Evaluations of Compliance With California’s First Tobacco Sales Bans and Tobacco Marketing in Restricted and Cross-Border Stores

Abstract

Introduction

Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach were the first California cities to end tobacco sales. Previous research assessed retailers’ perceptions of the laws. This study is the first to evaluate compliance (Study 1), assess whether branded or unbranded tobacco cues remain, and examine cigarette prices/discounts in cross-border stores (Study 2).

Aims and Methods

Each of the four data collectors requested Marlboro or e-cigarettes (randomly assigned) in all restricted stores (n = 33) until four attempts were exhausted or a violation occurred. Follow-up visits recorded whether former tobacco retailers advertised tobacco or contained unbranded cues. In a random sample of 126 cross-border stores (half within 1 mile of no-sales cities and half 2–4 miles away), data collectors recorded price of Marlboro and presence of cigarette discounts. Mixed models (stores within tracts), tested for differences between near and far stores, adjusting for store type and median household income.

Results

Compliance was 87.5%: three stores sold Marlboro (US $8, $10, and $10) and one sold Puff Bar (US $16). Tobacco-branded items and unbranded tobacco cues remained in one store each. Mean Marlboro price was US $10.61 (SD = 1.92) at stores within 1 mile of no-sales cities, averaging US $0.73 more than at stores farther away (p < .05). However, odds of advertising cigarette discounts did not differ between stores nearby and farther from no-sales cities.

Conclusions

Nearly all retailers complied with tobacco sales bans within 6–12 months of implementation. In addition, retail tobacco marketing was nearly eliminated in the two cities. There was no evidence of price gouging for Marlboro cigarettes in cross-border stores.

Implications

Evidence from two early adopters of tobacco sales bans suggests that such local laws can be implemented effectively in California, although results from these high-income cities in a state with a strong tobacco control record limits generalizability. Enforcement involving routine purchase attempts rather than visual inspection of tobacco products is recommended. Although Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach are each surrounded by communities where tobacco sales persist, there was no evidence of price gouging for cigarettes or greater presence of discounts in cross-border stores. Evaluations of the economic impacts and public health benefits of tobacco sales bans are much needed.

Introduction

Tobacco endgame strategies, which are aimed at ending rather than “controlling” the tobacco epidemic, were unimaginable two decades ago but now exist or are proposed in a growing number of countries. At least 10 countries have established goals to reduce cigarette smoking prevalence to less than 5%, including Ireland, New Zealand, and Sweden by 2025, as well as Australia and Finland by 2030.^1,2 Unfortunately, only five U.S. states (Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington) and the District of Columbia are predicted to achieve less than 5% smoking prevalence without establishing annual cigarette tax increases. Estimates of annual tobacco tax increases needed to attain 5% prevalence by 2030 range from US $0.02 per pack in California to US $1.37 in West Virginia.² Considering that 29 states have not increased their cigarette excise tax since 2003,³ additional strategies to achieve tobacco endgame goals warrant consideration.

Although California has the second lowest smoking prevalence among 50 U.S. states, tobacco use remains its leading cause of death and disease, responsible for approximately 40 000 deaths annually,⁴ with a yearly economic toll estimated at US $9.8 billion in health care costs and US $8.2 billion in lost productivity.⁵ In addition, adult tobacco use prevalence was 10.9% in 2022,⁶ with higher rates among populations that have historically been, and continue to be, targeted by the tobacco industry. California was the second U.S. state to ban sales of flavored tobacco (with exemptions for hookah, pipe tobacco, and premium cigars) in 2022, it increased the minimum legal sales age for tobacco to 21 in 2016 (3 years prior to the federal law), and its cigarette tax, which voters increased in 2017, now ranks 13^th among 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The California Tobacco Prevention Program’s Endgame Initiative intends to end the tobacco epidemic and eliminate tobacco-related inequities by promoting tobacco-free communities through local policies that end the sale of tobacco and make public places smoke-free.⁷ An essential component of these aims is to reduce retail supply of tobacco, which is highly accessible. In 2022, there were 30 237 state-licensed tobacco retailers in California for 3.2 million adults who used tobacco.⁸ This equates to approximately 94 retailers per 10 000 adults who use tobacco, higher than the estimate of 60 retailers per 10 000 adults who use tobacco in the United States overall.⁹ As of July 2023, 145 of 539 California local jurisdictions (cities and unincorporated counties) had adopted laws to reduce the number, type, and/or location of tobacco retailers.¹⁰

