, 34] (Table 2). Two were captured under the broader category of coalition management [32]: tobacco companies working collaboratively, often under the auspices of the Tobacco Institute, and mobilizing allies, such as retailers associations, to oppose tobacco sales bans (Table 2). For example, in response to proposals by two Massachusetts towns to ban tobacco sales in 1997, tobacco companies encouraged restaurant owners, retailers, smokers and residents to express their opposition at public hearings [64, 128] (Table 2). In one case, over 50 “partisans and coalition partners” showed up and spoke out against the proposal in the public comment period [129]; in the other, 200–400 reportedly attended a “raucous” public hearing, most of them opposed to the proposal [6971] (Table 2). Two other tobacco industry tactics were captured under the broader category of information management [32]: commissioning supportive economic and legal research, and creating media or publicity campaigns, including letters to the editor and press releases. (Table 2). In 1990 in Hawaii, for example, the Tobacco Institute commissioned both a legal analysis (from the law firm Covington and Burling) and an economic analysis (from Price Waterhouse) to aid in its opposition to a proposed tobacco sales ban (Table 2). We found evidence of no new tactics.

thumbnail
Table 2. Tobacco industry strategies and tactics to oppose proposals to ban cigarette/tobacco sales.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233417.t002

The most common tactics were working collaboratively and mobilizing allies, such as retailers’ associations, to oppose sales ban proposals in public meetings and via petitions to policymakers. We found no evidence of direct tobacco company involvement in policy via lobbying, or threats of litigation, although a law firm representing a local retailer sent a letter to the Manhattan Beach City Council in 2019 threatening to sue [146]. Hawaii’s 1990 proposal to end tobacco sales by the year 2000 saw the most high profile involvement by the tobacco industry, featuring a variety of tactics organized by and publicly identified with the Tobacco Institute. Following that, the tobacco industry worked primarily behind the scenes, through allies.

Table 3 summarizes the specific arguments that the tobacco industry and its allies (e.g., retailers associations, Chambers of Commerce) relied on to oppose tobacco sales ban proposals. These arguments encompassed the discursive themes previously identified in the literature: an emphasis costs to society, the economy, law enforcement, and the tobacco industry, and the denial of intended public health benefits [32]. Within these categories, none of the specific arguments were unique to tobacco sales ban proposals. For example, the argument that a sales ban in Beverly Hills, California would foster antagonism against store clerks by irate customers was previously used to oppose plain packaging legislation in New Zealand [147]. Similarly, the claim that a particular health body (i.e., Salem, Massachusetts’ Board of Health) lacked the authority to impose a sales ban was also used to oppose a proposed ban on tobacco additives by Brazil’s National Health Surveillance Agency in 2012 [148]. Even arguments that might conceivably be reserved for proposals to ban cigarette or tobacco sales–namely, that such proposals were uniquely extreme or unprecedented–were also used in other policy arenas, including early battles over clean indoor air [149]. Some tobacco industry arguments were used less often overall than others, including those focused on the economic costs to governments, and, among arguments focused on societal costs, claims of a “slippery slope” and an absence of legal authority to ban tobacco sales (Table 3). Among the most common tobacco industry arguments to oppose sales bans were those focused on economic costs to the tobacco industry (specifically, retailers) and the creation of black markets (with references to alcohol prohibition in the US); both arguments were also used regularly from the 1990s onwards (Table 3). The claim that sales bans would not reduce smoking was used more often in the most recent efforts to ban tobacco sales.

thumbnail
Table 3. Arguments against proposals to ban cigarette/tobacco sales made by the tobacco industry or its allies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233417.t003

We were unable to identify public health organizations’ positions on and activities related to all 22 tobacco sales ban proposals; however, from the limited evidence available, certain patterns emerged (Table 4). Before Beverly Hills, public health groups who took a position on sales ban proposals were usually opposed; in the few cases where a public health organization expressed support (Winthrop, MA 1997; Elk Grove, IL 2006), it was muted. In a newspaper article, a representative of the American Cancer Society praised the Winthrop Board of Health’s proposal to ban tobacco sales, but offered no other support, such as speaking at a public hearing (Table 4). In Elk Grove, two representatives of the American Lung Association (ALA) did speak at a public hearing, but gave a mixed message, stating that while the ALA did not regard a tobacco sales ban as a policy priority, it would support it if passed (Table 4). The primary rationale for opposing cigarette or tobacco sales bans offered by public health organizations was that there was no evidence demonstrating sales bans’ effectiveness in reducing smoking prevalence. Instead, public health organizations recommended focusing on proven tobacco control strategies (Table 4).

thumbnail
Table 4. Public health organizations’ positions, rationales, and activities related to proposals to ban cigarette/tobacco sales.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233417.t004

Beginning with Beverly Hills’ proposal, public health organizations’ attitudes changed, with numerous organizations expressing strong support for tobacco (and electronic cigarette) sales bans in Beverly Hills, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach (Table 4). The rationales for this support varied, and included the likely positive impact of a sales ban on public health, the environment, health care costs, smoking cessation, youth smoking initiation, and smoking denormalization (Table 4). Many of these arguments were drawn from the growing literature showing an association between tobacco retailer density and smoking initiation, continued use, failed quit attempts, and relapse after cessation [20, 173180]

Discussion

From the earliest days of the modern US tobacco control movement, towns, cities and states have fielded proposals from state legislators, public health commissioners, health departments, medical societies, city council members, boards of health, and citizens seeking to end sales of cigarettes or tobacco products. Massachusetts was the most active, at both the local and state level, but several other jurisdictions also made multiple attempts over the years to end tobacco sales. California, despite its history of strong tobacco control measures, was a late entrant to the field, with 5 sales ban proposals occurring only recently. Nonetheless, it was home to the only proposals to succeed.

