You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Retailer perceptions of California’s statewide sales restriction on flavoured tobacco: lessons from qualitative interviews with tobacco retailers across four diverse jurisdictions

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Retailer perceptions of California’s statewide sales restriction on flavoured tobacco: lessons from qualitative interviews with tobacco retailers across four diverse jurisdictions
  1. Morgan M Philbin1,
  2. Zena Dhatt2,
  3. Tianna Jacques2,
  4. Rafael Colonna3,
  5. Elizabeth Andersen-Rodgers3,
  6. Justin S White4,5
  1. 1Division of Health Equity and Society, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  2. 2Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  3. 3California Tobacco Prevention Program, California Department of Public Health, Sacramento, California, USA
  4. 4Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  5. 5Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Justin S White; juswhite{at}bu.edu

Abstract

Background In December 2022, California became the second US state to put into effect a sales restriction on most flavoured tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes and flavoured e-cigarettes. This study explored tobacco retailers’ experiences with the statewide sales restriction across four Northern California jurisdictions with large Black communities.

Methods We conducted structured interviews with 25 store owners and managers at tobacco retailers from July to September 2023. These occurred in four Northern California jurisdictions, three without an existing local flavoured tobacco sales restriction (Elk Grove, Stockton, Modesto) and one with (San Jose). Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic content analysis approach.

Results Most (n=23) individuals owned or managed a tobacco specialty shop. We identified three main themes about retailers’ experiences: (1) challenges understanding how to comply with the sales restriction, due to a lack of concrete and consistent government information; (2) the restriction’s impact on business and customers, including selling new products (eg, anime plushies and glassware) and concerns that customers would purchase flavoured products elsewhere (eg, online or in another state) and (3) willingness to comply—most retailers reported attempting to comply with the restrictions, despite a lack of enforcement.

Conclusions Retailers reported that the sales restrictions had reduced overall flavoured tobacco product sales, which distressed businesses and customers. Retailers sought clearer guidance on products they could sell and requested assistance with transitioning away from selling flavoured tobacco.

  • Electronic nicotine delivery devices
  • Public policy
  • Prevention
  • Non-cigarette tobacco products
  • Disparities

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-059084

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • X @justinswhite

    • Contributors Conceptualisation: MMP, RC, EA-R and JSW. Formal analysis: ZD, TJ and MMP. Funding acquisition: RC, EA-R and JSW. Investigation: ZD and TJ. Methodology: MMP and JSW. Supervision: MMP and JSW. Manuscript drafting: MMP. Manuscript revision: MMP, ZD, TJ, RC, EA-R and JSW. All authors approved the final version. JSW is the guarantor.

    • Funding This study was funded by the California Department of Public Health (contract number 21-10222).

    • Disclaimer The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the California Department of Public Health or the California Health and Human Services Agency.

    • Competing interests The California Department of Public Health was involved in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation and writing. CDPH did not influence the results or outcomes of the study. CDPH reviewed the text prior to submission and did not influence whether and where to submit for publication.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.