The most comprehensive supply reduction strategy is to end tobacco sales altogether, a strategy that two California cities have already adopted. Marking the beginning of the endgame in California, Beverly Hills (population 34 186, median income US $106 936) was the first city to end all tobacco sales (with exemptions for hotel concierge and existing cigar bars, and temporary exemptions for retailers demonstrating economic hardship) effective January 1, 2021.¹¹ As the mayor of Beverly Hills explained, “… there’s never been a more deadly consumer product than cigarettes. And so it is not surprising to say that this is too dangerous to be sold on every street corner.”¹² Beverly Hills offered small business consulting services and planned to assess impact on tourism after 3 years.¹³ Manhattan Beach (population 35 500, median income US $153 023) similarly ended sales effective January 1, 2021, but with only temporary exemptions for retailers demonstrating economic hardship, which expired on or before December 31, 2021. Both cities produced policy promotion materials (eg, street banners and newspaper ads) and conducted outreach to individual retailers. Using small-area estimation modeling, past-month smoking prevalence was estimated at 3.0% in Manhattan Beach, and 5.7% in Beverly Hills, compared with California’s 6.7% in 2020.¹⁴

To examine retailers’ responses to the local ordinances, the California Department of Public Health conducted a brief telephone survey of tobacco retailers in both cities during the first month of the sales ban.¹⁵ All surveyed retailers were aware of the law and effective date; among 11 respondents whose stores were subject to the bans, 8 reported that compliance was easy or very easy. In-person interviews of 22 former tobacco retailers in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach conducted 20 months after the local sales bans characterized multiple concerns for exemptions, being surrounded by neighboring cities without sales bans, and economic losses.¹⁶ According to the local health departments, Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach enforce the sales bans by relying on public comment and sending inspectors to look for tobacco products, not to buy them. No previous study has evaluated compliance with the local laws. Study 1 fills this important gap. In addition, Study 2 assessed whether tobacco advertising and other branded or unbranded tobacco cues remained in stores after the tobacco sales bans.

Study 1: Compliance

Method

Store Sample

Prior to the no-sales policies going into effect, the California Tobacco Prevention Program curated a list of locally licensed tobacco retailers in Manhattan Beach in September 2020, and Stanford Prevention Research Center obtained a list from Beverly Hills in October 2020, then cross-checked them with a list of retailers licensed by the state to sell tobacco that we obtained from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). We geocoded retailer addresses using ArcGIS 10.6.1 (successful geocoding = 100%). Phone verifications that were completed October 20, 2020 to October 27, 2020 confirmed that 29 Beverly Hills tobacco retailers and 18 Manhattan Beach tobacco retailers were open for business before local sales bans were effective. In Beverly Hills, 11 stores were excluded from purchase attempts because they were exempt from the local sales bans, one required membership, and one was permanently closed. One Manhattan Beach store that was still exempt from the sales ban was excluded, leaving 33 eligible stores across the two no-sales cities.

