Table 3.

Estimates of % retailer density and smoking prevalence reduction following policy implementation.

Reference	Location	Level	Rate or Number	Retailer Type^*	School Buffer	Retailer Buffer
Retailer Density
Bright Research Group, 2016⁶⁹	San Francisco	City	7.5%	-	-	-
Lawman, 2019⁶²	Philadelphia	City	9.8%^**	. -	9.8%^**	-
Giovenco, 2018⁵⁰	New York City	Neighborhood	--	6.8% (0% - 50%)	-	-
Jin, 2016a⁵²	California, Massachusetts	City	--	50.7% 28.5%	-	-
Myers, 2015⁵⁶	North Carolina	County/State		13.1%- 18.3%/ 13.9%	17.7%-28.1%/ 17.8%	204% to 24.6% / 22.1%
Tucker-Seeley, 2016⁶⁰	Rhode Island	Census Tract	-	0% - 1.5%	-	-
Coxe, 2014⁴⁹	Santa Clara County (uninc.)	County	-	-	8.3%	2.8%
Ribisl, 2017⁵⁹	New York	Neighborhood			Lo Inc: 71.9% Hi Inc: 46.4% Lo % AA: 36.0% Hi % AA: 67.0% Lo % Hisp: 25.0%
	---------------	---------------	--	--	Hi % Hisp: 71.9% ------------	--
	Missouri	Neighborhood			Lo Inc: 30.5% Hi Inc: 22.9% Lo % AA: 18.1% Hi % AA: 34.0% Lo % Hisp: 20.9% Hi % Hisp: 23.8%
Smoking Prevalence
Hall, 2019⁶¹	6-State Region^***	County/State		15.6%
Jin, 2016⁶⁶	California, Massachusetts	City/County		CA: 0.05% (case) - 0.06% (control) MA: 0% (control) - 8.6% (case)

All studies examined pharmacy bans

^**

This is the % reduction in the number of licenses issued, and is in combination with a 500-foot school buffer, an increase in license fees from $50 to $300, and the loss of license eligibility if retailers have 3 youth sales violations in 2 years. uninc.=unincorporated; Lo=Low; Hi=High; Inc=income; AA=African American; Hisp=Hispanic

^***

Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee