Tobacco Control in Illinois
American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago
Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, killing more than 400,000 people
each year (Centers for Disease Control, 1996). This is more people than die annually from AIDS, homicide,
suicide, automobile accidents, illegal drug use and fires combined (Department of Health and Human
Services, 1995). In Illinois alone, nearly 20,000 people die each year of smoking-related illness (Centers for
Disease Control, 1996). The direct medical costs related to smoking in the United States is estimated to be
$50 billion each year; in Illinois they amount to $1.6 billion (Centers for Disease Control, 1996). Lost
productivity and absenteeism in the workplace cost other $47 billion nationwide.
In the first half of the 1990s, current smoking, defined as having smoked in the past 30 days, increased from
27.8% to 34% for high school students, and increased from 15.5% to 21% for eighth graders (Johnston,
1996). These young people are tomorrow‘s adult smokers and tobacco-related fatalities. Every day, 3000
American adolescents begin smoking (Pierce, Fiore, Novotny, Hatziandreu, & Davis, 1989), and it is
estimated that 1000 of these children will die of tobacco related disease (Centers for Disease Control, 1993;
Centers for Disease Control, 1996; Department of Health and Human Services, 1995).
Smoking also exacts a toll on non-smokers as well through environmental tobacco smoke. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1993) estimates that each year secondhand smoke is responsible for
3,000 lung cancer deaths in non-smokers, 26,000 new cases of asthma among children caused by mothers
who smoke, 75,000 to 150,000 cases of lower respiratory infections in young children, and an increase in
severity of symptoms for at least 20,000 asthmatic children.
Policies have been initiated at the federal, state and local levels of government to combat tobacco use. A
growing body of literature has developed within the field of public health attempting to understand how
policies effect tobacco use. Evidence suggests that no single policy may be a silver bullet. Comprehensive
tobacco control programs that integrate a wide range of tobacco control policies and initiatives have seen
some success (Jason 19). By combining tobacco education, smoking cessation, taxes, clean indoor air
laws, youth access polices and media campaigns, anti-tobacco messages are reinforced and tobacco use
becomes less attractive to youth and adults.
This report details the current state of tobacco control policy in Illinois. Each section gives background on a
particular tobacco policy area, describes the relevant Illinois laws, and details local efforts. This report
provides the foundation for developing a comprehensive tobacco control program for Illinois.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
YOUTH ACCESS TO TOBACCO________________________________________________________ 3
LICENSING _______________________________________________________________ 4
ENFORCEMENT ___________________________________________________________ 5
POSSESSION _____________________________________________________________ 6
SINGLES SALES ___________________________________________________________ 7
SCANNER LOCKS _________________________________________________________ 7
BEHIND-COUNTER SALES __________________________________________________ 8
VENDING MACHINES _______________________________________________________ 8
PROOF OF AGE ___________________________________________________________ 9
MERCHANT EDUCATION____________________________________________________ 9
TOBACCO BANS _________________________________________________________ 10
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: BILLBOARD ADVERTISING __________________________ 12
POINT OF PURCHASE ADVERTISING ________________________________________ 13
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ________________________________________________ 13
FREE DISTRIBUTION ______________________________________________________ 14
SPONSORSHIP ___________________________________________________________ 14
PREMIUMS ______________________________________________________________ 15
SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENTS ______________________________________________________ 16
PREEMPTION _____________________________________________________________________ 18
EDUCATION _______________________________________________________________________ 19
MEDIA ADVOCACY _________________________________________________________________ 21
DIVESTMENT ______________________________________________________________________ 22
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM _______________________________________________________ 23
LOBBYING ________________________________________________________________________ 24
CESSATION _______________________________________________________________________ 27
ADULT __________________________________________________________________ 27
YOUTH _________________________________________________________________ 27
REFERENCES _____________________________________________________________________ 28
YOUTH ACCESS TO TOBACCO
Youth obtain tobacco products from a variety of commercial and social sources. While it is illegal in all
states to sell tobacco products to anyone under 18 years of age, many young people are able to purchase
cigarettes in stores. Tobacco products also obtain tobacco through social sources. This includes older
people purchasing cigarettes for younger siblings, ―bumming‖ tobacco products from friends, or even
stealing cigarettes from parents or stores.
When minimum purchase age laws are not enforced, minors are readily able to obtain tobacco products
from commercial social sources (Surgeon Generals Report, 1994). Most minors who smoke purchase their
own cigarettes and the majority of nonsmoking youths believe it would be easy for them to purchase
cigarettes (Surgeon Generals Report, 1994). Easy access to tobacco is an antecedent to regular tobacco
use (DiFranza, Carlson, & Caisse, 1992; Jason, Ji, Anes, & Birkhead, 1991; Stanton, Mahalski, McGee, &
Reducing tobacco‘s availability to minors is important for several reasons:
The more difficult it is for youth to obtain a steady supply of cigarettes the less likely it is that youth who
experiment with smoking will become addicted.
Legal sanctions for the sale of tobacco to a minor deters youth who are reluctant to break the law.
Reduced availability also contributes to minors‘ perceptions of the social unacceptability of tobacco use
and emphasizes tobacco‘s dangerous nature.
Reduced access to tobacco reinforces anti-tobacco messages that minors receive in school and other
Perhaps most importantly, there is evidence that a reduction in youth tobacco use occurs when youth
access to tobacco products is reduced (DiFranza, Carlson, & Caisse, 1992; Jason, Ji, Anes, & Birkhead,
1991; Jason, Berk, Schnopp-Wyatt & Talbot, In Press; Jason, Katz, Vavra, Schnopp-Wyatt, & Talbot, In
Press; Radecki & Strohl, 1991).
The ready availability of tobacco coupled with slick marketing campaigns leads one adolescent in four to
become addicted to tobacco. While youth obtain cigarettes from a variety of sources, the maintenance of a
pack a day habit requires a steady supply. To obtain 365 packs of cigarettes a year, minors must purchase
them from a tobacco vendor. This pattern must be disrupted, the easiest and most effective way to do so is
by licensing merchants and enforcing youth access to tobacco laws.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibits the sale of tobacco to persons under 18 years of age
(FDA Tobacco Regulation 21CFR Part 897.14(a)). Illinois was one of 10 states in 1997 that received funding
to help enforce this regulation. The FDA contracted with the Illinois Liquor Control Commission to conduct
2000 unannounced inspections throughout Illinois in 1997. This contract was renewed in 1998. Under the
renewed contract ILCC agents will conduct approximately 9,000 unannounced retail compliance checks
over an 18 month period.
The first violation of the FDA regulation results in a warning, the second violation results in a $250 fine and
the third in a $1,500 fine. When a retailer is cited for violating the rule, a follow up visit is made within 90 days.
Sales of Tobacco to Minors Act
This law, originally passed in 1887 and amended in 1988, prohibits the sale of tobacco products to minors.
Under the state law, violators are guilty of a petty offense and fined up to $100. Additional violations are
subject to a fine up to $200. This law can be enforced locally using the compliance checks. One half of the
fines collected under this law are retained by the local government and the remainder goes to the state.
Even though selling tobacco products to minors is outlawed at the state level, some communities have
passed their own ordinances. Passing and enforcing local ordinances has a variety of advantages for Illinois
communities. It allows them to establish their own enforcement schedules, adjudication procedures and
fine structures. Additionally, the ordinance can specify that the store owner and not the salesclerk is
responsible for offenses.
A survey of municipal governments in Illinois concluded that 179 or 22.29% of those surveyed had enacted
ordinances concerning the sale and distribution of tobacco products. Only 65 of these municipalities
reported enforcing minimum-age ordinances and an even smaller number, 24, reported conducting stings to
enforce their ordinances (Gardiner, Broman, Hubrich, & Kreps, 1997). The studies findings suggest that
relatively few Illinois communities have enacted their own ordinances and even fewer are actively enforcing
In compliance with the Synar amendment, each state must calculate a compliance rate with its youth access
law. Illinois‘ 1998 compliance rate was calculated through inspections of 278 tobacco vendors (stores,
gasoline stations, mini-marts, restaurants, etc.). Illinois‘ compliance rate was calculated to be 86.3%
(Gardiner, Hubrich, & Kreps, 1998). The 1998 compliance rate reflects a trend of increasing compliance
rates in the Synar survey.
The upward trend in retailer compliance rates is confounded by recent increases in youth tobacco use. This
has suggested that youth are still able to obtain tobacco products relatively easily through social sources.
Additionally, it is likely that a large portion of the underage tobacco sales take place in a relatively small
number of stores which are known to youths as easy places to buy.
Licensing retailers who sell tobacco products is a valuable element of a comprehensive tobacco control
program. Issuing licenses provides an accurate list of tobacco vendors which can be used as the basis for
a stringent enforcement program. If an enforcement agency does not have a comprehensive list of retailers
it can be very difficult to systematically enforce the law. The license fee collected from applicants can also
be used to fund an enforcement program.
Finally, the threat of suspending a retailer‘s license for repeated violations of the law provides a strong
incentive to comply with the law. Without requiring a license to sell tobacco products retailers can be fined,
but not stopped. Many vendors sell several hundred dollars of cigarettes a day, so even a one day
suspension can amount to a substantial financial loss.
There is no state level retail tobacco licensing law.
Even though the state of Illinois does not require a license to sell tobacco products, some municipalities do.
The lack of a statewide licensing system increases the need for the establishment of local licensing
systems. It is reported that at least 172 Illinois cities and villages require a special permit or license to sell
tobacco (Gardiner, Broman, Hubrich, & Kreps, 1997).