Purchase Protocol

Four professional data collectors (three female, all over 21 years of age) attended a 2.5-hour online training to evaluate compliance with local tobacco sales bans. Each data collector made a purchase attempt at each of the 33 eligible stores, conducted 48 hours apart, until either a purchase was made or all four attempts were exhausted. Data collectors were randomly assigned to request cigarettes or nicotine vapes and randomly assigned to store orders. At each attempt, a data collector approached a register with cash and a low-cost item (eg, gum, mints, or water) and requested either a pack of Marlboros or a Puff Bar. If the clerk declined, data collectors requested an alternate product (any other brand of cigarettes/JUUL pods). Data collectors paid cash for the low-cost non-tobacco item and whatever cigarettes or nicotine vapes were offered. They were allowed to pay up to US $25 for cigarettes and US $45 for nicotine vapes. After each attempt, data collectors returned to their car to complete a 12-item survey about the purchase request and store conditions, including store type, the presence of other customers, product and price paid, or reasons for refusal (up to three reasons per purchase attempt), and any additional comments. They photographed the tobacco purchase, then sealed it in a plastic bag with the date, store ID, and data collector ID. Figure 1 shows the data collection timeline.

Figure 1.

Data collection timeline.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics characterize compliance rates overall and by city. Data from the post-purchase attempt survey summarize what was purchased and price paid, presence of others if sale occurred, and clerk responses to unsuccessful purchase attempts.

Results

Data collectors completed purchase attempts in all 33 eligible stores in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach. The stores were convenience (34.4%), liquor (18.8%), pharmacies (15.6%), supermarkets (12.5%), small markets (9.4%) and other (9.4%). Compliance with local tobacco sales bans was 87.9% overall, 81.3% in Beverly Hills, and 94.1% in Manhattan Beach (Table 1). Three stores sold Marlboro (US $8, $10, and $10) and one sold Puff Bar (US $16). Three of four data collectors successfully purchased tobacco. The cigarette purchases were all made on the first attempt and Puff Bar was purchased on the second attempt. The unsuccessful first attempt in the same store where Puff Bar was purchased was a request for cigarettes with other patrons present in the store. Only one of the four purchases was made with other customers present in the store. No data collector declined a purchase because the price was higher than the threshold (US $25 for cigarettes, US $45 for nicotine vape). Among the 117 unsuccessful purchase attempts, most clerks (59.0%) said they could no longer sell tobacco; 29.9% offered no explanation, 10.3% suggested going to another city, and 6.0% suggested another store in town. According to a data collector’s comment, one clerk remarked, “We are a tobacco-free zone.”

Table 1.

Results from Tobacco Purchase Attempts at Former Tobacco Retailers in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach, California: September 29, 2021 to October 17, 2021

	Beverly Hills	Manhattan Beach	Overall
Number of retailers	16	17	33
Number of completed purchases	3	1	4
Violation rate	18.7%	5.9%	12.1%
Compliance rate	81.3%	94.1%	87.9%

Study 2: Tobacco Marketing Surveillance in No-Sales Cities and Cross-Border Stores

Background

According to the state’s Policy Evaluation Tracking System, 108 of 539 California local jurisdictions prohibited sales of flavored tobacco prior to tobacco sales bans in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach. Previous evaluations of such local laws provide evidence that, while the overall availability of flavored tobacco products in stores dramatically decreased, some retailers still advertised flavored tobacco products that they were prohibited from selling. In Chicago, for example, interior ads for menthol cigarettes remained in 29% of stores that were subject to a sales ban on menthol cigarettes near schools, and presence of the ads was associated with higher odds of sales violations.¹⁷ A 2020 evaluation of local laws to restrict sales of flavored tobacco in California observed that nearly half of stores (46.2%) advertised menthol cigarettes they could not sell.¹⁸ Tobacco industry marketing causes youth smoking initiation and continuation¹⁹ and makes it harder for people who currently use tobacco to quit.²⁰ Therefore, the continued presence of retail tobacco advertising could attenuate the desired impact of tobacco sales bans. For these reasons, Study 2 assessed whether tobacco advertising and other tobacco-branded or unbranded cues (eg, lighters and ashcans) remained in stores after the tobacco sales bans. In addition, to gauge how nearby tobacco retailers responded to the local sales bans, Study 2 compared cigarette prices and the presence of discounts at cross-border stores near no-sales cities with those located farther away.