Proposals were typically justified in the name of promoting health; more specific potential outcomes included reducing youth smoking initiation, promoting smoking cessation, and, occasionally, reducing tobacco-related healthcare costs. Despite the somewhat novel and arguably dramatic nature of these proposals, the rationales given were not unique to sales bans and were usually not made through emotional appeals. Bans on flavored tobacco products [181] and plain packaging of cigarettes [182], for example, have also been advanced using similar arguments.

Most often, proposed sales ban policies encompassed all tobacco products, although it was unclear why some jurisdictions occasionally deviated from this trend, proposing to end cigarette sales only. In 2019 and 2020, the scope of these policies broadened further, to include electronic cigarettes. At the same time, public health groups began offering more consistent support for these policies, suggesting that their support did not depend on maintaining electronic cigarettes as an alternative nicotine product when other tobacco products were banned. Indeed, their critique of Hawaii’s 2019 proposal as too narrowly focused on combustible cigarettes suggests that future sales ban proposals with a broader scope may garner more support from public health organizations.

Tobacco companies relied on few strategies and tactics to oppose sales ban proposals, and, despite the extreme threat to their business model that such proposals might portend, employed none that have not been previously identified in analyses of tobacco industry campaigns against other tobacco control measures [3234]. After a relatively public, multi-faceted campaign in Hawaii in 1990, the tobacco industry now appears to operate mostly behind the scenes, relying on allies to speak for it; this follows a pattern evident in its approach to other tobacco control efforts in the US, including the fight for clean indoor air in the 1990s, necessitated by its declining reputation [183]. A higher profile tactic that has not yet been employed–litigation–may be reserved until sales ban proposals in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach go into effect in January 2021.

Tobacco companies also used no new arguments to oppose tobacco sales ban proposals, advancing instead arguments drawing on themes previously identified in the literature [32]. While those broad themes might allow for the development of specific, novel argumentation against tobacco sales bans, we saw no evidence of that. Even the most likely candidate, a reference to alcohol prohibition in the US, was not entirely novel: the tobacco industry has for years positioned public health advocates as secret “prohibitionists” and has regarded exposing this secret agenda as an effective strategy to thwart tobacco control [184]. Although the industry deployed the Prohibition argument as recently as 2019 in Hawaii and Hermosa Beach, it may not be a reliably effective scare tactic. In San Francisco, California in 2018, for example, RJ Reynolds’ ad campaign linking the city’s flavored tobacco sales ban to alcohol prohibition–“Bans don’t work. … Stop the Prohibition Proposition [185]–failed to sway voters, who upheld the ordinance in a referendum by a large margin, with 68% voting in favor [186].

The available evidence did not allow us to determine whether particular tobacco industry tactics or arguments were responsible for the failure of most previous tobacco sales ban proposals. We were able to identify, however, those that were used more often, which may serve as a proxy for those that the tobacco industry regarded as most successful. These included working collaboratively and mobilizing allies to make the claim that sales bans hurt retailers, particularly small businesses, and for no good reason, since bans were unlikely to reduce smoking. This approach fits neatly into the industry’s overall discursive strategy in regards to any proposed tobacco control policy: exaggerating its potential costs and dismissing or denying its potential benefits [32].

Tobacco control advocates may take some comfort that tobacco sales bans do not appear to have stimulated a new set of tobacco industry tactics and arguments. Because those outlined here are familiar, advocates have, for the most part, experience countering them, often successfully. Advocates may also be reassured by the history, geography, and number of sales ban proposals put forward in the past 50 years, which may help minimize the sense that states and localities considering a ban are undertaking something unthinkable, unprecedented, or limited to places like California.

Until recently, public health organizations either did not support efforts to end tobacco sales, or did so only tepidly, because, they argued, sales bans lacked evidence of effectiveness. This approach was evident as recently as 2019 in Hawaii. However, in 2019 and 2020, numerous public health organizations supported Beverly Hills, Hermosa Beach, and Manhattan Beach in their efforts to end tobacco sales. In many cases, they based their support on the likely benefits a ban would have in reducing smoking prevalence among youth and adults, backed by research, developed over the past decade, exploring the link between tobacco outlet density and smoking behavior [20, 173180]. Thus, while these public health organizations could not point to another US city that had adopted a tobacco sales ban and seen tobacco use fall, they had some evidence of a ban’s likely effectiveness. (Hawaii’s proposal to end cigarette sales over five years by gradually raising the minimum age of purchase, by contrast, had less of an evidentiary base to draw upon.)

Public health organizations’ willingness to support a somewhat untested policy may have also been linked to the location of these proposals. California has low smoking prevalence and strong public support for interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke, including 57% public support for a “gradual ban” on cigarette sales [187]. The state’s Tobacco Control Program has adopted an “endgame” goal of ending the tobacco epidemic for all population groups by 2035 [188]. The bans proposed in California were also limited to individual cities, rather than the entire state, thus reducing the likelihood of possible negative outcomes, such as dramatic declines in state tax revenues, or the creation of a black market. In this environment, support for sales ban proposals was unlikely to be regarded as extreme or damaging to public health groups’ reputations.

The support of public health organizations likely was not the only factor that altered the trajectory of sales ban proposals in 2019 and 2020. If this were the case, proposals would have succeeded not only in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach, but also in Hermosa Beach, since all three were supported by public health groups. One factor that may have set Hermosa Beach apart was greater concern about the impact of a ban on local businesses. Three city council members (of 5) linked their “no” vote to these concerns, versus one in Manhattan Beach and none in Beverly Hills (both of which had identified resources to help retailers transition). Thus, it appears that public health support is a necessary but not sufficient condition to aid passage of tobacco sales bans.