The strictest youth access laws have no effect if they are not enforced. The majority of adolescent smokers
report having purchased a pack of cigarettes at least once (Gallup, 1993). Most adolescent smokers
purchase their own cigarettes despite the existence of state level legislation forbidding this in all 50 states
(Centers for Disease and Prevention, 1996; Gallup, 1993).
Enforcement of youth access conventionally takes the form of unannounced inspections of retailers who sell
tobacco. In these inspections, an enforcement agency sends underage youths into retail establishments to
attempt to purchase tobacco. If the retailer offers to sell to the youth then they are not in compliance with the
law. If they refuse to sell tobacco to the youth they are in compliance. In some instances, such as the City
of Chicago, citations are issued on the spot to retailers who are not in compliance. In others, letters are sent
through the mail informing the retailer they violated the law and informing them of the consequences. It is
important to congratulate retailers who complied with the law. This is usually done through a letter from the
enforcement agency who conducted the inspections.
Research has shown that, to be effective, unannounced inspections should be conducted at least three
times a year and that four times a year is optimal (Jason, Billows, Schnopp-Wyatt & King, 1996).
Non-compliant and compliant retailers should be inspected multiple times in one year to ensure continued
compliance. It is also important to include merchant education as part of an enforcement program.
Merchant education usually involves mailing retailers information about state and local youth access laws
and providing tips on how to comply with them.
In addition to enforcing the law, unannounced inspections are also used to assess compliance with the law
for research and assessment purposes. While these inspections do not carry any legal sanctions, they can
be a very helpful tool. Retailers can be informed that they violated the law and given information on how to
comply. Inspection results can be publicized to create greater public awareness about how easily youth can
obtain tobacco products.
The Illinois Liquor Control Commission (ILCC) is enforcing the FDA youth access regulations which prohibit
selling tobacco products to anyone under 18. The FDA regulations also requires that retailers check a photo
id for anyone who appears to be under 27. The ILCC will be conducting approximately 9000 unannounced
inspections in 1998-1999.
There is no provision for proactive enforcement in Illinois law.
Since little is being done to enforce youth access laws at the state level it is critical that Illinois communities
pass and enforce their own laws. In many cases, the local laws can specify a proactive enforcement
program. Local communities can also develop their own adjudication process for violations. Anecdotally, it
is suggested that communities who use the courts to adjudicate violations of youth access laws have
difficulty moving them through. Communities who use administrative processes such as a tobacco
commissioner who can rule on violations are better able to adjudicate violations.
A 1995 survey showed that 179 Illinois municipalities had enacted ordinances concerning the sale and
distribution of tobacco products. Of these municipalities, however, only 65 reported enforcing minimum-age
ordinances. An even smaller number, only 24 of them reported conducting undercover buying operations to
enforce their ordinances (Gardiner, Broman, Hubrich, & Kreps, 1997).
The Woodridge Example
In Woodridge, IL, baseline data indicated that approximately 70% of stores sold cigarettes to minors.
Community antismoking legislation was developed that involved licensing retailers to sell tobacco. The
ordinance specified an enforcement and adjudication mechanism. Inspections of merchants are conducted
regularly to enforce the law. Police cite violators and reported them to the Woodridge mayor who is
designated as the village liquor and tobacco commissioner. The mayor issues fines and suspends the
tobacco licenses of merchants of violators who are found guilty. After Woodridge began their enforcement
program, cigarette sales dropped to less than 5% (see Jason, Ji, Anes, & Birkhead, 1991).
Follow-up data with older minors in Woodridge, age 15-17 years, shows that sales remained at low levels
(below 20%, except for one sample when the sales rate was 25%) (Jason, Billows, Schnopp-Wyatt & King,
1996). Student surveys conducted two years after passage of this legislation indicated that rates of regular
smoking among seventh and eighth graders had been reduced from 16% to 5% (Jason, Katz, Vavra,
Schnopp-Wyatt & Talbot, in press).
The Cook County Example
In 1998, Cook County passed a law requiring retailers in unincorporated areas of the county to be licensed to
sell tobacco. The Cook County Department of Public Health was designated as the enforcement agency.
Since the law went into effect, unannounced inspections have been conducted on a regular basis to enforce
the law. The county-wide law complements community ordinances and enforcement.
A steadily increasing number of towns and municipalities have passed laws penalizing minors for the
possession of tobacco products. Such youth possession laws are one of the most hotly debated topics in the
tobacco community. It is a divisive issue and coherent arguments have been presented by both sides of the
debate. Such laws are popular with the public and with state legislators.
―Stand-alone‖ possession ordinances should be differentiated from possession as a component of a
comprehensive program that includes sanctions against tobacco retailers. Stand-alone possession
ordinances appear to have no impact on youth tobacco consumption levels, but as a component of a
comprehensive tobacco control program, however, possession seems to have a positive impact (Jason,
Katz, Vavra, Schnopp-Wyatt, & Talbot, In Press).
Mixed Messages—We send mixed messages to minors when we say that tobacco is a dangerous drug,
but they are not legally prohibited from possessing it or using it as they are with other drugs. This
appears to be inconsistent.
Widespread Support—The majority of the American public believes that everyone involved in the illegal
sale of tobacco to a minor should be punished. Everyone is seen as being part of the problem and it
seems only fair that youth should
Every Little Bit Helps—Given the seriousness of tobacco use, can society afford not to pursue every
possible solution. How many children does a measure have to save from a lifetime of addiction and a
painful death to be considered reasonable?
Blaming The Victim—Youth are victims of the tobacco industry‘s marketing campaigns. A youth
smoking epidemic would not exist if youth did not have access to tobacco products, if there was not a
demand for cigarettes created by carefully crafted tobacco advertising campaigns, and if cigarettes
were not carefully crafted to maximize addictions.
Harsh Penalties on Youth are Counterproductive—Responsibility and good citizenship are developed by
educating our youth and by reinforcing positive behaviors. Harsh treatment for behavior that they
observe adults engaging in is alienating.
Harassment—Youth possession laws can be applied in a discriminatory manner and selectively
enforced. Youth who smoke in public are easier targets than merchants who sell tobacco to minors.
Chilling Effect—Youth may be reluctant to seek help for nicotine addiction if their are breaking the law by
smoking. Parents may hesitate to report illegal tobacco sales to their children if they must implicate their
children by doing so.
Illinois law does not prohibit the possession of tobacco by a minor. It does, however, prohibit the purchase of
tobacco by a minor (720 ILCS 675/1).
Possession laws have been adopted by a number of Illinois communities. A survey of 803 Illinois municipal
governments showed that 223 of them had enacted ordinances prohibiting tobacco possession by minors
(Gardiner, Broman, Hubrich, & Kreps, 1997).
There is a federal prohibition on selling tobacco without a warning label. Despite this prohibition retailers
occasionally remove cigarettes from their packages and sell them individually. Called ―loosies,‖ these
cigarettes are often not openly displayed. They are more common in low income and minority
neighborhoods. This situation is all the more serious because the effects of tobacco use are
disproportionately felt in these same neighborhoods.
―Loosies‖ are more likely to be sold to children than to adults. Single cigarettes can be very appealing to
price sensitive minors(Institute of Medicine, 1994). Low cost and easy access may encourage
experimentation in children who would not otherwise have the opportunity to smoke. One study, conducted
in California, found that 101 of 206 stores sold single cigarettes to adults and minors and that more stores
sold ―loosies‖ to minors than to adults (Klonoff, 1994). Another study, conducted in Tennessee found that
one in four stores sold single cigarettes (Archibald, 1993).
There is no Illinois law dealing directly with the sale of single cigarettes.
At least 63 Illinois cities and one Illinois county have banned the sale of single cigarettes (Gardiner, Broman,
Hubrich & Kreps, 1997).
Electronic price scanners can be used to stop illegal sales of tobacco to minors. They can be programmed
to prompt clerks to check customer identification and require the entry of an override before the remainder of
the purchases can be processed. Some scanners display the last acceptable birth date, others require the
cashier to enter an acceptable birth date.
There are no Illinois laws concerning the use of electronic price scanners.
Electronic price scanners are currently in widespread use only in large chain stores. The technology is slowly
trickling down to the gas stations and ―mom and pop‖ stores which are the main sources of cigarettes for
Requiring cigarettes to be kept behind the sales counter eliminates self-service displays. Self-service
displays provide minors with quick, unfettered access to tobacco products in stores. These displays are
typically located near the cash register and display the tobacco products in open racks. Displayed in this
manner, tobacco products become easy targets for young people to steal. When cigarettes are kept behind
the counter, customers do not handle the tobacco until the sale is completed.
Research has shown that minors shoplift cigarettes from self-service displays. Over 40% of daily smokers
reported doing this in a study conducted in New York and Wisconsin. These findings prompted groups like
the Institute of Medicine to recommend that ―placing cigarettes behind the counter reinforces the message
that cigarettes are not in the same category as candy bars or potato chips (Institute of Medicine, 1994, p.
Another study compared smoking prevalence among minors before and after the passage of ordinances
that eliminated self-service displays in five California counties. The researchers reported a 40 to 80%
decrease in tobacco sales to minors that persisted for two years after the law‘s passage. It also found a
significant increase in the checking of identification which resulted in younger adolescents being
discouraged from trying to purchase tobacco (Kropp,1994).
There is no state level Illinois law dealing with self-service displays of cigarettes.
While no state law restricts the use of self-service displays, a handful of Illinois communities have enacted
such ordinances. At least 27 Illinois municipalities require cigarettes to be kept behind the counter
(Gardiner, Broman, Hubrich, & Kreps, 1998).
For the youngest smokers, vending machines are a primary source of cigarettes. One study found that 13
year-olds were 11 times more likely to purchase cigarettes from vending machines than were 17 year-olds
(Response Research, 1989). Many minors find it easier, if more expensive, to purchase tobacco when there
is no direct interaction with a clerk.
It has been reported that vending machines sales account for 4 to 8% of all cigarette sales (National
Automatic Merchandising Association, 1989). Among young smokers, however, this percentage is much
higher. Thirty-eight percent of ninth-grade, daily smokers reported using vending machines in one survey
(Cummings et al., 1992). In another survey, 53% of tenth-graders who were weekly smokers reported that
vending machines were a major source of cigarettes (Forster, Klepp, & Jeffery, 1989). Another survey found
that vending machines were ―often or sometimes‖ used by 20% of 12-15 year-old smokers (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 1992).
Sales of Tobacco products through vending machines are regulated as part of the Sale of Tobacco to
Minors Act (720 ILCS 675/1). Vending machine sales are permitted in:
Places not open to the general public;
Places where minors are not permitted;
Places where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed on the premises;
Places where the machine is directly supervised;
Places where vending machines are operated by an employee or through a locking device.
A survey of 803 Illinois municipalities revealed that 81 cities and 25 counties have enacted ordinances
restricting the placement of tobacco vending machines and at least 16 of the cities and 6 of the counties ban
all vending machines (Gardiner, Broman, Hubrich, & Kreps, 1997).
The 1998 Synar survey of youth access to tobacco revealed that youths were able to successfully purchase
tobacco from vending machines 28.0% of the time (Gardiner, Hubrich, & Kreps, 1998).
PROOF OF AGE
Research demonstrates that minors who purchase tobacco products from retailers are rarely asked to verify
their age. In one study 67% of adolescents were not asked their age when they attempted to purchase
cigarettes (Erickson, 1993). Laws requiring clerks to ―card‖ or ask the customer‘s age before selling them
tobacco products presents another barrier to youth obtaining tobacco products through retail outlets.
A study conducted in Washington where a local ordinance required a proof of age check showed a 60%
compliance rate when minors aged 14 to 17 attempted to purchase cigarettes. A five percent decline in the
smoking rate for this same age group was reported (Hinds,1992).
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires retailers to check a photo ID showing date of birth for
anyone under 27 years of age (FDA Tobacco Regulation 21CFR Part 897.14(a)).
There is no Illinois law dealing with identification checking for tobacco products.
No data is available on the prevalence of local in Illinois requiring identification checks for tobacco
Merchant education programs encourage retailers to comply with state and local laws voluntarily.
Educational materials describing the relevant laws and providing helpful hints on strategies for compliance
are mailed or delivered to local retailers. Frequently follow up phone calls or visits are made to make sure
the material was received and answer any questions.
Attempts to reduce youth access to tobacco products exclusively by merchant education programs are
comparatively ineffective. One study found that minors were able to purchase tobacco at 73% of stores that
had received an informational package telling how to reduce youth access. A more comprehensive program
was then instituted and only reduced the sales rate to 68%. When citations were issued to these same
vendors the illegal sales rate dropped to 31% (Fieghery, Altman, & Shaffer, 1991).
In 1998 the FDA expended $410,000 on a multimedia merchant education program in Illinois. The campaign
included billboards, newspaper ads and radio spots. In addition 20,000 retailer education kits explaining the
law were shipped to Illinois retailers.
The Illinois Liquor Control Commission (ILCC) has been involved with vendor education efforts for a number
of years. It conducted vendor education sessions in all six of its demonstration areas (Chicago, Danville,
Quincy and the counties of DuPage, McClean, and Saline). These trainings were conducted as part of the
states response to Federal Laws requiring the states to develop effective means by which to reduce youth
access to tobacco products. The trainings have been conducted in conjunction with the Illinois Retail
Merchants Association (IRMA).
There were several components to these joint ILCC/IRMA merchant education programs:
Increasing awareness of the law.
Teaching effective compliance techniques.
Providing educational materials for distribution to store employees.
In 1997 the ILCC began working with large retail groups such as White Hen Pantry and Jewel/Osco to
encourage the incorporation of effective youth access to tobacco strategies into existing employee training
programs. Additionally, the ILCC as part of its contract with the FDA, has been involved with merchant
education efforts around the FDA‘s regulations.
Most locally initiated merchant education programs are conducted by police or health departments, often as
the initial phase of youth access to tobacco program that includes licensure and compliance checks. The
quality of these programs varies widely
No community has succeeded in banning the sale of tobacco products. Such laws have been proposed in
other states and rejected by local governments. Such laws could be constructed by emulating liquor control
laws that have resulted in ―dry‖ areas through out the country. A ban on tobacco sales could also be
achieved by passing a tobacco retailer license law and then declining to issue licenses. A variation on this
approach is to ―grandfather in‖ existing stores and make there licenses non-transferable. A moratorium on
the issuance of new licenses could be enacted and the number of tobacco vendors allowed to dwindle over
There is no state-level law prohibiting a community from banning the sale of tobacco.
There are no Illinois communities that ban the sale of tobacco.
There is a large body of evidence demonstrating that an increase in cigarette prices leads to a decrease in
cigarette consumption. This evidence is based on econometric studies. (For a summery see Surgeon
General, 1992. Pp.127-136). Empirical studies conducted in countries that have enacted large price
increases supports this (Sweanor & Warner, 1993).
Tobacco is taxed in a number of ways. The most important are federal and state excise taxes and general
state sales taxes. Tobacco taxes were historically seen as a way to generate revenue; in recent years they
have been shown to be an effective way to reduce consumption - a public health measure.
Cigarette excise taxes vary widely. This fact, combined with the ease with which cigarettes maybe
transported between localities has led to smuggling. Cigarette smuggling becomes an issue when ever an
increase in excise taxes is considered. The tobacco industry uses the threat of smuggling to discourage
excise tax increases. The credibility of the industry‘s argument suffered greatly with the recent revelation
that they had been involved with schemes to smuggle cigarettes from through Canada to the US.
There are two types of cigarette smuggling: casual smuggling, which involves relatively small amounts for
personal use, and organized smuggling, which involves larger quantities for resale. Casual smuggling in not
problematic. Organized smuggling is dealt with under the Federal Contraband Cigarette Act of 1978 (Public
Law 95-575). This act prohibits the transportation, shipment, possession, distribution, or purchase of more
than 60,000 cigarettes with inappropriate tax markings. The act has been very successful in curbing illegal
Illinois has taxed cigarettes since 1941. The current tax rate is 58 cents per pack of twenty. All other tobacco
products are taxed at a rate of 18% of the wholesale price. All non-cigarette tobacco tax revenue goes to the
long-term care provider fund of the state treasury (35 ILCS 143/10-10).
Only Chicago and Cook County have cigarette excise taxes Chicago and Cook County. All other cities and
counties are preempted from taxing tobacco.
Special Taxing Districts
Illinois is home to a large number of diverse units of local government. These special districts arose from the
need to deliver specialized services. There is a possibility that some of these districts could implement a
tobacco excise tax.
For a general reference on this subject:
Flickinger, T. & Murphy, P.M. (1990). Special Districts. In Keane, JF. & Kock, G. (Eds.) Illinois Local
Government: A Handbook Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: BILLBOARD ADVERTISING
Cigarettes have long reigned as the most heavily advertised product in outdoor media (Fahey, 1995). In
1996, six of the top ten outdoor advertisers promoted either tobacco or alcohol and the three leading
advertisers were tobacco companies (Competitive Media Reporting, 1997). Expenditures on the outdoor
advertising of tobacco products totaled $655,295,000 in 1996 or about 1/10 of all outdoor advertising
revenues nationwide (Competitive Media Reporting, 1997). There has been some decline in recent years
because some tobacco advertising money has been redirected to promotional allowances and coupons as
well as developing databases on smokers though direct mail advertising (USDHHS, 1994; Brodessor, 1997;
Competitive Media Reporting, 1997). Outdoor advertising of tobacco, however, remains a potent force,
especially in urban areas.
Outdoor advertising of tobacco is of great concern because they are unavoidable. Motorists and pedestrians
alike, including children, are bombarded continually by outdoor advertising. The billboard industry has
historically exercised little restraint in placement of its advertisements. The Outdoor Advertising Association
of America (OAAA) adopted a voluntary advertising code calling for billboards near schools, churches and
hospitals to be labeled with a small sign indicating that age restricted products are not to be advertised on
that billboard. The code is also designed to set voluntary limits on the number of billboards in a market that
advertise products which can't legally be sold to minors (Outdoor Advertising Association of America, 1992).
However, this voluntary code is routinely ignored. In urban areas compliance with this code would mean that
many prime billboard locations would be off limits to lucrative contracts for age restricted products.
Billboards are placed for maximum visibility and advertisements are created to match the demographic
make-up and socioeconomic characteristics of the market (Edel, 1986; Rossman, 1994) and minority
neighborhoods may be heavily saturated with outdoor advertising of tobacco and alcohol products
(Hackbarth, 1995). The tragic result of this marketing strategy is that Illinois‘ children have maximum
exposure to outdoor advertising encouraging the use of dangerous tobacco products which they can not
Previous research, as well as anecdotal evidence provided by community activists, demonstrated that there
are many unlicensed billboards in the city of Chicago. The Chicago Defender reported that in some city
neighborhoods there are few unlicensed billboards while in other areas of the city up to 70 percent of all
billboards maybe unlicensed (Abraham, 1990).
One recent survey of 25 Chicago wards found that 19.7% of all licensed billboards advertised tobacco. The
number of tobacco billboards per ward ranged from 0 to 35, averaging 16.2 per ward. The percentage of all
billboards which advertised tobacco ranged from 0 to 57%, averaging 20%. It was also found that 54% of all
billboards advertising tobacco were within located within 1,000 feet of a school or park, ranging from a low of
0% to a high of 75%.
Demographic characteristics of wards associated with tobacco billboard placement are percentage of black
residents, low family income, percentage of families below poverty level, percentage of adults over 25 with
less than 12 years of education, and the percentage of population below age 18. The percentage of white
residents was negatively correlated with tobacco billboards (Hackbarth, Schnopp-Wyatt, & Katz, in
While there is no state level law governing billboards advertising tobacco, almost all billboards will come
down under the terms of the multi-state tobacco lawsuit settlement. The settlement specifies that when the
ban goes into effect, the tobacco companies are to make the advertising space available for health
messages. Illinois‘ Attorney General has accepted the industry‘s offer and will be putting up health
messages to replace
At least 13 municipalities and 6 counties claim to have enacted ordinances restricting or prohibiting tobacco
advertising and billboards (Gardiner, Broman, Hubrich & Kreps, 1997).
POINT OF PURCHASE ADVERTISING
Point of purchase tobacco advertising is ubiquitous in stores and gas stations. It usually takes the form of
window stickers, wall signs, clocks, counter displays. In many stores it is impossible to avoid tobacco
advertisements while attempting to make a purchase, in others it is impossible to see into the store from the
outside because of density of tobacco stickers and signs.
Point of purchase tobacco advertising is especially worrisome because it is frequently located at a level
where a child is likely to see it. The concern is that children will be attracted to the advertising message and
be tempted to try the product. Attempts to eliminate point of purchase tobacco advertising are vigorously
opposed by retailers because they receive ―slotting fees‖ for the placement of the advertising.
There is no state level law dealing with the placement of point of purchase tobacco advertising.
No data exists regarding Illinois municipalities with laws dealing with the placement of point of purchase
Municipalities with public transportation systems often defray the cost of providing the service by selling
advertising space on the sides of vehicles and structures such as bus stops and train stations.
No Illinois law dealing with tobacco advertising on public transportation systems exists. However, the
multi-state tobacco settlement prohibits tobacco companies from advertising on public transportation.
The decision to eliminate tobacco advertising on public transportation systems is most commonly one of
internal policy made by transportation authorities, not a legislative decision.
Illinois‘ largest pubic transportation system, the Chicago Transportation Authority (CTA) banned tobacco
advertising in 1997. The CTA ban was brought about through a board vote. The suburban transit system,
PACE, is currently considering a ban on alcohol and tobacco advertising.
The distribution of free ―sample‖ packs of cigarettes is a popular tobacco marketing strategy. These
samples are usually distributed at ―high intercept locations‖ such as festivals, county fairs, shopping malls
and sporting events. These samples constitute a low-risk and low cost way for young people to satisfy their
curiosity and when distributed at social functions lend an air of social acceptability to smoking.
Free samples of spit tobacco have been a cornerstone of UST (makers of Happy Days, Skoal, and
Copenhagen). One campaign offering free samples of Skoal Bandits reportedly generated 400,000
responses in three months (New York Times, 1984). In 1992-3, almost $16 million was spent on the
distribution of free samples (FTC, 1995).
Even elementary school children are able to easily obtain free cigarette samples. One study conducted in
Chicago found that four percent of elementary school students reported personally receiving samples of
cigarettes (Davis & Jason, 1988). The same study found that nearly half of elementary and high school
students reported that they had seen free cigarettes given to children. In another study one third of the high
school students sampled reported receiving free cigarette samples before the age of 18 (Surgeon Generals
The tobacco industry has a voluntary code in place that forbids the distribution of free cigarettes to minors. It
is routinely ignored
There is no Illinois law governing the free distribution of cigarettes.
At least 184 cities and 1 Illinois county have ordinances prohibiting the free distribution of tobacco samples
to minors (Gardiner, Broman, Hubrich, & Kreps (1997).
Tobacco companies sponsor a variety of sporting and cultural events to increase their visibility, alter
consumer attitudes, identify themselves with particular lifestyles, and ultimately increase sales. Event
sponsorship is reported to be effective in establishing qualitative attributes such as shaping consumer‘s
perceptions of brands, increasing brand-favorability ratings and generating brand awareness.
Sponsorship presents tobacco companies with opportunities for ‗imbedded advertising‖ that creates a
―friendly familiarity‖ between tobacco companies and event attendees. Those attending or a watching a
sponsored event repeatedly see company names and logos linked to an event that they enjoy. In the case of
televised events, sponsorships impact can be measured by the amount of ―free‖ advertising that appears on
This value of this advertising can be substantial. According to one study of Phillip Morris‘s sponsorship of
the Marlboro Auto Racing team in the 1989 season, the monetary value of the sponsorship was $8.4 million
(Blum, 1991). Another study examined the value of all product exposure for most US auto races and
estimated the advertising value of tobacco advertising in the 1992 season at $68 million dollars (Slade,
No law exists in Illinois prohibiting or limiting tobacco industry sponsorship of events. The multi-state
tobacco settlement includes limitations on industry sponsorship. Each company limited to sponsorship of
one event each year. An event may refer, however, to a series of events rather than an individual event.
The settlement also places certain restrictions on how the events may be advertised.
Local activity on sponsorship is limited to sporadic, event-specific protests at this time.
The provision of branded, non-tobacco items as a direct inducement to purchase cigarettes is widespread.
It most commonly takes the form of a coupon accompanying each cigarette pack (e.g. Camel Cash) or
some indication that each pack is worth a certain number of points (e.g. Marlboro Miles). Tobacco
companies print catalogs of items that can be obtained for specified amounts of coupons or points. This
method creates an incentive to purchase tobacco by reducing its real price, the purchaser gets the
cigarettes and a ―gift‖.
Research has shown that this form of marketing is effective with minors (Institute of Medicine, 1994, p. 199).
A recent study found that the possession of, or willingness to use, a promotional item was strongly
associated with future smoking. It was also estimated that 34% of all experimentation with tobacco in
California between 1993 and 1996 can be attributed to tobacco promotional activities (Pierce, Choic, Gilpin,
Farkas & Berry, 1998). Because young people have reduced amounts of disposable income, the idea of
‗something for nothing‘ is very appealing. Furthermore, many of the items offered are particularly appealing
to children (e.g. sporting goods, ―hip‖ clothing).
One survey (Gallup, 1992, p.17) found that nearly half of all adolescent smokers, and a quarter of
adolescent nonsmokers had tobacco premiums. Another study found that 48% of smokers and 28% of
nonsmokers reported owning tobacco branded clothing (Rosewell Parker Cancer Institute, 1993, p.26). It
has been reported that tobacco companies have spent in excess of $600 million on various programs that
provide premiums in exchange for coupons and points. While the tobacco industry has stated that these
items are intended for adults, many teens have reported participating in premium programs (Federal
Register, 1995, p. 41336).
There is no Illinois law governing the distribution of tobacco premiums.
Aside from occasional organized protests, there is no local activity dealing with premiums.
Second-hand smoke is a Group A Carcinogen, known to cause cancer in humans (US Environmental
Protection Agency, 1993). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that secondhand smoke
kills 3,000 Americans each year by causing lung cancer in non-smokers. Despite this, most Americans are
still exposed to second-hand smoke in workplaces and public places such as restaurants.
Children are particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke. Secondhand smoke exacerbates breathing
problems for the 12.4 million American children and adults who have asthma. There is also evidence that
exposure to secondhand smoke may cause asthma in children that did not previously have the disease.
The EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke from parents causes 150,000 to 300,000 lower
respiratory tract infections each year in children under 18 months old. These lower respiratory tract
infections result in 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1993).
Clean-indoor air laws are important for other reasons. They encourage people to stop smoking by making it
less convenient. Cessation rates are higher for people who work in smoke-free workplace (Borland, R.,
Chapman, S., & Owen, 1990; Brigham, Gross, & Stitzer, 1994; Dawley, Dawley & Glasgow, 1991;
Sorsensen, Rigotti, & Rosen, 1991). They also create an environment in which children see fewer adults
smoking thus reinforcing the social unacceptability of tobacco use.
There are two different approaches to establishing clean indoor air policies: regulatory and cooperative.
Because the state indoor air law preempts most local regulation, their are only a few local clean indoor air
laws. Many workplaces in Illinois are smokefree as a result of changes in company policy. Businesses
decide to restrict smoking for a number of reasons including employee comfort, lower insurance costs, lower
maintenance costs and reductions in employee absenteeism.
The Illinois Clean Air Act (ICIAA) (410 ILCS 80/1 et seq.)
To obtain a statewide clean indoor act in 1989, it was necessary to accept a provision preempting local
municipalities from enacting a more stringent ordinance. Communities with existing ordinances were not
The ICIAA which went into effect in 1990 restricts or restricts smoking in most public places and workplace.
Unfortunately, the ICIAA is relatively weak and does not offer adequate protection to the people of Illinois.
Another component which makes this law weak is the lack of an enforcement agency. In Section 8 of the
state law, it says, "The Department of Public Health, a local board of health, or any individual personally
affected by repeated violations may institute, in a circuit court, an action to enjoin violations of this Act."