Method

Sample of Stores Near and Far From Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach

To sample tobacco retailers that were near the two no-sales cities, we used ArcGIS v10.6.1, to create one-mile (Euclidean) buffers from the boundaries for Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach and randomly selected 65 stores from the 121 stores within 1 mile of either city. To develop a sampling frame for stores farther away, we created customized buffers. For example, the buffer for Beverly Hills excluded retailers in the San Fernando Valley (outside the Los Angeles basin) and excluded stores south of Interstate 10 and north of Interstate 405 freeways (see Supplementary Materials). We used the buffers to randomly select 65 stores from a sampling frame of 104 retailers within 2–3 Euclidean miles of Beverly Hills and 80 retailers within 2-4 Euclidean miles of Manhattan Beach (see Supplementary Materials). In Manhattan Beach, with 2.1 miles of oceanfront of a 9.1-mile city perimeter, a larger buffer was required to draw a similarly sized random sample of stores that were farther away from no-sales stores. To assess economic similarity, we compared the city median household income of Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach to household income for census tracts in which comparison stores were located from the American Communities Survey (ACS) 2015-2019 estimates (median income for Beverly Hills comparison stores (M = US $81 991; SD = US $31 201); Manhattan Beach comparison stores: (M = US $107 928; SD = US $32 329). Models also controlled for tract-level median household income.

Data Collection

The same four data collectors who conducted the purchase survey were trained to conduct retail marketing surveillance during a separate 7.5-hour online training spread over two days. Between the two training days, data collectors used an iPad to practice the survey, which was programmed in Qualtrics.

For follow-up visits to the 33 stores in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach, data collectors recorded store types and whether stores still advertised tobacco products they could not sell. Questions about the presence of interior and exterior advertisements (professionally produced and branded signs) assessed cigarettes, nicotine vaping products, nicotine pouches, and other tobacco products (eg, cigar products, chewing tobacco, roll-your-own/pipe tobacco, and hookah). Items about the presence of advertisements were collapsed by product type and location to assess: (1) any cigarette advertisements (interior or exterior), and (2) any other nicotine/tobacco product advertisements (interior or exterior). The presence of any cigarette discounts was similarly collapsed to combine interior (on packaging, shelf strips, or advertisements) with exterior advertisements. Questions about tobacco-branded cues assessed the presence of branded functional items, such as shelving units/countertop displays and other functional items (eg, branded ashcan, counter mats, and coin trays) by product type (cigarettes, nicotine vaping products, and nicotine pouches). Unbranded cues measured the presence of similar functional items without any tobacco branding (eg, sign for “cigarettes” or unbranded ashcan). Measures of branded and unbranded cues were collapsed by product type and location, to yield four outcomes: (1) cigarette branded cues, (2) other nicotine/tobacco product branded cues, (3) cigarette unbranded cues, and (4) nicotine/tobacco unbranded cues. In Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach stores only, data collectors were also asked whether: (1) pocket-size lighters (a pro-smoking cue) were sold, (2) the state-mandated tobacco age-of-sale warning remained near a cash register, (3) any interior signs mentioned the tobacco sales ban or offered tobacco cessation information, and (4) any interior or exterior signs mentioned alternate sources to buy tobacco (eg, online and delivery).

In the random sample of cross-border stores near Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach (within 1 mile) and farther away (2–4 miles), data collectors similarly recorded: (1) store type, (2) presence of advertising (interior and exterior) for cigarettes, nicotine vaping products, nicotine pouches, and other tobacco products, and (3) presence of any advertised cigarette discount (interior and exterior). As with marketing data for stores in the no-sales cities, questions about the presence of advertising by product type and location were collapsed into two measures: (1) any cigarette advertisements (interior or exterior) and (2) any other nicotine/tobacco products advertisements (interior or exterior). Questions about interior and exterior presence of cigarette discounts were similarly collapsed to the single measure of any. Data collectors also recorded the single-pack price of Marlboro red and Newport non-menthol, indicating whether the price included sales tax. In a randomly selected subset of 30 cross-border stores, repeat visits were performed a minimum of one calendar day after the primary visit to assess inter-rater reliability (see Figure 1).