Going forward, other local governments in the US will likely consider adopting a tobacco sales ban. Communities seeking to adopt new tobacco control measures learn from one another [189]; indeed, this process has begun already in Southern California, with the mayor of Carson citing Beverly Hills as inspiration for his proposed ordinance to end tobacco sales, and a city council member in Hermosa Beach citing Manhattan Beach as inspiration. Recently announced prohibitions on the sale of flavored tobacco products at local [190] and state [191] levels may also inspire discussion of ending sales of all tobacco products in the interest of policy fairness and consistency; several jurisdictions in our study cited just such an interest when considering their own sales bans.

Our findings likely represent a conservative accounting of tobacco sales ban proposals, and responses to them, in the US in the past 50 years, as the sources we relied on to identify proposals to end sales are incomplete. For example, the tobacco industry documents archive contains only documents produced in the legal discovery process; among those documents subject to this process, some may have been destroyed, including those that might shed light on additional tobacco industry tactics and arguments [192]. Another limitation of the archive is that it contains fewer recent documents, further limiting our understanding of how the tobacco industry responded to recent tobacco sales ban proposals, and requiring us to rely for this information on media accounts and records of public comments. The large size of the archive also means that we may not have identified every relevant document, thus underestimating the number of tobacco sales ban proposals. Similarly, while the media database we relied on for additional information encompassed a wide range of news sources over time, there were fewer news sources indexed in the 1970s than in later decades, potentially leading to an undercount. Tobacco companies may have also failed to track every tobacco sales ban proposal, particularly at the local level. Archival material that did not always capture details of legislative debate and public comment, and limited media coverage of early proposals may also have resulted in an incomplete picture of public health organizations’ responses.

Conclusion

Ending the sale of tobacco products is not a new idea. Unsurprisingly, the tobacco industry has repeatedly opposed it, while somewhat surprisingly, public health groups have only recently endorsed it. As the tobacco sales bans in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach come into effect in 2021, their impact will become clearer, providing valuable information to other jurisdictions considering their own approach to tobacco sales. They will also truly no longer be “unprecedented,” but may be regarded as a logical next step in achieving an end to the tobacco epidemic.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Salem, Massachusetts Board of Health meeting minutes, April-September 1994.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233417.s001

(PDF)

S2 Data. Gray, Maine Town council meeting minutes, December 1, 1998.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233417.s002

(PDF)

S3 Data. Westminster, Massachusetts Board of Health meeting minutes, May 21, 2014.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233417.s003