While this appears to name an enforcement agency (the health department) and a potential penalty, in fact,
the health department has never taken a case to court.
There is no statutory enforcement authority in the ICIAA. Even though local municipalities are preempted
from stronger legislation, enforcement authority has not been given to any state authority. Enforcement
authority has been essentially delegated to local agencies who are handicapped by the absence of clearly
delineated penalty provisions. The Illinois Department of Public Health undertakes a cooperative strategy
including education and issuing warnings to enforcement the law.
In the past it was considered acceptable to smoke indoors unless "No Smoking" signs were posted. Now,
unless explicitly designated as a smoking area all areas are considered non-smoking. An owner, manager,
proprietor may designate an entire area as nonsmoking; however, with few exceptions, a whole building may
not be designated as a smoking area. The statute does not require that a designated smoking area be
established and does not give smokers the "right" to smoke in a public facility or place of work.
The most comprehensive survey of Illinois clean indoor air laws found that 184 cities and counties restrict
areas where smoking is permitted; 35 restrict smoking in public places and 19 restrict smoking in private
workplaces. Twenty-one cities and counties restrict smoking in restaurants and 8 prohibit smoking in
restaurants; 185 restrict smoking in government buildings (Gardiner, Broman, Hubrich & Kreps, 1997).
One of the first questions that arises when the prohibition of smoking in restaurants is discussed is the
economic impact of such bans. This concern has been exacerbated by the tobacco industry‘s vehement
opposition to clean indoor air regulations. Unfortunately this opposition has taken the form of a
disinformation campaign promoting the idea that such smoke-free restaurant ordinances lead to decreases
in restaurant revenue and decreases in business that necessitate the laying-off of restaurant workers.
This is simply not true. There is no reputable research to support it. Study after study has shown that
prohibitions on smoking in restaurants do not lead to decreases in business. The only research that shows
decreases in business are studies commissioned by the tobacco industry and released by public relations
firms working on the tobacco industry‘s behalf. Studies published in reputable scientific journals and subject
to the peer review process have consistently demonstrated that no net loss of business results from laws
prohibiting smoking in restaurants. Restaurant owners have nothing to fear from a ban on smoking in
A brief list of restaurant specific references with summery findings follows:
Glantz, S. A. and Smith, L. R. (1994). The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants on
restaurant sales. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1081-1085. This study examined the income
from restaurants in California and Colorado cities that had smoke-free restaurant ordinances and concluded
that these ordinances do not adversely effect restaurant sales.
Hwang, P., Toblas, S., Kohout, S. Harris, M., Satterwhite, D., Simpson, D., Winn, L., Foehner, J. &
Pedro, L. (1995). Assessment of the impact of a 100% smoke-free ordinance on restaurant sales –
West Lake Hill, Texas, 1992-1994. MMWR, 44, 370-372. This study examined the income from
restaurants in a suburb of Austin, Texas and found no decrease in restaurant sales following the
implementation of the smoke-free restaurants ordinance.
Sciacca, J. P. and Ratliff, M. I. (1998). Prohibiting smoking in restaurants: Effects on restaurant
sales. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 176-184. This study was conducted in Flagstaff, AZ
and found that the smoking prohibition had no effect on restaurant sales.
Corsun, D. L., Young, C. A., & Enz, C. A. (1996). Should New York Restauranteurs lighten up?
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, April, 25-33.
This study was conducted in New York City found that legislation mandating smoke-free restaurants attracts
more business than it drives away.
Preemption is a provision in state (or federal) law that eliminates the power of local (or state and local)
governments to implement regulations or pass their own legislation on a certain matter. It is the tobacco
industry‘s leading legislative strategy and the greatest threat to effective tobacco control efforts. The
tobacco industry values preemption because it eliminates municipalities‘ ability to regulate the sale and
distribution of tobacco products.
There are two general types of preemption, explicit and implicit. Explicit preemption occurs when
preemptive language is written into the law. An example of this can be found in the Illinois Clean Indoor Air
which prohibits local governments from passing second-hand smoke restrictions that are stronger than the
state law. The other type of preemption is implicit preemption which occurs when Congress or a state
legislature passes comprehensive regulations on a subject which are later interpreted by the courts as
―occupying the field‖ being regulated and therefore forbidding local regulation.
The primary threat to tobacco control efforts comes from EXPLICIT preemption. The only federal level
tobacco control preemption is found in the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. This act prohibits state
and local governments from regulating tobacco advertising based on health concerns. It is at the state level
that preemption poses the greatest threat. The tobacco industry has found state level preemption to be the
most effective way to keep local governments from damaging industry profits. The favored strategy is to
introduce a weak tobacco control bill that contains explicit preemption and then promote the bill as an
anti-tobacco measure. Another common strategy is to ―hijack‖ an anti-tobacco bill amend preemptive
language into it.
Because of the tobacco industry‘s poor image, preemptive pro-tobacco legislation is often introduced by
more credible groups. In Illinois, the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, the Petroleum Marketers
Association and the Illinois Restaurant Association often serve as ―front‖ groups for the tobacco industry.
These groups argue that preemption is necessary to achieve uniformity and avoid a ―patchwork‖ quilt of local
An example of this is found in the tobacco industry‘s response to Congress‘ passage of the Synar
Amendment. This amendment passed in 1992, required states to demonstrate reduction in youth access to
tobacco or lose substance abuse block grant funds. The tobacco industry and its allies (primarily trade
groups representing merchants and petroleum marketers) immediately began a nationwide campaign to
convince state governments that they would lose money if they did not adopt the tobacco industries
preemptive ―model legislation.‖ This claim was blatantly false. This push for preemptive legislation is
reflective of the effectiveness of local tobacco control efforts.
Why are local ordinances a danger to tobacco industry profits? Because they are easier to pass, they are
easier to enforce and compliance to local regulations is better than to state-level laws. Local laws also
reinforce the idea that tobacco use is negative and should be rejected. They also help change
tobacco-related social norms.
The Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act contains preemptive language that prohibits anti-secondhand smoke laws in
communities without an existing local ordinance at the time of the legislation‘s passage (19 communities
were ―grandfathered in‖).
Nicotine addiction usually begins in adolescence and is firmly established by the time the minor is legally old
enough to purchase tobacco (Department of Health and Human Services, 1995). It is estimated that 30.5%
of Illinois youth in grades 9-12 have smoked tobacco in the past month and that 13.8% of them are daily
smokers (Centers for Disease Control, 1996). The number of American children who smoke has risen
steadily since 1990 (Pierce, Fiore, Novotny, Hatzieandreu, and Davis, 1996).
School-based tobacco education programs are critical interventions to prevent children from experimenting
with tobacco use. When the first Surgeon General‘s Report was released in 1964, it recommended
targeting high school and college students with educational programs that educated them about the dangers
of smoking. The idea was that when young people learned that smoking was dangerous they would quit or
This led to the Information-Deficit Model of smoking prevention. A variety of programs based on this model
were used in the 1960s and early 70s. They focused on the use of lectures, films, posters and pamphlets to
increase youth‘s awareness of the dangers of tobacco. These programs often focused on arousing fear of
long-term health effects caused by smoking. Unfortunately, the assumption that awareness of tobacco‘s
dangers would lead to changes in smoking behavior were unfounded.
The information-deficit model has been, for the most part, replaced by the Affective-Education Model. This
model assumes that adolescents smoke because their self-perceptions were compatible with engaging in a
dangerous behavior. Interventions based on this model work to increase adolescent‘s self-esteem and to
build a value system that is incompatible with smoking. Unfortunately, this was no more effective that the
The failure of these models has led to an intensive effort to understand the nature of youth smoking. This
effort led to an understanding that the development of smoking behavior followed a series of stages that
began around the sixth grade. These findings made it clear that smoking prevention efforts needed to begin
much earlier and that more attention should be paid to the different stages that smokers progress through.
Another understanding that emerged from this period of intensive research was that the focus should be
expanded to include environmental, and socioeconomic factors that were found to be important
determinants of smoking uptake. Much of what has been learned has illustrated the importance of social
influences, social norms, and skills training. The resulting strategies have dealt with instilling behavioral
abilities, skills, methods and techniques (instead of knowledge and motivation) that help youth resist
pressures to smoke. Peer-led tobacco control programs have been shown to be an effective component in
the struggle to protect youth from nicotine addiction (Black, Tobler & Sciacca, 1998; Clark, MacPherson,
Holmes, & Jones, 1986).
The most successful programs share the following common components:
Conveying the negative short-term consequences of smoking such as social undesirability.
Understanding inaccurate beliefs about smoking such as the mistaken belief that the majority of
Exploring the factors that contribute to adolescent smoking such as the way that advertising establishes
positive cultural associations for smoking.
Teaching youth effective methods to counter these influences and how to convey these techniques to
Many successful programs also include more generic social skills training to enhance self-esteem and
reduce the motivations to smoke.
Well designed school-based smoking prevention programs work—if they are conducted properly. This is
supported by a several studies (For a review and meta-analysis see Black, Tobler, and Sciacca, 1998).
Smoking prevalence was shown to be lower among students in tobacco education programs containing the
elements listed above than among students in randomly assigned control groups and in equivalent
comparison groups. Unfortunately, these effects dissipate over time in the absence of additional
educational efforts or community components.
There is no Illinois law dealing with school-based smoking prevention programs.
Most Illinois students receive some form of school-based, anti-tobacco programming. Unfortunately, the
quality and intensity of this programming varies widely. Little assessment and follow-up work is done.