Analysis

Local sales tax data were obtained from archived city and county sales tax rates for the last quarter of 2021 available online from the CDTFA. We linked these to data for cigarette prices based on store address geocoded to jurisdiction to compute price excluding sales tax. California does not have local tobacco taxes. Descriptive statistics were generated for the price of Marlboro red and Newport non-menthol (red). To assess inter-rater reliability in near and far stores, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were computed for price and percent agreement, and/or Cohen’s kappa were computed for dichotomous outcomes. However, the retail availability of Newport was surprisingly low, therefore its price was not reported.

Using ACS 2015–2019, estimates for median household income and population density were linked to the store observation data based on geocoded store address and census tract ID. To test for differences in cigarette pack price between near versus far stores, a general linear mixed model (stores nested within tracts) was fit that controlled for store type (convenience vs. all other store types), median household income scaled to US $10 000 increments, and population density scaled to 1000 person increments. A generalized linear mixed model tested for differences in the presence of cigarette discounts (interior or exterior) between stores near the no-sales cities and stores farther away, similarly controlling for store type and tract-level demographics, which are associated with place-based differences in cigarette price and marketing in other studies.²¹Figure 1 shows the data collection dates relative to the policies’ effective dates.

Results

Data collectors completed retail marketing surveillance in all 33 stores in the no-sales cities (completion rate = 100%) and in 126 of the 130 stores that were within 1 mile (near stores) or 2–4 miles (far stores) of the no-sales cities (completion rate = 96.9%). Reasons for incomplete were temporary closure (n = 1), permanent closure (n = 1), and membership fee/pass required (n = 2).

Stores in No-Sales Cities

None of the 33 observed stores in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach advertised cigarettes or any other tobacco products. Additionally, no stores advertised discounts for cigarettes. Only one store contained any tobacco-branded cues, specifically functional items for cigarettes and nicotine pouches. However, more than half of the 33 stores (56.3%) still sold personal lighters, leaving unbranded tobacco cues in stores that no longer sold tobacco. Other unbranded cues for tobacco remained in one store. Five stores (15.2%) still displayed the state-mandated tobacco age-of-sale warning near cash registers. None of the 33 stores displayed signs about the sales ban, signs with cessation information, or signs about online/delivery options.

Cross-Border Stores Near and Farther Away From Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach

The random sample of 126 cross-border stores, half near (within 1 mile) and half far (2-4 miles) from the no-sales cities was: 36.5% convenience stores, 21.4% liquor stores, 8.7% grocery/supermarkets, 7.1% small markets, 7.1% tobacco specialty shops, 2.4% pharmacies, and 16.7% other. Store type was assessed reliably (kappa = 0.86); as were presence of any cigarette and other nicotine/tobacco product advertising (kappa = 0.40 and 0.80, respectively). Presence of any cigarette discount was measured with sufficient reliability (kappa = 0.67). Regarding inter-rater reliability of price, the ICC for Marlboro red was 0.63, but the ICC could not be computed for Newport non-menthol due to low availability, therefore results are not reported.

Overall, the average price of Marlboro (before sales tax) was US $10.23 (SD = 1.48), US $10.62 (SD = 1.92) in stores near (within 1 mile) of Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach, and US $9.88 (SD = .76) in stores far (2–4 miles) from the no-sales cities. In a general mixed model that controlled for store type as well as census-tract measures for median household income and population density, Marlboro cost significantly more in stores near the no-sales cities than far stores (Table 2). The US $0.65 difference represents approximately half of a standard deviation of the single-pack price. On average, Marlboro costs an estimated 7% more at stores near no-sales cities than in far stores.