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Elizabeth A. Smith for reading and commenting on an early version of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1. Ravikumar V. Beverly Hills City Council votes to ban tobacco sales. USA Today. June 7 2019.
  2. 2. City of Manhattan Beach. City Council Meeting. February 4 2020 [cited 2020 March 21]; Available from: https://www.citymb.info/services/view/city-council-meetings-agendas-and-minutes
  3. 3. Uhrich K. Pasadena officials to look at outlawing tobacco sales in the city. February 5 2020 [cited 2020 April 1]; Available from: https://pasadenaweekly.com/pasadena-officials-to-look-at-outlawing-tobacco-sales-in-the-city/
  4. 4. Sharp S. Beverly Hills becomes the first US city to end most tobacco sales. Jun 5 2019 [cited 2019 July 15]; Available from: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-beverly-hills-ends-tobacco-sales-20190604-story.html
  5. 5. McDermott M. Tobacco sales will be banned citywide. October 5 2019 [cited 2020 April 1]; Available from: https://easyreadernews.com/tobacco-sales-will-be-banned-citywide/
  6. 6. Linder M. "Inherently bad, and bad only": a history of state-level regulation of cigarettes and smoking in the United States since the 1880s. Iowa City, IA 2012.
  7. 7. Brandt AM. The cigarette century: the rise, fall, and deadly persistence of the product that defined America. New York: Basic Books 2007.
  8. 8. US Department of Health Education and Welfare. Smoking and health: Report of the advisory committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. 1964 [cited 2020 April 7]; Available from: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-SMOKINGANDHEALTH/pdf/GPO-SMOKINGANDHEALTH.pdf
  9. 9. Lushniak BD. A historic moment: The 50th anniversary of the first Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health. Public Health Rep. 2014 Jan-Feb;129(1):5–6. pmid:24381353
  10. 10. U.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.
  11. 11. Text of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. 111 session 2009 [cited 2020 April 1]. Available from: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1256/text
  12. 12. Wakefield M, Germain D, Henriksen L. The effect of retail cigarette pack displays on impulse purchase. Addiction. 2008 Feb;103(2):322–8. pmid:18042190
  13. 13. Burton S, Clark L, Jackson K. The association between seeing retail displays of tobacco and tobacco smoking and purchase: findings from a diary-style survey. Addiction. 2012 Jan;107(1):169–75. pmid:21777322
  14. 14. Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, Cowling DW, Kline RS, Fortmann SP. Is adolescent smoking related to the density and proximity of tobacco outlets and retail cigarette advertising near schools? Prev Med. 2008 Aug;47(2):210–4. pmid:18544462
  15. 15. Hoek J, Gifford H, Pirikahu G, Thomson G, Edwards R. How do tobacco retail displays affect cessation attempts? Findings from a qualitative study. Tob Control. 2010 Aug;19(4):334–7. pmid:20671091
  16. 16. Carter OB, Mills BW, Donovan RJ. The effect of retail cigarette pack displays on unplanned purchases: results from immediate postpurchase interviews. Tob Control. 2009 Jun;18(3):218–21. pmid:19264731
  17. 17. Burton S, Spanjaard D, Hoek J. An investigation of tobacco retail outlets as a cue for smoking. Australasian Marketing Journal. 2013;21(4):234–9.
  18. 18. Smith EA, Malone RE. An argument for phasing out sales of cigarettes. Tob Control. 2019 Sep 21.
  19. 19. Chapman S, Freeman B. Regulating the tobacco retail environment: beyond reducing sales to minors. Tob Control. 2009 Dec;18(6):496–501. pmid:19748884
  20. 20. Finan LJ, Lipperman-Kreda S, Abadi M, Grube JW, Kaner E, Balassone A, et al. Tobacco outlet density and adolescents' cigarette smoking: a meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2019;28(1):27–33. pmid:29519934
  21. 21. Hyland A, Travers MJ, Cummings KM, Bauer J, Alford T, Wieczorek WF. Tobacco outlet density and demographics in Erie County, New York. Am J Public Health. 2003 Jul;93(7):1075–6. pmid:12835184
  22. 22. Loomis BR, Kim AE, Goetz JL, Juster HR. Density of tobacco retailers and its association with sociodemographic characteristics of communities across New York. Public Health. 2013 Apr;127(4):333–8. pmid:23515009
  23. 23. Marsh L, Doscher C, Robertson LA. Characteristics of tobacco retailers in New Zealand. Health Place. 2013 Sep;23:165–70. pmid:23933446
  24. 24. Reid RJ, Morton CM, Garcia-Reid P, Peterson NA, Yu D. Examining tobacco outlet concentration in New Jersey: does income and ethnicity matter? J Ethn Subst Abuse. 2013;12(3):197–209. pmid:23967882
  25. 25. Rodriguez D, Carlos HA, Adachi-Mejia AM, Berke EM, Sargent JD. Predictors of tobacco outlet density nationwide: a geographic analysis. Tob Control. 2013 Sep;22(5):349–55. pmid:22491038
  26. 26. Schneider JE, Reid RJ, Peterson NA, Lowe JB, Hughey J. Tobacco outlet density and demographics at the tract level of analysis in Iowa: implications for environmentally based prevention initiatives. Prev Sci. 2005 Dec;6(4):319–25. pmid:16163568
  27. 27. Yu D, Peterson NA, Sheffer MA, Reid RJ, Schnieder JE. Tobacco outlet density and demographics: Analysing the relationships with a spatial regression approach. Public Health. 2010 Jun 9;124(7):412–6. pmid:20541232
  28. 28. Fakunle DO, Milam AJ, Furr-Holden CD, Butler J 3rd, Thorpe RJ, Jr., LaVeist TA. The inequitable distribution of tobacco outlet density: the role of income in two Black Mid-Atlantic geopolitical areas. Public Health. 2016 Apr 10;136:35–40. pmid:27076440
  29. 29. Fakunle D, Morton CM, Peterson NA. The importance of income in the link between tobacco outlet density and demographics at the tract level of analysis in New Jersey. J Ethn Subst Abuse. 2010 Oct;9(4):249–59. pmid:21161808
  30. 30. Hillier A, Chilton M, Zhao QW, Szymkowiak D, Coffman R, Mallya G. Concentration of tobacco advertisements at SNAP and WIC stores, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 2012. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015 Feb 05;12:E15. pmid:25654220
  31. 31. Malone RE, Grundy Q, Bero LA. Tobacco industry denormalisation as a tobacco control intervention: a review. Tob Control. 2012 Mar;21(2):162–70. pmid:22345240
  32. 32. Ulucanlar S, Fooks GJ, Gilmore AB. The policy dystopia model: an interpretive analysis of tobacco industry political activity. PLoS Medicine. 2016 Sep;13(9):e1002125. pmid:27649386
  33. 33. Smith KE, Savell E, Gilmore AB. What is known about tobacco industry efforts to influence tobacco tax? A systematic review of empirical studies. Tob Control. 2013 Mar;22(2):144–53. pmid:22887175
  34. 34. Savell E, Gilmore AB, Fooks G. How does the tobacco industry attempt to influence marketing regulations? A systematic review. PloS One. 2014;9(2):e87389. pmid:24505286