Media advocacy uses newspaper, magazine, television, and radio advertisements to communicate to
change attitudes and urge action around tobacco use. Media advocacy differs from traditional uses of the
media in communicating health information. It seeks to encourage public policies focused on health rather
than health messages. An example of healthy public policy is encouraging restrictions on tobacco
advertising so that the tobacco industry is held accountable for the misleading messages in its advertising
such as "Alive with Pleasure" or ―It‘s a woman thing.‖ An example of a health message is "Quitting smoking
contributes to a healthy, longer life.‖ Media advocacy shifts the focus from changing the individual to
changing the environment in which the individual acts. Media coverage of health problems related to
tobacco use increases the public‘s awareness and knowledge. Media advocacy moves beyond this function
and involves the public in the policy development.
Media advocacy is a vital part of a comprehensive tobacco control strategy. The term ―Media Advocacy‖
originated in the in the 1980s, a period when organizations dedicated to social welfare and public health
found themselves lacking in resources to make significant changes in public health policies. These
organizations needed to develop creative strategies to convey their messages to the public.
At its most basic level, the first use of media advocacy can be traced back to the civil rights movement and
the Vietnam war protests. Individuals in these movements knew that focusing media attention on their
cause would then bring their struggle to the attention of millions, rather than merely maintaining an intimate
dialogue between political leaders and activists. However, the use of media advocacy as part of a
multi-pronged approach really came to the forefront with public health causes such as tobacco control and
There are three key elements of tobacco-related media advocacy 1.) setting the tobacco control agenda; 2.)
shaping the tobacco control debate; and 3.) advancing anti-tobacco policy.
Divestment involves the elimination of tobacco company stocks as part of an investment portfolio. This
action may be taken by individuals, not-for-profit organizations, and governments. Tobacco‘s devastating
impact on public health aside, tobacco stocks are no longer a prudent investment. Tobacco‘s economic
performance is steadily weakening. In the last five years, the annual return of every major American tobacco
company has fallen below that of the S&P 500. Tobacco is no longer essential to the performance of a stock
The number of tobacco-related shareholder resolutions has steadily increased over the last 5 years. Many
shareholder actions were directed at suppliers of products used in the tobacco manufacturing process. As a
result of these shareholder resolutions, Kimberly Clark spun off its tobacco paper operations, 3M agreed to
stop tobacco billboard advertising, and Knight-Ridder established new guidelines for tobacco advertising in
The tobacco industry is operating in a hostile and continually deteriorating political and legal environment,
characterized by unprecedented legislative and regulatory threats and an increasing number of lawsuits,
brought on behalf of hundreds of individuals attempting to recover tobacco-related medical costs. The
tobacco industry is faced with an onslaught of steadily increasing financial, legal and ethical problems, it is
no longer economically or morally feasible for the state of Illinois to invest in it.
There is no state law covering state investment in tobacco stocks. The Illinois State Board of Investments
could, however, divest itself of all tobacco-related stocks.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
The relevance of campaign finance reform to tobacco control can not be underestimated. Only in the few
past years has the importance of tobacco industry campaign contributions entered public awareness.
Unfortunately, this awareness has yet to spur the degree of public outrage in Illinois that it has at the federal
Legislative politics in Illinois is dominated the leadership of the House and Senate. The leadership raises
money on behalf of their institution (House or Senate) and on behalf of their party. They disburse this money
to party members‘ campaigns. Because of the expense of running a media heavy campaign, many
incumbents are dependent on leadership‘s financial assistance to maintain their seats. This money is vital in
swing districts that can decide which party controls the legislature. In 1994, the average cost of a campaign
in a swing district was $380,000 for the house and $595,000 for the Senate (Merriner, 1996).
Tobacco industry campaign contributions buy political clout, a sad fact that is never to be overlooked in
discussions of tobacco control legislation. Excluding tobacco excise taxes, passed as budgetary
necessities, there has been no major anti-tobacco legislation in Illinois since 1989. Multiple bills are
introduced each session, usually to die without a first reading.
The Illinois Act in Relation to Campaign Finance passed in 1974. This act imposed disclosure requirements
but did not impose limits on campaign contributions. It does not cap donations from PACs or individuals. It
does not restrict transfers of politicians campaign funds to other candidates.
In order to examine a candidate‘s financial report (D2) one must fill out a form (D3) stating name, address,
phone number, occupation, employer and reason for examining the D2. Filings are available only in Chicago
Chicago has a weak campaign finance law.
Lobbying has been a valuable tool for the tobacco industry in thwarting the development of effective tobacco
control programs. Tobacco lobbyists vigorously oppose tobacco control legislation on behalf of the tobacco
industry. Lobbyist‘ tactics also include supporting pro-tobacco legislation and attempting to hijack good
public health legislation by introducing amendments that weaken it.
Some examples of pro-tobacco legislation include the following:
Preemption—Tobacco lobbyists seek to deny local governments the power to regulate tobacco by
inserting preemptive language into state legislation.
Loopholes—Legislation crafted by tobacco industry strategists often includes loopholes that can be
exploited to increase tobacco sales.
Limited Enforcement Authority—Tobacco lobbyists seek to restrict the authorities who are permitted
to enforce tobacco control laws. Generally, they prefer that authority be assigned to a state agency with
no enforcement branch or budget.
Outlawing Compliance Checks—The tobacco industry has worked to outlaw compliance checks
indirectly by passing youth possession law that bans all underage purchases. This legislation makes no
exception for compliance checks, thus making it impossible to conduct them.
Only Criminal Prosecutions—The tobacco industry generally advocates for laws that specify that
violations will prosecuted through the courts. They do this knowing that many judges are public officials
are hesitant to ―clog up‖ the judicial system with cases that are not seen as critical. When adjudication
occurs through administrative processes a law is much more likely to be enforced.
No Mechanism to Fund Enforcement—No funding is allocated to enforce the law and all moneys
collected as fines are diverted away from enforcement. This removes both the funding and the incentive
A list of lobbyists who represent tobacco interests in Illinois follows:
1998 TOBACCO LOBBYIST LIST LOBBYIST ON THEIR OWN BEHALF
Current as of September 1, 1998
PHILIP MORRIS MANAGEMENT CORP. ON BEHALF OF
ORGANIZATIONS MILLER BREWING COMPANY
CIGAR ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 400 TECHNECENTER, SUITE 302
1100-17TH STREET, NW, SUITE 504 MILFORD, OHIO 45150-2746
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20036 Telephone #: (513)831-5510
Telephone #: (202)223-8204 EXCLUSIVE:
Fax #: (202)833-0379 CRAWFORD, DEREK
TOBACCO & CANDY DISTRIBUTORS, ILLINOIS ALL-CIRCO, INC.
ASSOCIATION OF BOWMARK CONSULTING GROUP
KELLEY, HARRY L. CLIENT:
CLIENT: LOBBYIST ON THEIR OWN BEHALF
LOBBYIST ON THEIR OWN BEHALF
R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED 401 NORTH MAIN STREET
400 TECHNECENTER DR., STE. 302 WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA 27102
MILFORD, OHIO 45150-2746 Telephone #: (910)741-2738
Telephone #: (513)831-5510 Fax #: (910)741-4401
CRAWFORD, DEREK SUFFREDIN JR., LAWRENCE J., LAW OFFICES OF
RONAN, ALFRED G., LTD. LOBBYIST ON THEIR OWN BEHALF
WHIPPLE, JEFFREY T. & ASSOCIATES SMOKELESS TOBACCO COUNCIL
WHIPPLE, JEFFREY T. 1627 K STREET, S.W. SUITE 700
WILLIAMS, PAUL L. LAW OFFICES OF WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20006
WILLIAMS, PAUL L. Telephone #: (202)452-1252
CLIENT: Fax #: (202)452-0118
LOBBYIST ON THEIR OWN BEHALF CONTRACTUAL:
STAMP LTD., ZACK
PHILIP MORRIS MANAGEMENT CORP. ON BEHALF OF MCFADDEN, KEVIN J.
KRAFT GENERAL FOODS STAMP, ZACK
400 TECHNECENTER DRIVE, SUITE 302 CLIENT:
MILFORD, OHIO 45150-2746 LOBBYIST ON OWN BEHALF.
Telephone #: (513)831-5510
EXCLUSIVE: TOBACCO & CANDY DISTRIBUTORS, ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF
CRAWFORD, DEREK 520 S. SECOND ST., SUITE 402
CONTRACTUAL: SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62701
WHIPPLE, JEFFREY T. & ASSOCIATES Telephone #: (217)544-7161
WHIPPLE, JEFFREY T. Fax #: (217)544-0874
KELLEY, HARRY L. BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICAN, INC.
CLIENT: BI INCORPORATED
CIGAR ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. BRONNER GROUP, INC.
CABLE TELEVISION AND COMMUNICATIONS
TOBACCO INSTITUTE ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS
125 AIRPORT PARKWAY, #120 CENTENE CORPORATION
GREENWOOD, INDIANA 46143 CHICAGOLAND INDEPENDENT HOSPITAL ALLIANCE
Telephone #: (317)887-6867 CITY OF NORTHLAKE
Fax #: (317)887-6891 CLARK DIETZ, INCORPORATED
EXCLUSIVE: COUNTY CLERKS AND RECORDERS,
RIZZO, RAYMOND ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF
CONTRACTUAL: EDWARDS AND KELCEY AND KELCEY
O'CONNELL, JOHN T. LTD. DESIGN SERVICES, INC.
O'CONNELL, JOHN T. EMPRESS RIVER CASINO CORP.