Table 2.

Predictors of Price of Marlboro Red (before Sales Tax) in Cross-border Stores (n = 126) Near and Far from Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach, California: November 26, 2021 to December 23, 2021

	Marlboro red price			Any advertised cigarette discount
	Coeff.	95% CI	p Value	OR	95% CI	p Value
Intercept	9.53	8.18, 10.89	<.001	0.64	0.09, 4.72	.66
Proximity to no-sales cities (Ref = Far, more than 2 miles)	0.65	0.00, 1.30	<.05	1.49	0.57, 3.90	.42
Store type (Ref = non-convenience)	−0.23	−0.80, 0.33	.41	7.60	3.13, 18.5	<.001
Median household income*	−0.01	−0.12, 0.10	.88	0.90	0.77, 1.07	.22
Population density†	0.04	−0.01, 0.08	.10	0.97	0.90, 1.04	.39

Observations were completed in 63 stores near (within 1 miles) and far (2–4 miles) from each city. Mixed model with stores nested within census tracts.

^*Divided by 10 000.

^†Divided by 1000.

Advertisements for cigarettes were found at 41.3% of nearby stores and 47.6% of stores farther away; advertisements for other nicotine/tobacco products were present at 38.1% of nearby stores and 44.4% of stores farther away. Overall, 33.3% of cross-border stores advertised a cigarette discount either inside or outside the store, and the proportion was the same at stores near no-sales cities and those far away. Contrary to expectation, mixed models that controlled for store type, neighborhood income, and population density did not suggest a greater prevalence of advertised cigarette discounts (interior or exterior) in near stores than in far stores, OR = 1.49, p = .416 (Table 2).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess retail compliance with local laws to end tobacco sales in California. Nearly all retailers were compliant: 87.9% overall, 81.3% in Beverly Hills, and 94.1% in Manhattan Beach. Compliant stores refused all four purchase requests (for cigarettes or vape products, randomly assigned) from all four data collectors (one male and three female) conducted at least 48 hours apart. These results comport with previous research indicating that retailers thought it would be easy or very easy to comply with a local sales ban on tobacco.¹⁵ Results from marketing surveillance in the no-sales cities also suggest that local laws to end tobacco sales virtually eliminated pro-tobacco cues from the retail environment. Aside from the presence of personal lighters in more than half of the former tobacco retailers in the no-sales cities, few other tobacco-related cues remained. Only one store displayed branded functional items for cigarettes and nicotine pouches, and one contained an unbranded cue for cigarettes. Thus, the local tobacco sales bans also had the effect of removing nearly all pro-tobacco marketing and cues. This result differs from evaluations of sales restrictions on flavored tobacco, which indicate that some stores still advertise flavored products that they cannot legally sell.^17,18

Although Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach are surrounded by jurisdictions that continue to sell tobacco, there was no evidence of price gouging in nearby cross-border stores. The California Department of Justice anti-price gouging statute prohibits raising the price of many goods and services by more than 10% during a state of emergency.²² Although Marlboro price was significantly higher at nearby stores (within 1 mile) than stores 2–4 miles away, the average difference was less than 10%. Contrary to expectation, the presence of advertised cigarette discounts was not greater at cross-border stores near and far from the no-sales cities.

Strengths of Study 1 include the multiple purchase attempts, with four different professional data collectors attempting a purchase in every store (48 hours apart) until all attempts were exhausted or a purchase was made. In addition, the requested product (cigarettes or nicotine vape products) was randomly assigned, which reduces bias and increases generalizability. However, because the protocol did not exhaust four purchase attempts for requested products in non-compliant stores, we cannot know whether non-compliant stores violate their local ordinance consistently, nor assess whether there was differential compliance for cigarettes or vape products. The protocol did not assess whether store clerks appeared to be male or female, which is a factor in studies of tobacco retailers’ compliance with minimum legal sales age laws.²³ In addition, by focusing on cigarettes and nicotine vaping products exclusively, the purchase protocol may have missed non-compliant stores that sell other tobacco products.