  35. 35. Lencucha R, Drope J, Labonte R. Rhetoric and the law, or the law of rhetoric: How countries oppose novel tobacco control measures at the World Trade Organization. Social Sci Med. 2016 Sep;164:100–7.
  36. 36. Hiilamo H, Glantz SA. Old wine in new bottles: tobacco industry's submission to European Commission tobacco product directive public consultation. Health Policy. 2015 Jan;119(1):57–65. pmid:25467283
  37. 37. Cheyne A, Dorfman L, Daynard RA, Mejia P, Gottlieb M. The debate on regulating menthol cigarettes: Closing a dangerous loophole vs freedom of choice. Am J Public Health. 2014 Jul;104(7):e54–61. pmid:24832437
  38. 38. ASH (Action on Smoking and Health). Tobacconomics: How Big Tobacco uses dodgy data to throw 'sand in the gears' of global health policy. 2011 [cited 2020 March 16]; Available from: https://ash.org.uk/information-and-resources/tobacco-industry-information-and-resources/tobacconomics/
  39. 39. Seelye KQ. Massachusetts town votes to end bid for tobacco ban. New York Times. 2014 November 20; A21.
  40. 40. Ortiz JL. No smoking? Hawaii lawmaker wants to say goodbye to cigarettes forever. USA Today. 2019 February 5.
  41. 41. Truth Tobacco Industry Documents. 2016 [cited 2016 22 June]; Available from: https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/
  42. 42. Malone RE, Balbach ED. Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire? Tob Control. 2000 Sep;9(3):334–8. pmid:10982579
  43. 43. MacKenzie R, Collin J, Lee K. The tobacco industry documents: an introductory handbook and resource guide for researchers. 2003 [cited 2007 03 Apr]; Available from: http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/cgch/tobacco/Handbook%2008.07.03.pdf
  44. 44. Anderson SJ, McCandless PM, Klausner K, Taketa R, Yerger VB. Tobacco documents research methodology. Tob Control. 2011 May;20 Suppl 2:ii8–11.
  45. 45. Tobacco Manufacturers' Association. Legislative Bulletin. Special Report. Restrictive Legislation Affecting Tobacco Introduced in State Legislatures 1966–1974 October 25 1984. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ntyl0081.
  46. 46. Associated Press. First offender reformatory bill offered. Hope Star. 1969 February 188.
  47. 47. Welch FJ. Annual Summary Report On State Legislative And Packaging, Weights & Measures Activities. September 12 1969. American Tobacco Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/nzgg0177.
  48. 48. 1971 House Bill 0832. An Act Prohbiting the Sale of Cigarettes within the Commonwealth. 1971 [cited 2019 June 26]; Available from: https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/handle/2452/500286
  49. 49. New York Times. Cigarette Ban Proposed. September 06 1969. Lorillard Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/rkgg0113.
  50. 50. Lockwood R. Choate Hall and Stewart. [Legislative problems in Massachusetts]. October 27 1969. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/qnhg0030.
  51. 51. Mary. Ban of Cigarette Sales in Massachusetts. October 24 1983. Tobacco Institute Records; https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lgxd0026.
  52. 52. Dyer D. Proposed Ban on Cigarette Sales in Massachusetts. October 24 1983. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/tqfm0026.
  53. 53. State Activities Division State and Local Legislative Outlook November 17 1983. Tobacco Industry Influence in Public Policy. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jqjh0045.
  54. 54. House of Representatives Fifteenth Legislature 1990 State of Hawaii HB 2249. December 31 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/nybl0043.
  55. 55. Philip Morris USA Government Affairs. Weekly Report. January 19 1990. Philip Morris Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/hkmw0049.
  56. 56. Tobacco Institute. TI Legislative Report 1990 Final Summary. December 31 1991. Tobacco Institute Records; https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/zxhd0011.
  57. 57. Wetzel D. Doctor pushing tobacco ban in N.D. by 2000. Tobacco Institute Records; https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/qlfk0031.
  58. 58. Associated Press. N.D. Official Wants a Ban on Tobacco. Grand Forks Herald (ND). May 17 1990.
  59. 59. Goering L. Chicago Tribune. Iroquois County lights way for anti-smokers. November 4 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/snhj0034.
  60. 60. Associated Press. Officials say group's push to ban cigarettes burned out. The Pantagraph (Bloomington, IL). December 3 1990.
  61. 61. Olglesby Jr. MB. Weekly Status Report—Government Relations. April 22 1994. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jthv0087.
  62. 62. Salem Board of Health. Meeting minutes. April-September 1994.
  63. 63. Moskowitz S. Issues Update. January 1997. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/rhbf0024.
  64. 64. Nelson B. Morning Team Notes 1/14. January 13 1997. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/hxbn0000.
  65. 65. Nelson B, Walt K. Morning Team Notes 1/30. January 29 1997. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/gljb0006.
  66. 66. Media Affairs Monthly Call Report for September 1997 Highlights: US Tobacco in the News. September 1997. Philip Morris Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/fqmf0167.
  67. 67. Walt K, Nelson B. Morning Team Notes 9/29. September 26 1997. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/gpmy0187.
  68. 68. McCabe K. Boston Globe. Winthrop Plans Vote on Tobacco Sales Ban. October 16 1997. Brown & Williamson Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/sxmm0078
  69. 69. Associated Press. Winthrop residents air views on tobacco ban. October 16 1997. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/kybm0026.
  70. 70. Tuohy L. Boston suburb smoking over plan to ban tobacco. Pittsburg Post-Gazette. 1997 October 19.
  71. 71. Nelson B. Weekly Report for Morning Team. October 27 1997. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jkxp0189.
  72. 72. Mozingo RL. Weekly Status Report—State Government Relations. November 14 1997. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xfky0013.
  73. 73. Stone RJ. Connecticut, Massachusetts, & Rhode Island-Week of 4/3/98 April 01 1998. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/rhyh0023.
  74. 74. Nelson B. Morning Team Notes 4/28. April 27 1998. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/kqkg0102.
  75. 75. Kelahan B, Nelson B. Morning Team Notes 12–3. December 02 1998. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/kmhv0065.
  76. 76. Gacser A. Tobacco Manufacturers' Association. Tobacco Weekly. December 03 1998. Lorillard Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/nfgh0049.