CLIENT: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE COMPANIES,
LOBBYIST ON THEIR OWN BEHALF ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF
FORD HEIGHTS BONDHOLDERS
UST PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC. FREMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT #79
100 W. PUTNAM AVENUE GAS TECHNOLOGY, INSTITUTE OF
GREENWICH, CONNECTICUT 06830 HAMMES COMPANY
Telephone #: (203)622-3240 HEFTER, HARRY O. & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Fax #: (203)661-5613 HILLCO REALTY MANAGEMENT
CONTRACTUAL: HNTB CORPORATION
TOBACCO & CANDY DISTRIBUTORS, ILLINOIS CIVIL JUSTICE LEAGUE
ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS COLLEGE OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS
CLIENT: ILLINOIS DENTAL HYGIENISTS ASSOCIATION
LOBBYIST ON THEIR OWN BEHALF ILLINOIS FREESTANDING SURGERY CENTER ASSN.
ILLINOIS NURSERYMEN'S ASSOCIATION
LOBBYISTS INSURANCE AUTO AUCTIONS
ALL-CIRCO, INC. INTERCOUNTY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE CO.
111 WEST WASHINGTON ST., SUITE 1920 INTERCOUNTY TITLE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 INTERVENTIONS
Telephone #: (312)750-9262 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
Fax #: (312)750-9273 MARCH OF DIMES BIRTH DEFECTS FOUNDATION
EXCLUSIVE: MEDICAL EQUIPMENT SERVICES,
ELLIS, JON K. ILLINOIS ASSOCIATION FOR
FLYNN, NEIL F. MONSANTO COMPANY
MURPHY, THOMAS J. MUNDELEIN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 120
CLIENT: NASH, LALICH & KRALOVEC
AMERITECH NEW MEDIA, INC. O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INC.
ENVIROTEST ILLINOIS, INC. OWENS-CORNING
ERICSSON, INC. PANDOLFI, TOPOLSKI, WEISS & COMPANY, LTD.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED
ILLINOIS CEMETERY & FUNERAL HOME ASSN. PRAIRIE STATE COLLEGE
ILLINOIS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SACRED HEART HOSPITAL
ILLINOIS PUBLIC TRANSIT ASSOCIATION SOLUTIA, INC.
INDEPENDENT INSURERS, NATIONAL ASSN. OF SPECIALTY INSURORS ASSOCIATION
NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSE FOR LEGAL SERVICES SVERDRUP FACILITIES, INC.
NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SYBASE, INCORPORATED
PHILIP MORRIS MANAGEMENT CORP. ON BEHALF TITLE LOANS OF AMERICA, INC.
OF MILLER BREWING COMPANY U.S. PUBLIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION VALLEY AMBULATORY SURGERY CENTER
UNIVERSITY VILLAGE ASSOCIATION VILLAGE OF MELROSE PARK
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. VILLAGE OF RIVER GROVE
WEST GROUP VILLAGE OF STONE PARK
WOMEN'S TREATMENT CENTER, THE
BOWMARK CONSULTING GROUP
408 S. 5TH ST., SUITE 201
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62701
Telephone #: (217)789-1570 STAMP LTD., ZACK
Fax #: (217)753-3439 601 WEST MONROE ST.
EXCLUSIVE: SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62704
STRAWN, MARK Telephone #: (217)525-0700
CLIENT: Fax #: (217)525-0780
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF ILLINOIS EXCLUSIVE:
CABLE TELEVISION AND COMMUNICATIONS MCFADDEN, KEVIN J.
ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS PETERSEN, KIRK H.
COLLECTION CONSORTIUM, INC. STAMP, ZACK
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY CLIENT:
HOUSING AUTHORITIES, ILLINOIS ASSN. OF AETNA, INC.
ILLINOIS CITIZENS FOR BETTER HIGHWAYS AMERICAN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
KNIGHT ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PLANNERS AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
MULTISTATE ASSOCIATES, INC. ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
PHILIP MORRIS MANAGEMENT CORP. ON BEHALF ATTORNEYS' TITLE INSURANCE FUND, INC.
OF MILLER BREWING COMPANY BULL HN INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC.
SINGER ASSET FINANCE COMPANY DENTAL BENEFIT PROVIDERS, INC.
TTX COMPANY FORETHOUGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
HUMAN RIGHTS, ILLINOIS FEDERATION FOR
RONAN, ALFRED G., LTD. ILLINOIS CASUALTY COMPANY
225 W WASHINGTON, SUITE 1700 ILLINOIS COIN MACHINE OPERATORS ASSN.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 ILLINOIS COUNSELOR ORGANIZATION,
Telephone #: (312)629-1177 COALITION OF
Fax #: (312)629-3504 ILLINOIS FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION
EXCLUSIVE: ILLINOIS MINE SUBSIDENCE INSURANCE FUND
MCDANIEL, JAMES ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AGENCY
POTTS, JOHN JANE ADDAMS HULL HOUSE ASSOCIATION
RONAN, ALFRED G. O'CONNELL & STAMP, LTD.
STARSIAK, JULIE PROFESSIONAL NATIONAL TITLE NETWORK, INC.
CONTRACTUAL: SAINT MARY OF NAZARETH HOSPITAL CENTER
LESH, MOLLY-INDIVIDUALLY REG. SMOKELESS TOBACCO COUNCIL
CLIENT: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY CHAPMAN AND CUTLER
TIAA-CREF CHICAGO DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY
SUFFREDIN JR., LAWRENCE J., LAW OFFICES OF FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT ILLINOIS
444 NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE, 25TH FLOOR COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611 FREEMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT
Telephone #: (312)836-4120 ILLINOIS COUNSELOR ORGANIZATIONS,
Fax #: (312)527-2012 COALITION OF
EXCLUSIVE: ILLINOIS EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY
NICOLAY, JOHN D. ILLINOIS FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION
SUFFREDIN JR., LAWRENCE J. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
CONTRACTUAL: ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AGENCY
WILLIAMS, PAUL L. LAW OFFICES OF METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT
WILLIAMS, PAUL L. OF GREATER CHICAGO
CLIENT: MUNDELIEN HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT #120
ABBOTT LABORATORIES O'CONNELL & STAMP, LTD.
CARDIO-SAVE ENTERPRISES LLC S & L WAUKEGAN L.P.
CHICAGO BAR ASSOCIATION TOBACCO INSTITUTE
CITY OF EVANSTON VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
DEHART AND DARR ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF HODGKINS
DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC.
DUPONT MERCK WILLIAMS, PAUL L. LAW OFFICES OF
ILLINOIS ARTS ALLIANCE 1919 WEST 87TH STREET
ILLINOIS CITIZENS FOR HANDGUN CONTROL CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60620
ILLINOIS PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Telephone #: (773)298-5050
ILLINOIS RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION Fax #: (773)298-0079
MIDWEST CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF EXCLUSIVE:
ORIENTAL MEDICINE WILLIAMS, PAUL L.
MUSEUMS IN THE PARK SUFFREDIN JR., LAWRENCE J.
NATIONAL LEKOTEK CENTER CLIENT:
NEMEROVSKI, STEVEN-INDIVIDUALLY REG. CABLE TELEVISION AND COMMUNICATIONS
PALACE DEVELOPMENT, LLC ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS
PEOPLES ENGERGY CORPORATION CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOL
PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND ILLINOIS HOSPITAL & HEALTHSYSTEMS ASSN.
MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA MCI
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED PEOPLES ENERGY
R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED
ROCKFORD CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP SUBURBAN JOB-LINK CORPORATION
SHEFSKY & FROELICH, LTD.
SUBURBAN JOB-LINK CORPORATION WHIPPLE, JEFFREY T. & ASSOCIATES
222 E. WISCONSIN AVENUE, SUITE 105
LAKE FOREST, ILLINOIS 60045
Telephone #: (847)234-7070
O'CONNELL, JOHN T. LTD. Fax #: (847)234-7223
P.O. BOX 460 EXCLUSIVE:
WESTERN SPRINGS, ILLINOIS 60558 LITTLE, JANICE R.
Telephone #: (708)784-9020 WHIPPLE, JEFFREY T.
Fax #: (708)246-2001 CLIENT:
EXCLUSIVE: CORPORATE FIDUCIARIES ASSN. OF ILLINOIS
DELAZZER, ELIZABETH A. HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK
O'CONNELL, JOHN T. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS INTERNATIONAL
CONTRACTUAL: JOCKEYS' GUILD, INC.
FILSON/GORDON ASSOCIATES LAND TRUST COUNCIL OF ILLINOIS
LOGSDON, DARLENE PAR-A-DICE GAMING CORPORATION
MCGUFFAGE, WILLIAM-INDIVIDUALLY REG. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED
POLLAK & HOFFMAN LTD. PHILIP MORRIS MANAGEMENT CORP. ON BEHALF
POLLAK, MICHAEL E. OF KRAFT GENERAL FOODS
CLIENT: UNILAB, INC.
AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION
Smoking cessation programs for adults are key to a comprehensive tobacco control program. Once adults
decide they are ready to quit smoking, it is important that they have resources available to help them through
the process. While many smokers quit without the help of a cessation program, they are instrumental to
others. A recent companion to smoking cessation programs, is the introduction of nicotine replacement
therapies. Now these therapies are available over-the-counter as well as through a prescription.
Programs are offered by a patchwork of organizations through out Illinois. Voluntary health groups such as
the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society offer cessation programs as do many
hospitals. In some cases local health departments offer these services as well. It is important that these
programs are financially and geographically accessible to smokers interested in quitting.