Strengths of Study 2 are: (1) a customized sampling frame to compare cross-border stores in similar neighborhoods near and far away from the no-sales cities and (2) the use of professional data collectors and a standard protocol to record the presence of tobacco marketing and price of Marlboro in those stores. A post-test-only design is the main limitation of Study 2. Were it not for COVID-related concerns regarding fieldwork, the same retail marketing surveillance would have been conducted in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach months before the cities implemented no-sales laws in January 2021. Indeed, store observations conducted before and after local sales bans would provide more detailed information about which and how many tobacco advertisements, branded displays, and unbranded cues existed before the sales bans were implemented, as well as what products replaced tobacco. For example, in-person interviews with former tobacco retailers in the study cities found that larger stores had moved high-theft items such as batteries, alcohol, lighters, and over-the-counter medications, including nicotine replacement products, into locked cabinets where tobacco products were previously shelved.¹⁶ The current research complements these findings by documenting the few branded and unbranded tobacco cues that remain at former tobacco retailers in the no-sales cities, as well as assessing cigarette price and tobacco marketing in cross-border stores. However, results for presence of any cigarette advertisements should be interpreted with caution given low inter-rater reliability (kappa = 0.40).

The current studies suggest that successful implementation of local laws to end tobacco sales is feasible in two high-income cities in California, a U.S. state that envisions a tobacco endgame. Indeed, a vast majority of former tobacco retailers in Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach were compliant with tobacco sales bans. However, some evidence of non-compliance in both cities suggests that it would be beneficial to complement the current practice of sending enforcement agents to look for tobacco products by adding purchase attempts. Future research with more purchase attempts per store is needed to test whether a comprehensive sales ban that applies to all retailers (as in Manhattan Beach) yielded greater compliance than a policy that exempts some retailers (as in Beverly Hills). Such research is important to inform deliberations about exempting specific categories of retailers from future tobacco sales restrictions. Longitudinal evaluations of the impact of the local laws (and exemptions) on youth exposure to marketing, initiation, and normative beliefs about tobacco are needed. Future research is also needed to address both the economic impacts as well as public health benefits of local laws to abandon tobacco sales. In addition, results from two high-income cities in a state with a strong tobacco control record have limited generalizability. Further research on facilitators and barriers to the adoption and implementation of tobacco sales bans in other contexts would be helpful.

Funding

This research was funded by the California Department of Public Health (Contract No. 20-10188) and support for manuscript writing from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health for Advancing Science and Practice in the Retail Environment (ASPiRE, P01-CA225597).

Declaration of Interests

No authors have any conflicts of interest to report. CDPH contributed to the study design, data collection, interpretation, and writing. CDPH reviewed the text prior to submission but did not influence whether or where to submit it for publication.

Author Contributions

Lisa Henriksen (Conceptualization [equal], Formal analysis [supporting], Funding acquisition [lead], Methodology [supporting], Supervision [lead], Writing—original draft [lead], Writing—review & editing [equal]), Elizabeth Andersen-Rodgers (Conceptualization [supporting], Methodology [supporting], Writing—original draft [supporting], Writing—review & editing [equal]), David Voelker (Formal analysis [lead], Writing—original draft [supporting], Writing—review & editing [supporting]), Trent Johnson (Conceptualization [supporting], Data curation [lead], Funding acquisition [supporting], Project administration [lead], Supervision [supporting], Writing—original draft [supporting], Writing—review & editing [supporting]), and Nina Schleicher (Conceptualization [equal], Data curation [lead], Formal analysis [lead], Funding acquisition [supporting], Supervision [equal], Writing—original draft [supporting], Writing—review & editing [equal])

Data Availability

Deidentified data are available upon request.