  77. 77. Associated Press. Town council gives short shrift to proposed tobacco ban. December 02 1998. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/pmhv0065.
  78. 78. Gray Town Council. Meeting minutes. December 1 1998.
  79. 79. Brown M. Associated Press. Utah lawmakers call each other's bluff in move to outlaw sale of tobacco. February 19 1998. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/txld0033.
  80. 80. Mozingo RL. Weekly Status Report—State Government Relations. February 20 1998. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/fgpx0011
  81. 81. A ban on all tobacco sales? House votes yes—then no. Deseret News. February 20 1998.
  82. 82. Utah State Bills. December 30 1998. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mjxp0048.
  83. 83. Stone RJ. Worcester, MA—Citizen Petition for Tobacco Sales Ban. March 19 1998. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/phyh0023
  84. 84. Walt K, Nelson B. Morning Team Notes 5/12. May 11 2000. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/gyxw0189
  85. 85. Walt K, Nelson B. Morning Team Notes for 4/4. May 03 2000. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lqyl0187
  86. 86. Local Issues Activity. August 21 2000. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lphc0190.
  87. 87. Kotsopoulos N. Sena named to join license commission. Worcester Telegram and Gazette. 2000 May 15.
  88. 88. Winter D. A bit out of the ordinary? These proposals fit the bill. Bismarck Tribune. 2003 January 9.
  89. 89. Welle J, Ibrahim J, Glantz SA. Tobacco control policy making in North Dakota: a tradition of activism. 2004 [cited 2020 April 1]; Available from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9v58x8ps
  90. 90. Winter D. House panel endorses tobacco ban. Bismarck Tribune. 2003 January 16.
  91. 91. Ter Maat S. Talk of the town: sale of tobacco. Daily Herald. January 12 2006, p. 1.
  92. 92. Elk Grove Village Committee of the Whole. Meeting minutes. February 28 2006.
  93. 93. Barnes G. Small town, big issue—tobacco ban hearing ends on sour note. Worcester Telegram and Gazette. 2014 November 13.
  94. 94. Westminster Board of Health. Meeting minutes. May 21 2014.
  95. 95. Murphy SP. Raucous hearing on tobacco sales in Westminster halted. November 12 2014 [cited 2019 June 26]; Available from: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/12/westminster/S9AyaVOciqpDwMRAuuNpgK/story.html
  96. 96. Burgess A. 'Unruly audience' halts public input after 23 minutes. Fitchburg Sentinel and Enterprise. 2014 November 12.
  97. 97. Burgess A. Westminster tobacco outrage fuels talk of recalls. Fitchburg Sentinel and Enterprise. 2014 November 14.
  98. 98. Barnes G. Board drops tobacco ban—recall election effort advances. Worcester Telegram and Gazette. 2014 November 20.
  99. 99. Murphy SP. Westminster drops proposal to ban tobacco sales. November 19 2014 [cited 2019 June 26]; Available from: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/19/westminster-drops-proposal-ban-tobacco-sales/iUqa8BceSI1wO4rFtpqkUL/story.html
  100. 100. Burgess A. Westminster parties up tobacco decision. Fitchburg Sentinel and Enterprise. 2014 November 25.
  101. 101. Johnson C. Tobacco sales ban was right, but legal fight was too risky, expensive. Daily Herald. October 31 2017, p. 8.
  102. 102. Northwest suburbs in 60 seconds. Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL). 2017 October 16, p. 3.
  103. 103. McCarthy R. Saratoga considering ban on all tobacco sales. San Jose Mercury News. July 8 2018.
  104. 104. Saratoga City Council. Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting. August 15 2018.
  105. 105. Creagan R. HB 1509. 2019 [cited 2019 July 15]; Available from: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2019/bills/HB1509_.HTM
  106. 106. Hawaii lawmakers may ban cigarettes. San Diego Union-Tribune. 2019 February 6.
  107. 107. Dayton K Hawaii lawmaker drops plan to ban cigarettes until age 100. Honolulu Star-Advertiser. 2019 February 7.
  108. 108. Hawaii State Legislature. Status, HB1509, relating to cigarettes. 2019 [cited 2019 June 26]; Available from: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=1509
  109. 109. Phillippo L. Study of banning the sale of all tobacco products in Beverly Hills. February 5 2019 [cited 2019 July 9]; Available from: https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=3974&meta_id=390257
  110. 110. Phillippo L. Health and Safety Commission recommendations for an ordinance prohibiting the sale of all tobacco products. May 7 2019 [cited 2019 July 9]; Available from: https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=49&clip_id=6593&meta_id=398219
  111. 111. City of Beverly Hills. Upcoming Health and Safety Meeting Discussions on Prohibiting the Sale of All Tobacco Products in Beverly HIlls. 2019 [cited 2019 July 9]; Available from: https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=3974&meta_id=390259
  112. 112. Various authors. To the Beverly Hills Health and Safety Commission. 2019 [cited 2019 June 26]; Available from: https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=3974&meta_id=390261
  113. 113. Phillippo L. An ordinance of the City of Beverly Hills amending Article 21 of Chapter 2 of Title 4 of the Beverly Hills municipal code to prohbit the retail sale of tobacco products and electronic cigarette paraphernalia, and making a finding of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. May 21 2019 [cited 2019 July 8]; Available from: https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=49&clip_id=6619&meta_id=399735
  114. 114. Carson City Council. Video tape of city council meeting. August 20 2019.
  115. 115. City of Hermosa Beach. City Council Meeting Minutes. October 10 2019 [cited 2020 March 31]; Available from: https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-community/agendas-minutes-video
  116. 116. City of Hermosa Beach. City Council Meeting Minutes. November 12 2019 [cited 2020 March 31]; Available from: https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-community/agendas-minutes-video
  117. 117. City of Hermosa Beach. City Council Meeting. January 28 2020 [cited 2020 March 31]; Available from: https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-community/agendas-minutes-video
  118. 118. City of Manhattan Beach. Staff report. December 17 2019 [cited 2020 March 20]; Available from: https://manhattanbeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4278488&GUID=EBDB7796-112C-40F3-B9B3-91D87E4464AD&FullText=1
  119. 119. City of Manhattan Beach. City Council Regular Meeting Agenda. February 4 2020 [cited 2020 March 20]; Available from: https://legistar.granicus.com/ManhattanBeach/meetings/2020/2/1677_A_City_Council_Regular_Meeting_20-02-04_Draft_Agenda.pdf