Teenage tobacco use is increasing in Illinois and across the country. This alarming fact highlights the need
for cessation programs for Illinois‘ youth. While many organizations offer adult cessation programs, few
offerings are available for youth.
A recent article noted that there is an urgent need for research based-tobacco cessation programs aimed at
minors (Lamkin, Davis, & Kaman, 1998). The article‘s conclusion was spurred by the realization that in most
cases cessation programs treat young people the same as adults. The article notes that this approach is
not effective and that programs designed specifically for youth must be developed and implemented.
Adolescent smokers are usually treated with programs prepared for adult smokers.
Abraham, L. (1990). City balks as billboards overrun poor areas. The Chicago Reporter, 19, 1.
Archibald, C. (1993). Sale of single cigarettes: A new development. Pediatrics, 4, 851.
Black, D. R., Tobler, N. S., & Sciacca, J. P. (1998). Peer helping/involvement: An efficacious way to meet the
challenge of reducing alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use among youth. Journal of School Health
Interventions, 68, 87-93.
Blum, A. (1991). Sounding Board, The Marlboro Grand Prix: Circumvention of the Television Ban on
Tobacco Advertising. The New England Journal of Medicine, 324, 915-916.
Borland, R., Chapman, S., & Owen, N. (1990). Effects of workplace smoking bans on cigarette
consumption. American Journal of Public Health, 80, 178-180.
Brigham, J., Gross, J., & Stitzer, M.L . (1994). Effects of a restricted work-site smoking policy on employees
who smoke. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 773-778.
Brodessor, C. (1997). Still the great outdoors: industry will be hurt but not mortally wounded. Mediaweek, 7,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1992). Accessibility of cigarettes to youths aged 12-17 years
- United States, 1989. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 41, 485-488.
Centers for Disease Control (1993). Cigarette Smoking-attributable mortality and years of life lost - United
States, 1990. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 42, 645-649.
Centers for Disease Control (1996). State Tobacco Control Highlights - 1996. (CDC publication no.
099-4895). Atlanta: National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on
Smoking and Health.
Clark, J. H., MacPherson, B., Holmes, D. R. & Jones, R. (1986). Reducing adolescent smoking: A
comparison of peer-led, teacher-led, and expert interventions. Journal of School Health Interventions, 56,
Competitive Media Reporting (1997). Ad $ Summery: January - December 1996. New York, NY.
Cummings, K.M., Sciandra, E. Pechacek, T.F., Orlandi, & M. Lynn, W.R. (1992). Where teenagers get their
cigarettes: A survey of the purchasing habits of 13-16 year olds in twelve U.S. communities. Tobacco
Control, 4, 246-247.
Dawley, L.T., Dawley, H.H., Glasgow, R.E. (1991). Smoking control, and smoking rate: implications for
worksite smoking cessation. Psychological Reports, 68, 1191-4.
Department of Health and Human Services. (1995). Regulations restricting the sale and distribution of
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to protect children and adolescents; Proposed rule analysis
regarding FDA‘s jurisdiction over nicotine-containing tobacco products; notice. Federal Register, 60,
Davis, R. M. & Jason, L. A. (1988) The distribution of free cigarette samples to minors. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 4, 21-26.
DiFranza, J. R., Carlson, R., & Caisse, R. (1992). Reducing youth access to tobacco. Tobacco Control, 1,
Edel, R. (1986). Segmentation attracts new product categories. Advertising Age, 57, 81-82.
Erickson, A. D. et al. (1993). A baseline assessment of cigarette sales to minors. Journal of Community
Health, 18, 213-224.
Fahey, A. (1990). Outdoor sets limits: Groups voluntary plan sparks new furor. Advertising Age, 61, 57.
Fieghery, E. Altman, D.G. & Shaffer, G. (1991). The effects of combining education and enforcement to
reduce tobacco sales to minors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 3168-3171.
Forster, J.L., Klepp, K.I. & Jeffery, R.W. (1989). Sources of cigarettes for tenth graders in two Minnesota
cities. Health Education Research, 4, 45-50.
FTC (1995). FTC Report to Congress pursuant to the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health
Education Act of 1986.
Gallup Organization. The public‘s attitudes toward cigarette advertising and cigarette tax increase. Poll
conducted for the Coalition on Smoking or Health. Princeton: The Gallup Organization.
Gardiner, J. A., Broman, R., Hubrich, J. J., & Kreps, B. C. (1997). Regulating Tobacco In Illinois: State And
Local Efforts. University of Illinois at Chicago: Office of Social Science Research.
Gardiner, J. A., Hubrich, J. J., & Kreps, B. Youth Access To Tobacco in Illinois: 1998 Chicago: Report to the
Illinois Liquor Control Commission.
Hackbarth, D. P., Schnopp-Wyatt, D. L.,& Katz, D. Estimating the Impact of Proposed FDA Regulation of
Outdoor Advertising of Tobacco on Billboard Placement in an Urban Area. In Preparation.
Federal Register (1995). Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 21
CFR Part 801 et al.
Gallup Institute. (1992). Teen-Age Attitudes and Behaviors Concerning Tobacco – Report of the Findings.
Princeton: The George H. Gallup International Institute.
Hackbarth, D. P., Silvestri, B. and Cosper, W. (1995). Tobacco and Alcohol Billboards in 50 Chicago
Neighborhoods: Market segmentation to sell dangerous products to the poor. Journal of Public Health
Policy, 16, 213-230.
Hinds, M. W. (1992). Impact of a local ordinance banning tobacco sales to minors. Public Health Reports,
Institute of Medicine. (1994). Growing up Tobacco Free: Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and
Youths. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine.
Jason, L. A., Ji, P. Y., Anes, M. D., & Birkhead, S. H. (1991). Active enforcement of cigarette control laws in
the prevention of cigarette sales to minors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 3159-3161.
Jason, L. A., Berk, M., Schnopp-Wyatt, D.L., & Talbot, B. Effects of Enforcement of Youth Access Laws on
Smoking Prevalence. American Journal of Community Psychology, (In Press).
Jason, L. A., Billows, W. B., Schnopp-Wyatt, D. L., & King, C. (1996). Reducing the illegal sales of cigarettes
to minors: Analysis of alternative enforcement schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29,
Jason, L.A., Katz, R., Vavra, J., Schnopp-Wyatt, D.L., Talbot, B. Long term Follow-Up of Youth Access to
Tobacco Laws: Impact on Smoking Prevalence. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, (In
Johnston, L.D. (1995). Smoking rates climb among American teenagers, who find smoking increasingly
acceptable and seriously underestimate the risks. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan News and
Klonoff, E. A. (1994). The problem and socioeconomic context of single-cigarette sales. JAMA, 271,
Kropp, R. (1994). A Position Paper on Reducing Tobacco Sales to Minors by Prohibiting the Sale of Tobacco
Products by Means of Self-Service Merchandising and Requiring Only Vendor Assisted Tobacco Sales.
California: North Bay Health Resources Center.
Lamkin, L., Davis, B.D., & Kaman, A. (1998). Rationale for tobacco cessation interventions for youth.
Preventive Medicine, 27, A3-A8.
Merriner, J. L. (1996). The four tops: When it comes to campaign cash, Illinois legislative leaders call the
shots. Illinois Issues, Nov., 16 - 20.
National Automatic Merchandising Association. (1989). Cigarette Sales From Vending Machines. Chicago:
National Automatic Merchandising Association.
New York Times, 13 January 1984, Page D4, Column 5.
Pierce, J. P., Fiore, M. C., Novotny, T. E., Hatziandreu, E. J., & Davis, R. M. (1989). Trends in cigarette
smoking in the United States, projections to the year 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association,
Pierce, J.P., Choic, W.S., Gilpin, E., Farkas, A.J., & Berry, C.C. (1998). "Tobacco Industry Promotion of
Cigarettes and Adolescent Smoking." JAMA, 279.
Radecki, T. E., & Strohl, J. (1991). Survey of underage youth and alcohol purchase habits in 17 Midwest and
Eastern states. Drug Free Youth News, 1, 1-8.
Response Research. (1989). Study of Teenage Cigarette Smoking and Purchase Behavior. Response
Research for the National Automatic Vending Merchandising Association.
Rossman, R. L. (1994). Multicultural marketing: Selling to a diverse America New York: Amacom.
Rosewell Parker Cancer Institute. (1993). Survey of Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Use among Ninth Grade
students in Erie County, 1992. Buffalo: Rosewell Parker Cancer Institute.
Slade, J. (1994). Tobacco Product Advertising During Motorsports Broadcasts: A Quantitative Assessment.
Presentation at the 9 World Conference on Tobacco and Health, Oct 11, 1994.
Sorsensen, G., Rigotti, N., & Rosen, A. (1991). Effects of a worksite nonsmoking policy: evidence for
increased cessation. American Journal of Public Health, 81, 202-204.
Stanton, W. R., Mahalski, P. A., McGee, R. & Silva, P. A. (1993). Reasons for smoking or not smoking in
adolescence. Addictive Behavior, 18, 321-329.
Surgeon General‘s Report (1988).
Sweanor, D. & Warner, K.E. (1993). The role of federal and state excise taxes. In Tobacco Use: An
American Crises. Final Conference Report and Recommendations from America‘s Health Community.
Chicago: American Medical Association.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1994). Preventing tobacco use among young people: A
report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1995). Regulations restricting the sale and distribution of
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to protect children and adolescents; Proposed rule analysis
regarding FDA‘s jurisdiction over nicotine-containing tobacco products; notice. Federal Register, 60,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993). Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: Lung cancer
and other disorders. Washington DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.