  120. 120. City of Manhattan Beach. Staff report. October 1 2019 [cited 2020 March 31]; Available from: https://manhattanbeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4207583&GUID=61942096-4070-4AC3-8D5C-38911C0A11E8&FullText=1
  121. 121. City of Manhattan Beach. City Council Meeting Minutes. October 1 2019 [cited 2020 March 21]; Available from: https://manhattanbeach.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=manhattanbeach_548850ee863e87eccfda16cba37c8b7b.pdf&view=1
  122. 122. City of Manhattan Beach. City Council Meeting Minutes. November 5 2019 [cited 2020 March 31]; Available from: https://www.citymb.info/departments/city-clerk/city-council-meetings-agendas-and-minutes
  123. 123. Welch FJ. Annual Summary Report on State Legislative Proposals and Activities; and Packaging, Weights & Measures Proposals. August 27 1970. Philip Morris Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/hmmx0119.
  124. 124. Region V—Strategic Plan. May 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xgjl0051.
  125. 125. Mozingo R. Re: Ban the Sale of Cigarettes in Massachusetts. October 1983. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/zznd0002.
  126. 126. Tobacco Institute. Stateline. April 21 1994. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ymxp0074.
  127. 127. In Opposition to a Cigarette Sales Ban. 1994. Philip Morris Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lyvl0101.
  128. 128. Optima Direct Inc. Tobacco Product Sales Ban. October 08 1997. Philip Morris Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lfnf0060.
  129. 129. Stone RJ. Massachusetts-Week of 1/31/97. January 30 1997. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/rzph0023.
  130. 130. Kloepfer Jr. W. RE: Ban the Sale of Cigarettes in Massachusetts. October 27 1983. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/fgcm0043.
  131. 131. Boisse M. Hawaii Sales Restriction Bill. January 22 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/gkby0034.
  132. 132. Orzechowski B. [Tax analysis]. February 01 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jygb0038.
  133. 133. Dawson B. [One suggested approach]. February 2 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/zmbl0043.
  134. 134. Jacobson P. [Copies of SB 2168 and SB 2209 attached]. February 14 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/hmbl0043.
  135. 135. Tobacco Institute. Hawaii Project Script. 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/tmbl0043.
  136. 136. Legislative alert: pending legislation, Hawaiian senate. 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/fmbl0043.
  137. 137. O'Malley JA. Weekly Report, Region V. February 14 1990. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/rtll0094.
  138. 138. Crawford A. Westminster considers becoming first town in US to ban tobacco sales. 2014 [cited 2019 June 26]; Available from: https://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/11/09/westminster-weighs-nations-1st-tobacco-ban/
  139. 139. Barnes G. Selectmen get an earful—opposition to tobacco ban loud and clear. Worcester Telegram and Gazette. 2014 November 11.
  140. 140. Covington and Burling. S. 2209 would encroach on exclusive Congressional authority. January 17 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jmbl0043.
  141. 141. Tuohy L. A quiet town takes on smoking—Winthrop, Mass. wants to ban tobacco sales; merchants are fuming. Hartford Courant. 1997 October 16,. p. A1.
  142. 142. Tobacco Institute. Legislature Considers Tobacco Prohibition Black Market Would Thrive. February 15 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/nxhx0146.
  143. 143. Tobacco Institute. Legislature considers tobacco prohibition; Black market would thrive. February 15 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/qlbl0043.
  144. 144. Griscom TC. Following Are Highlights of Activities in Our External Relations Organization for the Week of November 19–21,1990 November 26 1990. RJ Reynolds Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/khfj0084.
  145. 145. Matthews J. Baltimore Sun. Smokeless vote lights Mass town. March 17 1998. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/sxkd0033.
  146. 146. City of Manhattan Beach. City Council Meeting. December 17 2019 [cited 2020 March 21]; Available from: https://www.citymb.info/services/view/city-council-meetings-agendas-and-minutes
  147. 147. Guthrie J, Hoek J, Darroch E, Wood Z. A qualitative analysis of New Zealand retailers' responses to standardised packaging legislation and tobacco industry opposition. BMJ Open. 2015 Nov 9;5(11):e009521. pmid:26553840
  148. 148. Lencucha R, de Lima Pontes C. The context and quality of evidence used by tobacco interests to oppose ANVISA's 2012 regulations in Brazil. Glob Public Health. 2018 Sep;13(9):1204–15. pmid:28884634
  149. 149. Sweda EL, Jr., Daynard RA. Tobacco industry tactics. Br Med Bull. 1996 Jan;52(1):183–92. pmid:8746306
  150. 150. Covington and Burling. S. 2209 would encroach on exclusive Congressional authority, produce adverse economic effects, and unjustly impinge on the right of citizens to sell and buy a legal product. February 06 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/ymbl0043.
  151. 151. Stone RJ, Foley T. Winthrop data and strategies. December 02 1997. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/xgwl0026.
  152. 152. Associated Press. Winthrop considers ban on sale of tobacco. September 30 1997. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/jkcm0026.
  153. 153. Statement of Philip Morris. 1990. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/qmbl0043.
  154. 154. Crawford A. Town debates banning tobacco. Charleston Daily Mail. 2014 November 11.
  155. 155. New York Times News Service. Retired Massachusetts lawmaker wants to rid his town of tobacco. October 12 1997. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/rjgn0047
  156. 156. Burgess A. Westminster business owners rally against tobacco ban. Fitchburg Sentinel and Enterprise. November 12 2014.
  157. 157. Wetzel D. Doctor wants to stub out smokes in N.D. Grand Forks Herald. July 2 1990.
  158. 158. Corcoran P. Prohibition for tobacco? Mayor's proposal to ban cigarette sales would be first in nation. Elk Grove Times. 2006 January 19, p. 3.
  159. 159. Harold L. Beverly Hills tobacco sales could go up in smoke. Park Labrea News Beverly Press. February 6 2019.
  160. 160. Goldberg C. Retiree wants to run tobacco sales out of town. Contra Costa Times. October 12 1997.
  161. 161. State of Hawaii Department of Health and others. Testimony commenting on HB 1509 relating to cigarettes. 2019 [cited 2019 June 26]; Available from: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/Session2019/Testimony/HB1509_TESTIMONY_HLT_02-07-19_.PDF
  162. 162. Lasalandra M. Winthrop board may stomp butts for good. Boston Herald. September 29 1997, p. 4.
  163. 163. Dyer D. Massachusetts Legislative Proposal to Ban Sales. November 15 1985. Tobacco Institute Records. https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/qyfm0026.
  164. 164. Wetzel D. Ban's support up in smoke. Bismarck Tribune. 2003 January 15.
  165. 165. Elk Grove Village Board. Minutes of the special meeting of the mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village Elk Grove, Illinois. February 27 2006.
  166. 166. City of Beverly Hills. Health and safety commission recommendations for an ordinance prohibiting the sale of all tobacco products. May 7 2019 [cited 2020 March 20]; Available from: https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=49&clip_id=6593&meta_id=398219
  167. 167. City of Beverly Hills. City Council Study Session. February 6 2019 [cited 2020 March 21]; Available from: https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbeverlyhills.granicus.com%2FDocumentViewer.php%3Ffile%3Dbeverlyhills_70473dde08f07e818ae17980e59a9199.PDF%26view%3D1&embedded=true
  168. 168. City of Beverly Hills. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes. May 7 2019 [cited 2020 March 20]; Available from: https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbeverlyhills.granicus.com%2FDocumentViewer.php%3Ffile%3Dbeverlyhills_10b50170fc41a358fa0111636a39b382.PDF%26view%3D1&embedded=true
  169. 169. City of Beverly Hills. Joint Meeting of the City Council and Parking Authority. June 4 2019 [cited 2020 March 20]; Available from: https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbeverlyhills.granicus.com%2FDocumentViewer.php%3Ffile%3Dbeverlyhills_a65636e1e25bbe902e56d8906a7c6663.PDF%26view%3D1&embedded=true
  170. 170. City of Hermosa Beach. City Council Meeting Agenda. November 12 2019 [cited 2020 April 1]; Available from: https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-community/agendas-minutes-video
  171. 171. City of Manhattan Beach. City Council Meeting June 4 2019 [cited 2020 March 25]; Available from: https://www.citymb.info/government/city-council/city-council-meetings-agendas-and-minutes
  172. 172. City of Manhattan Beach. City Council Meeting Minutes. December 17 2019 [cited 2020 March 21]; Available from: https://manhattanbeach.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=manhattanbeach_1699a44219d02fa38815d8548bbf409f.pdf&view=1
  173. 173. Cantrell J, Pearson JL, Anesetti-Rothermel A, Xiao H, Kirchner TR, Vallone D. Tobacco retail outlet density and young adult tobacco initiation. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 Feb;18(2):130–7. pmid:25666816
  174. 174. Pearce J, Rind E, Shortt N, Tisch C, Mitchell R. Tobacco retail environments and social inequalities in individual-level smoking and cessation among scottish adults. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016 Feb;18(2):138–46. pmid:25895953
  175. 175. Chaiton MO, Mecredy G, Cohen J. Tobacco retail availability and risk of relapse among smokers who make a quit attempt: a population-based cohort study. Tob Control. 2018 Mar;27(2):163–9. pmid:28432213
  176. 176. Reitzel LR, Cromley EK, Li Y, Cao Y, Dela Mater R, Mazas CA, et al. The effect of tobacco outlet density and proximity on smoking cessation. Am J Public Health. 2011 Feb;101(2):315–20. pmid:21164089
  177. 177. Halonen JI, Kivimaki M, Kouvonen A, Pentti J, Kawachi I, Subramanian SV, et al. Proximity to a tobacco store and smoking cessation: a cohort study. Tob Control. 2014 Feb 22;23:146–51. pmid:23436138
  178. 178. Cantrell 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 Jan;110(1):152–61. pmid:25171184
  179. 179. Pulakka A, Halonen JI, Kawachi I, Pentti J, Stenholm S, Jokela M, et al. Association between distance from home to tobacco outlet and smoking cessation and relapse. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Oct 1;176(10):1512–9. pmid:27533777
  180. 180. Abdel Magid HS, Halpern-Felsher B, Ling PM, Bradshaw PT, Mujahid MS, Henriksen L. Tobacco retail density and initiation of alternative tobacco product use among teens. J Adolesc Health. 2020 Apr;66(4):423–30. pmid:31784411
  181. 181. Farley SM, Johns M. New York City flavoured tobacco product sales ban evaluation. Tob Control. 2017 Jan;26(1):78–84. pmid:26872486
  182. 182. Zhou S, Wakefield M. A Global public health victory for tobacco plain-packaging laws in Australia. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Feb 1;179(2):137–8.
  183. 183. Glantz SA, Balbach E. Tobacco War: Inside the California Battles. Berkeley: University of California Press 2000.
  184. 184. McDaniel PA, Smith EA, Malone RE. Philip Morris's Project Sunrise: weakening tobacco control by working with it. Tob Control. 2006 Jun;15(3):215–23. pmid:16728753
  185. 185. McClurg L. San Francisco passes first-in-the-nation flavored tobacco, vaping ban. 2018 [cited 2019 July 24]; Available from: https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/441395/sf-voters-may-ban-vape-flavors-menthol-cigarettes
  186. 186. Yang YT, Glantz S. San Francisco voters end the sale of flavored tobacco products despite strong industry opposition. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Nov 20;169(10):708–9. pmid:30304334
  187. 187. Vuong T, Zhang X, Roeseler A. California Tobacco Facts and Figures. 2019 [cited 2019 July 24]; Available from: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/CTCB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ResearchandEvaluation/FactsandFigures/CATobaccoFactsandFigures2019.pdf
  188. 188. California Department of Public Health, California Tobacco Control Program. 2017–2021 Local Lead Agency Comprehensive Tobacco Control Plan Guidelines. 2017 [cited 2020 January 28]; Available from: https://otis.catcp.org/utilities/tcforFileFetch.cfm?docID=1104
  189. 189. Rogers EM, Peterson JC. Diffusion of clean indoor air ordinances in the southwestern United States. Health Educ Behav. 2008 Oct;35(5):683–97. pmid:17456855
  190. 190. American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation. Municipalities prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products. January 2 2020 [cited 2020 January 30]; Available from: https://no-smoke.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/flavored-tobacco-product-sales.pdf
  191. 191. Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. States and localities that have restricted the sale of flavored tobacco products. March 18 2020 [cited 2020 April 6]; Available from: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/factsheets/0398.pdf
  192. 192. Liberman J. The shredding of BAT's defence: McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia. Tob Control. 2002;11:271–4. pmid:12198281